Reject The Premise

Ezra Klein:

Liberals tend to think of wedge issues as actual issues, problematic policy thickets that a clever bit of reframing will make vanish off the agenda forever. That's where the various attempts to triangulate abortion or compromise on flag burning come from. But that's wrong. Once you dispatch a wedge issue, another springs forth to take its place. The style is the substance here -- wedge issues are nothing more than cultural controversies that large groups of lower middle-class whites disagree with Democrats on. Conservative strategists take their pick from among the many possible contenders and inject the winner into the public debate. The urgency is all manufactured, and it's entirely replicable. Kill one and they'll choose another.

Ezra is right about Democrats on this point: simply trying to reframe a wedge issue won't make wedge issues as an issue go away. There are a million potential wedges out there just waiting for some unscrupulous huckster to come along and take advantage of them. Democrats are mistaken if they think they can finesse their way out of this minefield. At best the only thing they will achieve is getting that particular problem off the radar. The deeper problem, how to deal with wedge issues in general, still remains (and it just compounds the image of Democrats as weavers-and-bobbers.)

What really needs to be done to address wedge issues is to simply "reject the premise".

Ezra says that "wedge issues are nothing more than cultural controversies that large groups of lower middle-class whites disagree with Democrats on." We should reject the premise that these wedge issues are ones that represent a fundamental disagreement between lower middle-class whites and Democrats. A lot of Democrats, lower middle-class whites or not, happen to not fit into the stereotype being presented by the wedger. For example, it is not necessary for Democrats to deny hating Christmas. It is simply a matter of rejecting the premise entirely.

Don't even give the wedge the weight a denial would give it. Don't even get into an argument on this point. Just reject the premise of the wedge every time they assert it. Want proof that this works? Check out how many times Scott McClellan uses this handy shield when he is deflecting hostile questions from the press.

When facing down someone who is trying to spin you into an indefensible position ask yourself what is the underlying premise of the comments they are making and the questions they are asking. Then bring that premise out into the light and that flatly reject it. In fact, don't even allow the conversation to continue until they acknowledge that you have rejected it and are justified in doing so. If they don't then don't even bother engaging them in any further discussion. They have already proven themselves to be dishonest argumentarians.

Bush's is delusional, this could be a help to Dems in '06

Courtesy Sam Rosenfeld of TAP comes this paragraph from Karen Tumulty and Mike Allen's Time article on George W. Bush's "search for a new groove":

However improbable the odds at this point or modest his short-term goals, aides say, Bush still subscribes to Rove's long-held dream that his will be the transformational presidency that lays the groundwork for a Republican majority that can endure, as Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal coalition did, for a half-century or more. Once he gets past the midterm elections, Bush plans to introduce a concept that, if anything, is even more ambitious than his failed Social Security plan: a grand overhaul that would include not only that program but Medicare and Medicaid as well. Says strategist McKinnon: "He knows that part of what he brings to the presidency is an ability and commitment to chart a long course under public pressure." The question that will be answered in the coming year is whether America still believes in George Bush enough to follow. [emphasis added]

Says Sam:

Two years ago I would have found this plan a whole lot more alarming than amusing; how times have changed. No reason to get complacent, of course -- but really, this scheme seems more than a bit unlikely.

With this crowd it is never a good idea to relax and laugh off their ideas as a joke. Admittedly, this is delusional thinking on Bush's part. But if the GOP manages to win the mid-term elections it would be just the kind of thing that I could see Bush attempting. He really does think he has some kind of "mandate from heaven" to fundamentally alter the nature of our government. A Republican victory in '06 would just validate that belief.

Which is all the more reason why Democrats must win next year. One suggestion I might make: spread these kind of reports far and wide. The more people know what they will be voting for in 2006 if they vote Republican, the better it will be for our side.

Michael Moore did something similar before the 1998 elections. He made a strong push to get out the message that a vote for Republicans in 1998 would be a vote for more Lewinsky. The Republicans got trounced in the polls that year (not all, of course, due to Moore's efforts). What Moore and others didn't count on was that the Republicans would go forward with impeachment even though they got a clear message from the electorate to shut the hell up.

We can use Bush's delusions against the Republicans, and not just in the sense of making people think he's nuts. We can also use them to, quite appropriately, scare the bejeesus out of the people who might consider voting for one of his fellow travelers.