A quick note to the Democrats on
strategy. Democrats need to be wary of embodying Will Rogers'
declaration that “I'm not a member of any organized political
party. I'm a Democrat.” My fear is that Democrats will be over
the top in resistance rhetoric by firebrands, but unsure how to use
the fuel of mass protests and popular revulsion at Trumpian policies.
That Democrats will be running helter-skelter, not knowing how to
oppose as a group, how to find spokespeople to hold to a line of
thought and rhetoric. That Democrats will be confused by the welter
of targets and so hit none of them cleanly, will not be able to vote
as a bloc as the Republicans could, will not be able to decry an
Administration the way the Republicans did when they said Obama
excluded the possibility of consultation and finding common ground.
My fear is that the “reasonable” Democrats will be mamby-pamby.
My fear is the “Democrat” will become a term of scorn.
It shouldn't actually be very hard.
You just have to be clear on your goals. The overriding goal should
be: to kill dead the Republican Party. To do to the Republicans
nationally what Governor Pete Wilson was able to do in California
when he committed his party to suicide by backing the anti-immigrant
Proposition 187 in 1994, and thus lost California for Republicans for
at least a generation, maybe more. It was as momentous as LBJ's loss
of the South, which he did knowingly, and for which he should be
regarded as a Profile in Courage. Now, nationally, we just need to
collaborate with Trump and the Republicans as they have set out in
their Death March.
The Republican Party is not your
father's Republican Party, it is a body double inhabited by forces
alien to the American tradition. They are basically racist – look
how they treated Obama. They are against safety net programs at all.
They are against the environment. They are against abortion. They
are against one person one vote. On and on. As a party, they
deserve to die. Trump should be regarded as a useful idiot in
killing the party dead.
The mission of the Democratic Party,
should they choose to accept it, then, is to tie the Republican Party
as closely as they can to the Trump Administration's obnoxious,
hurtful, antediluvian policies, in an effort to kill them dead.
Their mission should not be to kill Trump dead – he is an abnormal
transient who won't last. But the Republican Party is the real
threat.
Concentrating on personalities can be
helpful sometimes, but the Democrats need to find the main themes,
name them and number them, and then tie every specific policy to the
main themes. Gingrich did something similar in 1994 with his
Contract For America, and it worked. And for every policy, don't
concentrate on Trump and Bannon and their proposals – concentrate
on the Republican Party – are they behind it? Will they allow it?
And make sure there are 48 Democratic votes and voices opposing.
Others could construct the list better
than I, but here's a vision of it. Antediluvian social policies –
anti-abortion, anti-contraception, anti-feminine in every aspect.
The culture war redux – it wasn't settled, apparently anymore than
racism was. Antediluvian – that's theme #1.
International economics is pretty clear
– Trumpian trade wars are ill-thought out, theoretically
indefensible, and will fuel higher prices on goods and perhaps a
recession. That's theme #2.
Combative international relations,
every day another example, needless conflict, dangerous conflict,
money-losing conflict, job-losing and price-increasing policies,
outdated analyses, isolating steps. Paranoid – theme #3.
Anti-environment – theme #4. They
want to worsen pollution.
Racist, homophobe, etc. - #5.
Anti-safety net – #6.
Inside dealers who make themselves rich
- #7.
Theft of public lands - #8.
And so on. Make a list, identify each
issue that comes up with that list. So to make it clear to people.
Then, the Democrats have to understand
the use of the hammer. No one ever drove a nail through the plank
with one blow. You have to hammer, hammer, hammer until the message
is received and internalized and ready for repetition again and
again. Hammer it home again and again.
As for tactics, well, there is enough
stupidity around, God knows, make fun of the fools. Have Bannon
impersonators walking Pennsylvania Avenue, have sandwich ads walking
the streets with “Want a contract – stay in a Trump hotel!”
emblazoned. Conflicts of interest are easy to understand.
And then, work with Trump on things he
is for and that will embarrass the Republicans. Call the bluff.
Introduce a trillion dollar infrastructure program that is paid for
by taxes on the rich – paid for, paid for, paid for. Hammer it
home. Paid for. Fiscally responsible. Let the Republicans try to
make it profit, or not paid for, and look to the theme list. Make it
understandable, and discombobulate the opposition.
The manner in which it is done is
important. We need firebrands like Elizabeth Warren to hold in the
Left, even if she is getting carried away with her celebrity, as I
think she is. She's right, she's smart, she is useful, but she
doesn't appear centered. But what we really need is the lower key
leaders, smart, intense, brave, centered, persistent, believable.
Leaders whom we can believe will care for us, the electorate, the
citizenry. Someone who can say, “What they are proposing is just
ridiculous. These people are idiots.” You don't have to be
respectful, you just have to be centered. Idiots – that's got to
be a major theme.
Tennis great Bill Tilden said you can
beat someone by aiming at their weakness, but if you really want to
humble them, attack them at their strength. My choice would be to
show the electorate how intellectually bankrupt Paul Ryan really is.
He thinks he is smart, but he's not. Topple him.
The Senate will be a center of
resistance, and I think Shumer is up to it. We'll see. But to my
mind, where we are really going to find leadership is in the states.
Most states have gone over to the Republicans, but not the major
ones. I can see how those governors, of California, Oregon,
Washington, Minnesota, New York, Massachusetts, Virginia, and others
could form an alliance and agree on model legislation, for climate
and environment, for instance, and healthcare, and immigrant status,
etc. They could pass legislation and invite other states to join
them. The state elections could then be referenda on whether or not
to go down the path of California, Oregon, etc. See which other
states want to join the informal union of progressive states.
If the federal tax burden declines, the
progressive states could capture the – have the wealthy and
corporations pay more to the states and less to the feds, and make
better use of the money in the states than the feds would.
California will send less money to Alabama; well, we can use it at
home. Too bad for Alabama, but maybe the underclass would rise
there; one can only hope.
The agenda in the states might bring
good candidates out of the woodwork. If you look at the quality of
state candidates in elections, it seems abysmal to me in so many
states. No wonder we lose. The political class is far from top
drawer. We need a new elite to get those candidates fielded and the
agenda drawn. This positive agenda could do it, while the Senate
would be busy painting the Republican Party as what it is, theme by
theme. Let the Senate be the killers, and the states be the
builders.
Be centered, imaginative, united, and
disdainful of the fools who are in momentary control. Retool the
team. Make sure everyone understands that these are the bad old days
of the future. Maybe that's the overall theme – the future will
see this four year eruption as the bad old days that preceded the
good new days, as the reaction overcame the momentary rupture of
progress. But only if we prepare. And only if there are leaders to
lead, and only if the feckless are labeled as such.
I believe in the moral imperative of
optimism. I keep repeating that to myself. I'm hammering it home.
Budd Shenkin
Why are Democratic voices so weak? So mamby-pamby?!
ReplyDeleteJust listened to a couple of Democratic congressmen and the way that they delivered their comments and the comments themselves sounded very educated and reasonable . . . but, NO clarity or crisp comments . . . and NO force! WHY?