February 14, 2005
SELF-INFLICTED SHRINKAGE:
Democrats Seek to Outmaneuver Republicans by Imitating Their Strategy (Ronald Brownstein, February 14, 2005, LA Times)
For inspiration, Democrats these days appear to be looking more to Newt Gingrich than to Dick Gephardt, more to Bill Kristol than to Al From, and more to George W. Bush than Bill Clinton.Democrats aren't taking ideological cues from these Republican leaders. It's their tactics and political strategy that's attracting Democrats.
Over roughly the last 15 years — but especially since Bush's election in 2000 — Republicans have imposed a level of order and unified direction on their party unmatched in recent history. Recovering from the drift and division that crippled George H.W. Bush's presidency, Republicans have molded themselves into a party with a common conservative ideology that largely follows central direction from the White House and congressional leadership and punishes dissent on its top priorities, like tax cuts. [...]
Traditionally, U.S. political parties have operated as diffuse, disputatious confederacies. The GOP today more resembles the tightly regimented parties in a parliamentary system like Britain's.
"I think we're going to look back and say what we're seeing in the Republican Party today is a different kind of party — something completely new," said Yale University political scientist Stephen Skowronek.
Democrats, traditionally as easy to discipline as cats, aren't nearly so close to such a synchronized system. But increasingly that appears their goal.
This is especially funny because the Democrats' thesis just a couple years ago was that they'd retake the majority precisely because they have no ideology but had the growing cohorts of the electorate. Now, as the Republicans have already begun to break open those groups by appealing to their socially conservative tendencies, the Democrats are going to emphasize ideological purity? In a country that self-identifies as 40% conservative to less than 20% liberal that is little more than mass suicide. Posted by Orrin Judd at February 14, 2005 7:33 AM
In Howard Dean's "acceptance" speech, he said the following - "I've got nothing to say about policy".
'Nuff said.
All they can do is scream.
Posted by: jim hamlen at February 14, 2005 8:41 AM--Over roughly the last 15 years — but especially since Bush's election in 2000 — Republicans have imposed a level of order and unified direction on their party unmatched in recent history.---
What a bunch of hooey, since I've been paying attention, there's always been more infighting on the pubbie side.
Posted by: Sandy P at February 14, 2005 11:01 AMAs long as the Democrats are dependent on the Move On crowd, George Soros and Hollywood, they will be unable to do the kind of aggressive move in the economic sphere to challenge the GOP on Democratic turf. When the Democrats try to play the social liberal(as distinguished from social libertarian) card against the conservative GOP, they get their heads handed to them. When the Democrats try to play the appeasement or the 'let's try to understand why our enemies hate us so much' card, they make the election look like a wrestling match between the Rock and PeeWee Herman, with the GOP laying the smackdown on them.
They have decided instead to repackage themselves in a fit of Madison Avenue chicanery. Perhaps, given the 60s flavor of their effort, they could label themselves 'Classic Democrats' or 'Tie-Dye Democrats' or as 'The Party of Love'(drawing on all nostalgia so many of us feel for the 'Summer of Love').
They're like a team playing the Single Wing in a T formation world. I hesitate to say that they don't get it, my sense is that they do but they don't want to admit it. Carville, Dean and the Clintons are not stupid people, nor are they particularly ideological. (as distinguished from partisan) It is as if they feel though that they are smarter than the rest of us and can continue selling the same old bromides under new labels, that the voters are too stupid to see what is going on.
They are heading into 2006 with a likelihood of losing another 5-6 Senate seats and another 5-10 House seats. How many elections in a row do they have to lose before they see that they must go in a different direction?
Posted by: Bart at February 14, 2005 11:53 AMBart:
At least through the 2008 presidential. If they lose that race in an open election with no vice-president running, that will probably put them over the tipping point they were after Dukakis' 1988 loss, when they were willing to at the very least look the other way while Clinton played moderate for the masses with his Sister Solujah moment and Ricky Ray Rector execution.
There will still be some of the MoveOn crowd that will never give in, but most of the others will realize that instead of trying to mimick Gingrich or Kristol -- let alone Reagan or Bush in party strategies -- the Republican they were really imitating the past eight years was Patrick J. Buchanan.
Posted by: John at February 14, 2005 3:51 PM