Democrats Need To Be Ali, Not Tyson
Reading Publius’ post on Republican priorities got me thinking about how the meta narrative for the Republican party is so much different than for the Democrats, and how the Democrats are failing to appreciate it. The gist of his post was that the stimulus is going to help millions of people, and the Republicans are obstructing it by objecting to pieces that are (largely) good on their own, even if they won’t be very stimulative. The fact that Republicans can get everyone arguing about little details instead of the big picture when the Democrats propose something is a long held Democratic complaint; especially during Presidential elections. The corollary is that the Republicans focus on big and simplistic messages that the Democrats argue with, while they slip in tons of little things below the radar that are highly controversial and no one talks about.
The common Democratic refrain to this is that Democrats need to start copying Republicans better by simplifying their message, driving home grand themes, and then filling in the details in a back room. I disagree with this strongly. The Republicans can get away with it because they have created a mythology that they are the party of small government and strong social values while the Democrats are big wasteful spenders that are immoral. This gives the Republicans moral authority to nitpick at the Democrats in the name of protecting against intrusive/wasteful government, while simultaneously assuring people that their little details are all necessary. Perhaps that was the case at some point (many Democrats would argue it isn’t, but just looking back historically I can see it did have a great deal of truth), but for the last couple of decades it has been demonstrably false. The Republicans have expanded government — both “defense” and social spending — far more than the Democrats, taking on massive amounts of debt. It came out a few years ago when David Kuo quit that Rove et. al viewed the entire social conservatism angle largely as a vote getter and little else. And don’t get me started on the social liberties angle. There are dozens upon dozens of formerly high ranking Republican officials that came out in the last eight years and denounced what the party had become. Democrats have recognized that the Republican reality doesn’t mesh with the myth and try to take it down. Heck, there are almost no Republicans that can even get behind the party anymore, they just view the Democrats as worse.
The idea that Democrats should retool like the Republicans is wrong. They need to lead by playing to their strength within the narrative, not complain about unfairness. If the Republicans are going to attack every single detail and argue that things aren’t defensible in context of the larger bill, then make the bills smaller and more targeted. Every economist agrees that expanding unemployment benefits, food stamps, and aiding the states is completely critical. Those things — and only those things — should have been in the first bill passed by Congress. The Republicans might have still objected, but then the Democrats could have hammered in the point that all the experts that are traditionally Republican oriented were for the bill as well. Then when that was done, have another bill that aims to “create jobs” and where every single proposed piece would be about getting the most jobs for the buck. And then another bill about shoring up our food supply that had the honey bee provision. Etc.
Not only would that be more effective politically but it would be better governance. The Democrats aren’t saints and put tons of waste and pet projects in bills, and breaking them down like this would limit that. It would also better focus debate on what is acceptable for the public to support and what is not. In essence, instead of being like Mike Tyson by coming out big and going for the one knockout punch, they need to be Ali and rope a dope.
11 Responses to “Democrats Need To Be Ali, Not Tyson”
I mostly agree, especially with this part:
If the Republicans are going to attack every single detail and argue that things aren’t defensible in context of the larger bill, then make the bills smaller and more targeted.
And on the part about the GOP having had moral authority to stand for small government in the past, and Elrod's points made here, I think what you guys aren't quite getting is that a majority of the public still supports the concept of limited government as far as I can see. Look at the polling numbers on the stimulus package- a majority would support the GOP version of ALL tax cuts, but a majority would oppose an all spending bill.
So when it comes down to it, even if we think that a lot of the GOP are pushing in that direction without having moral authority, we really don't care because we still see the need for someone to push back against the big government liberalism. The fact that most conservatives feel let down by the GOP's abdication of that responsibility in the past only makes us more likely to support them now. We hope that they actually mean it and have regained some principle, but even if they're insincere at least they're fighting for what we believe is right and necessary.
Now, I suppose you guys might come back and say that the public only feels that way because the Dems haven't been able to create the overarching narrative to support an alternate viewpoint, but still the fact remains that that's where the public sentiment is right now and until proven otherwise, people really don't see the rationale for huge spending increases as stimulus.
To be frank I have no idea how you could support the GOP's platforms as the vast majority of them do nothing to diminish the size of government and also are hugely wasteful and don't help as much as most Democratic spending. It's long past the point where reducing the size of government means simply reducing revenue…..it has to be accompanied by massive cuts in spending. A tax cut without a spending cut still raises the overall tax burden, it just shifts it to the future. What is different about the Republicans now as opposed to the past 28 years, in which time the total amount of debt has gone up 10x (with the 8 years under Clinton having it barely go up at all)?
It reminds me of what I went off about to a friend when he said that McCain was trying to bring smaller government by targeting earmarks…..all $18 billion/year of them. While also being for $400 billion/year+ in tax cuts, primarily for the upper 5%, and over 10 years would increase the deficit by about $4 trillion. Obama was pretty bad by (those projections) increasing it $2.5 trillion…but that included a complete overhaul of the medical care system, a doubling of basic science support and massive educational grants.
If they were serious about smaller government then they would sit down and slash government spending by 30-50%, especially targeting hundreds of billions of corporate and pro-asset giveaways, then be for the banking system reducing leverage immensely and changing our monetary policy to get rid of inflation. They'll never do that though because it would complete destroy asset values and be a hard transition. Republicans like to pretend that they are against big government but never acknowledge that much corporate and individual wealth only is kept at its present value because of interference (this is why I actually think in the long term those policies *could* actually benefit the lower/mainstream classes depending on how responsible the private sector was). A lot of libertarians are for those things and come out and say what the consequences will be, they just argue that the new system will be better.
As it is, most of the Republican ideas are just to keep the worst parts of the system propped up, but then keep paying off people with tax cuts and emotional appeals that have nothing to do with reality. Who cares that a majority of people would support all tax cuts? Nearly all economists say that it would be a terrible waste of money in this environment and I've seen you agree. The Republicans would be better saying no to everything. Say that the experts aren't sure about increased government spending, but know that tax cuts won't work either, so they are going to oppose any action. That would be the right thing to do.
Not to be rude, but your whole second paragraph sounds more like an emotional rationalization to justify your support over all these years even though you recognize that the party has been abusing it. What pisses me off so much in general isn't that there is large sentiment against government spending (especially since I am skeptical of most of it, especially now and you've read so much to know that there are certain lines that if the Democrats cross I'll dump them faster than a white hot iron skillet because I'll feel like the fate of the country in question) but that one side of the argument is in completely bad faith — the Medicare bill being the best example, which is one of the worst bills passed ever…but it just goes on and on — and people like you keep giving them passes and saying that you're more likely to support them based on “hope” that they will have an epiphany and magically start being responsible. They won't, they're just cowards.
I feel like the (especially Congressional) Democrats have tons of bad qualities as well but they also do a better job of doing things in good faith and the various parts keep each other in better check. Just look at Obama which you and DLS have praised for being confrontational…the Governors are another source as well, and then of course there are three different factions that are more willing to fight with each other than the Republicans.
Ugh, I don't know where to start, I guess I'll try here;
“Not to be rude, but your whole second paragraph sounds more like an emotional rationalization to justify your support over all these years even though you recognize that the party has been abusing it.”
No, but if I believed in principle “A” then and they didn't follow through on it, but now they're advocating for it, why would I not support that even if it's obviously not that person's core conviction?
And as for rationalizing for having given them a pass on past transgressions or whatever, the problem there is that sometimes I did attempt to let GOP elected officials know when I disagreed with their votes, and other times, yes, I neglected to do so (usually because at times I've been less politically engaged due to family commitments.) But even if my concerns weren't addressed the way I felt they should be, in a two party system there's really nowhere to go. I'm not going to dump a conservative for not always being true to conservative principles and help replace him with someone who represents the antithesis of what I believe.
I mean I think you're criticism there would be warranted if I were spouting GOP talking points all of the time and defending some of their past actions which aren't defensible at all, but I don't think I can be credibly accused of that.
As for this part:
“It reminds me of what I went off about to a friend when he said that McCain was trying to bring smaller government by targeting earmarks…..all $18 billion/year of them.”
Part of McCain's argument for focusing on earmarks is that they perpetuate a lot of what's wrong with DC culture and decisionmaking, not just the dollar amounts that are being wasted. If you leave out that part of the equation, then sure, the amounts aren't significant enough to seriously address the deficits. But when you take into account that the pork projects are the pet projects that repay donors, friends, etc, then it's obvious that it's a deeper problem that needs to be addressed (not to mention that the lack of debate over these projects means there's no sense of prioritizing our federal expenditures according to real importance instead of having the senior members of Congress who pull the plum committee assignments getting to send home more pork to their district, thus increasing the already ridiculous incumbent advantage.)
And this:
“If they were serious about smaller government then they would sit down and slash government spending by 30-50%,especially targeting hundreds of billions of corporate and pro-asset giveaways, then be for the banking system reducing leverage immensely and changing our monetary policy to get rid of inflation.”
I don't disagree. If you'll tell me how I can go about getting the GOP to support this I'll do it. I just don't happen to think that giving the reins over to the party that thinks that the government can be grown to solve these problems (and incidentally, there's an awful lot of pro-corporate giveaways from the Dem side too and even the articles you've cited about the banking issues show that Obama seems just as susceptible to letting the banks write their own legislation) is a good idea. The GOP definitely hasn't been reponsible but I continue to see the Democratic party's solutions as even worse and more susceptible to corruption.
And I didn't necessarily mean that Congress should pass an all tax cut package because that would enjoy more popular support than a spending package would- but I was pointing out where the sentiment lies because Elrod seemed to completely overlook that and you presented the concept of overarching narratives and I felt it fit with this scenario. If the Democrats want to change the sentiment of the public about whether or not bigger government will help solve the crisis, they have to present some plausible evidence that that's the case. I personally think they blew it by loading up this bill with their usual pet projects, and if the GOP is guilty of trying to recycle stale ideas and sell them based on emotional appeal, then the Democrats certainly are just as guilty of that here.
“I personally think they blew it by loading up this bill with their usual pet projects, and if the GOP is guilty of trying to recycle stale ideas and sell them based on emotional appeal, then the Democrats certainly are just as guilty of that here.”
Well of course. That's why 90% of my criticism about the bill has been directed at the Democrats, not the GOP…and saying that some the GOP criticisms of what is wrong are correct even if their solution isn't. And considering that roughly 75% of all my posts are about how the government can't save us through increased intervention (just put up another one) then obviously I would be more sympathetic to the GOP platform if they were actually about responsibility — instead of just increasing the debt even more with little to show for it.
“I mean I think you're criticism there would be warranted if I were spouting GOP talking points all of the time and defending some of their past actions which aren't defensible at all, but I don't think I can be credibly accused of that.”
Actually I feel the opposite. The fact that we have such similar viewpoints makes it frustrating for me because most of your reason for supporting the GOP is based on things which there is almost zero evidence that they actually do and is focused on psychology. Like your defense of McCain's earmarks…of course they are awful and should be stopped and highlight the massive corruption of DC that needs to stop. But they are a pittance…a pittance of the overall problem and yet that was a central platform point — while his other parts would make the overall problem extremely worse.
“No, but if I believed in principle “A” then and they didn't follow through on it, but now they're advocating for it, why would I not support that even if it's obviously not that person's core conviction?”
Uh because they are complaining about beehives and proposing crazy policies instead of providing an actual sustainable alternative…and when people get fed up with it they'll just support the Congressional Democrats completely which would be awful.
Anyway in general it probably doesn't matter because it's not like either side is doing the right thing as it's become too late to get people to look objectively at the problem. I'm thinking of just opting out completely and spending the time chronicling what's going on and writing a book (actually I've been writing an horror allegory of it, but maybe a nonfiction one would be good too) and seeing if the environment is better on the other side of this for a new system. I always thought it was too bad that Obama was on the scene now instead of like in '92. Although I'm still waiting to see what happens when he is forced to improvise..maybe he will make a clean break.
To be honest, I have a tough time understanding why the bulk of Republicans that supported the party their whole life don't feel like John Cole.
Actually I feel the opposite. The fact that we have such similar viewpoints makes it frustrating for me because most of your reason for supporting the GOP is based on things which there is almost zero evidence that they actually do and is focused on psychology.
Well, first, you're probably attributing a bit more congruity of our opinions than actually exists, and second, I think you're missing the point I tried to make about nowhere to go in a two party system. You assume that if there isn't evidence of my party doing what they claim to do that I could remedy that, how, exactly? By voting for the party that says and does the opposite?
“No, but if I believed in principle “A” then and they didn't follow through on it, but now they're advocating for it, why would I not support that even if it's obviously not that person's core conviction?”
Uh because they are complaining about beehives and proposing crazy policies instead of providing an actual sustainable alternative…and when people get fed up with it they'll just support the Congressional Democrats completely which would be awful.
Well, what makes you think that when I say 'support that' I'm talking about the crazy stuff? I was agreeing with your own opinion that some of the GOP criticisms are quite valid, and on that I support them. I do wish they'd bring a more comprehensive alternate bill to the table, but on the other hand I don't think it's right to expect them to show the Democrats how Democratic or liberal policies should be handled. Their role there, on the big spending programs, really is to just push back.
Basically I think our mutual frustration comes from this: for arguments' sake, let's call you a center lefty and me a center rightie (that's actually pretty inaccurate but I think you have a more left leaning perspective but a moderate and pragmatic approach, and for the most part I'd say I consider myself the flip side of that.) So, if the two of us got to decide everything we'd be able to hammer out some decent policy (all humility aside here, heh.) But since that's not the way it works, we each vote for the party that we think can best approach our views, but you feel that I'm not holding my side accountable enough and sometimes I feel the same. Obviously there are times like this post and others where you do call the Dems out on this stuff, but since you're one of the few who does that (esp here), I guess I hold you to a pretty high standard and sometimes I still see biases coming through, like here:
I feel like the (especially Congressional) Democrats have tons of bad qualities as well but they also do a better job of doing things in good faith and the various parts keep each other in better check. Just look at Obama which you and DLS have praised for being confrontational…the Governors are another source as well, and then of course there are three different factions that are more willing to fight with each other than the Republicans.
Although it's true that I'm cautiously optimistic about the direction Obama is going, that's certainly not a definite positive yet until we see if he's really willing and able to rein in Pelosi and others. Governors- you can point to good ones from both parties, and that's really more a function of the different role that they play than to party affiliation. Factions fighting in the party- that can lead to good or bad. The GOP certainly is undergoing a lot of infighting recently, but sometimes that results in compromises that give the worst of each faction instead of the best.
I guess what I'm saying is that we each see reasons to rationalize our support for our 'side' even though I think neither of us wants to be a partisan cheerleader.
To be honest, I have a tough time understanding why the bulk of Republicans that supported the party their whole life don't feel like John Cole.
Um, because switching gears to support the Democratic party would be like leaving one abusive spouse and falling into the arms of another abusive person?
I can see why fiscal conservatives would feel a pull toward the Libertarian party, and I can see why socons would perhaps be feeling disenfranchised altogether. And the hawks, well, they don't have anything to complain about.
What I don't understand is why there aren't more Democrats who recognize that their party is just as screwed up as the GOP but because they've been out of power for a while they haven't been under scrutiny and they're now benefitting from a wave of anti-Republicanism. I'm not willing to feed into that, I guess.
Oh, and the earmark thing is really off topic but I just have to again say that you're not getting it. You again refer to it as a pittance but the corrupting influence can't really be quantified that way. When you're only treating it as an approach to direct budget cutting it's appropriate to criticize on those grounds (and I think McCain was guilty of presenting it that way too often in his campaign rhetoric.) But as an infiltrative process that corrupts the whole system, I think you're grossly underestimating it. Even the psychology of it is terrible (and holds us back from further fiscal restraint) because constituents have been trained to think of their Congressional reps and senators as procurers of federal dollars for local projects.
I think McCain's crusade against this is akin to Obama's whole mojo about changing the way things are done in Washington and I think they're both right about the need. But I supported McCain in this because eliminating earmarks by using the presidential veto is a very concrete step which would accomplish a lot (much more than cutting the dollars represented by the earmarks themselves.)
Now, you're free to disagree with me on that of course, but I wish you'd stop acting as though I haven't thought it through and am just having a knee jerk emotional reaction to the anti-pork rhetoric.
“What I don't understand is why there aren't more Democrats who recognize that their party is just as screwed up as the GOP “
This is something I've been saying over and over again the last few years. I've said that the lesson of the Bush years for liberals should be to distrust large government because you never know who's going to be in charge…and that with the Democrats supporting the war/drug war/monetary policies/etc. that the root things wouldn't change. The problem is that I'm not a radical leftist or libertarian because I think they are too wrong to support too.
“Now, you're free to disagree with me on that of course, but I wish you'd stop acting as though I haven't thought it through and am just having a knee jerk emotional reaction to the anti-pork rhetoric.”
Well my point isn't that you are wrong about any of that, but that it was a piece of the larger “responsible government” theme when the other parts were woefully irresponsible. It's really the tax breaks and $4 trillion increase that gets in my craw. If he had been for a balanced budget platform then I would have been conflicted about who to choose at least. I didn't mean to say that I thought you had a knee jerk reaction to singular Republican policies — which I think you are very intellectually honest about — but that the parts you do support make up so little of the impact. I mean there are many things that I'd complain about the Dems when it comes to details, but I think that in general a lot of the policies are 80% there and the faults make up 20% when it comes to total impact [the larger problems I have with them are endemic to both parties]. Just looking at the numbers, it seems to me like the parts of the GOP platform you agree with make up 30% of the total impact with 70% you disagree with. I'm not talking about number of policies either, I'm talking about pure size. Maybe you disagree and think I'm being too harsh…and I can get that you agree with maybe only 10% of Dems so you default to GOP.
Also I think some of the difference in our viewpoints is that I'm not very ideological in nature. I think that any ideology implemented perfectly works…so it just becomes how realistic it is to implement it perfectly. I think the Democrats ideology is better represented by their policies than the GOP (which I think has policies that actively go against their ideology) so it gives a “truer” estimate of how well their vision works.
The last paragraph is probably where we disagree the most. I guess on paper I can see why the implementation of the Dem policies looks pretty decent but in actual practice I think it's abysmal. I actually think both party's have serious weaknesses on that implementation part, where the conflict of interest between the need for reelection and the implementation of good policy takes place. With the GOP, the standard weakness is that they adopt pro-business policies (which sounds good from the standpoint of economic growth and job creation) but in reality create policies which corrupt the market system's ability to correct itself and upset the balance between management and labor. The Democratic policies though have other big weaknesses- targeting public money toward special interest groups, donors, etc, and allowing serious conflicts of interest between their reelection support and actual good implementation of what may have been well intentioned policy.
And I think obviously both parties campaign dishonestly and pull emotional levers- 'small government and low taxes' sounds pretty good, as does 'caring about the problems of the middle class' or 'health care for all' or what have you. I just am not at all inclined to feel that either side is operating in good faith on any of that. For me I guess it is a case of doing less harm by supporting the party who's policies don't have as broad of a reach, and trying to speak out whenever I see the instances where their inclination to mess up the economic party is coming into play.
It's really the tax breaks and $4 trillion increase that gets in my craw. If he had been for a balanced budget platform then I would have been conflicted about who to choose at least.See, what I don't get there in terms of the McCain/Obama contrast is that Obama ended up not that far from McCain on taxes anyway when he started pushing the 95% get tax cuts rhetoric. So I don't get how or why the tax parts of their platforms could have led to major differences in budget shortfalls.
Oh, and I don't know how to estimate what percentage I agree with, but you're right that it's the default thing (agreeing with 30% of GOP policy beats out agreement with 10% of Dems, that sort of thing.)
What's a bit ironic is that Jim Satterfield talks about how he can't consider voting GOP because he can't fathom how a party that thinks that government is the problem can be trusted to try to make government work. But to me, that's a feature, not a bug. If I really don't think government works well (because of all of those built in conflicts of interest), then of course I'm going to default to the party that at least claims to want to limit it's influence. And of course I realize they often aren't acting in good faith on that. But see, I guess it's that the voters on our side eventually hold them accountable when they're not doing that. But on the flip side, Democrats will never vote their guys out of office for growing the government too much and in fact there's a real danger IMO of de Tocqueville's quote coming true: “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.”,