Chris Bowers starts a discussion about political tribalism - but the reality is he is talking again about the South (as defined by Kevin Phillips, imo, who has shrewdly identified the markers of Southern "tribalism" and where it reaches.) Chris wrote:
Over the past year and a half, I have slowly developed an argument that the electorate is, in general, non-ideological, not interested in policy, and generally unmoved by the day-to-day minutia of political events that, within the blogosphere, are treated as cataclysmic events.
Sure, most people hold general political beliefs, but in general national voting habits are motivated by something else--something more basic. As we look for ways to motivate voters in November, we need to remember the powerful role that identity plays in political decision-making.
. . . For all of the great policies everyone will suggest Democrats to run on this fall, ultimately winning will be based just as much on how Americans view their identity in relation to the image of the two coalitions as anything else. We need to avoid falling into the wonk trap of assuming that people are motivated by policy details. It is the identity, stupid. We need to explore ways to motivate voters for progressive causes with that in mind.
To which I respond, with great respect, duh. The problem is twofold in my view. The strange desire to chase voters in "tribes" that manifestly reject what Democrats stand for and the inability to place a negative image on the Republican Party and its coalition - what I have called Lincoln 1860.
I explain in extended.
I think my views are best expressed in my response to a
Democracy Corps study:
My take is decidedly different than that presented by Democracy Corps. Again the notion of the cultural divide as the great obstacle to Democratic electoral success rears its head. And yet, the idea that going to voters who went for Bush 4-1 in 2004 and expecting anything else seems strange to me. Are these swing voters?
What is the essence of the qualitative findings of the study? I would point to this:
With most voters expressing little understanding of the differeces between Democrats and Republicans on . . . [substantive] issues, they felt it safe to assume that if a candidate was "right" on cultural issues . . . that candidate would also come closest to their views on these other issues.
I believe that finding is critical. But I think I take a different lesson from it than does Democracy Corps. While their prescription for a "change agenda" is, no doubt, right on the money. I of course agree with their apparent advocacy for a politics of contrast. But I think they see the cultural divide as something to be avoided. I think it something to highlight.
The Republican Party can fairly be labelled the Party of Dobson, called to heel by the Radical Right. In my estimation, voters who feel as described by the study are NOT fertile ground for our voters. We should NOT trim our social message on a fool's errand. If we get those voters, it will be because of other parts of our message, and trimming won't change their views on the social issues or make them forget where we stand.
We need to embrace proudly our commitment to civil rights, women's rights, economic justice, equal protection under the law, the right to privacy.
We are for these not because we are serving special interests. African-Americans are not special interests. Women are not special interests. The working class is not a special interest. These are Americans. Who deserve a fair shake.
We are for the Common Good and for doing the right thing. For being fair and being honest. Because that is the Democratic Way. And the American Way. We don't divide the country in segments or groups. We believe that ALL Americans are entitled to good , honest, competent government.
And the Bush years make clear that Republicans are not. They are beholden to one group, that has not only imposed its views on the Republican Party, but now will settle for nothing less than imposing their views on the entire country. We've seen how the Republicans govern - disastrously. We need to make sure the country understands this.
The country saw how Democrats governed in the 1990s.
So the question to be presented to the voters is clear - "Are you better of now than you were in the 1990s?"
The answer is clear. Democrats are the answer.
I think that Ruy Texiera and John Halpin provide a great roadmap for how to do this. I think the Democratic Party can be both a a Big Tent and a Principled Party.
Other views were expressed by Digby and Christy.
Digby said:
Now that's identity. I emphasized the "can't get no respect" part because I think that's key, as I have written many times before. The belief that these ideas are particular to this audience, that they stand alone as being politically incorrect and are "out of style" for holding them, is a huge cultural identifier. And it's held in opposition to some "other" (presumably someone like me) who is believed not to care about any of those things --- particularly the welfare of the common man.
. . . The conservative southern coalition has a very clear sense of identity. They always have. I would suggest that back in the day the New England and Midwestern cultural identifiers were pretty solidly Main Street bourgeois --- if you made it your kids got to go to college and you got to join the chamber of commerce and the country club. But that's no longer the case. The non-southern Party appears to exist mainly as a repository of opposition to conservative policies. Is that true?
Perhaps the big question is this: If you could write a country song about Blue State identity, what would the lyrics say?
The bigger question in my view is does anyone imagine that the "tribe" being discussed will find the lyrics to the Blue State Country Song appealing? I don't.
Christy says:
The South is made up of a big mix of economic strata -- but the unifying theme from the very wealthy down to the poorest of the poor is this: what they'd like is some respect and to be treated like they are just as important and intelligent as the rest of the country. Not like some poor hayseed cousin that you are too embarrassed to take to the country club for fear he'll belch the national anthem before the sorbet course.
And don't give me that crap that we can just forget about the South and still take all the "battleground" states and win on the electoral map. There are blue collar people in every freaking state -- or people who come from blue collar stock, and even though they've worked their way up to the suburbs and a two-car garage, they still see themselves as one step removed from the trailer park. (I still do, and I'm two steps removed...)
The Democratic party used to stand for the little guy. The Common Man. The underdog that could make good if he were only given a chance. The widow who got squeezed out of her husband's pension. You know the list.
And they still do -- but the problem is that no one, not even me and I'm a big ole Democratic supporter, NO ONE see the Democratic Party as actually STANDING right now. It's more of a barely raising your hand in class, and hoping just maybe the teacher won't notice you until she's already called on someone else, but you can at least get credit for the hand raising part there.
But for the hills and hollers crowd -- and really all of the South and the parts of the country where we like our leaders to have some freaking balls -- that's not nearly enough.
Which is why the Feingold censure movement caught fire in the blogosphere. Which is why people still adore Paul Wellstone. Which is why there are old people all over the state of West Virginia who have a picture of John F. Kennedy right up there on the wall next to their picture of Jesus.
. . . You want to know why John Kennedy is so revered, still, in West Virginia? Because when he campaigned here, he spoke in the language of hope. Of lifting people out of the dark hell of the coal mines and into whatever dream they wanted to achieve. And, despite being from a seriously wealthy family from Massachusetts, he took the time to speak to regular folks like he valued their opinion and not like he was better than they were -- and they felt the more valuable for it.
Bill Clinton did the same thing -- because he understood exactly what it was like to be in those shoes.
First, John F . Kennedy did not fight the civil rights battles in Washington in the 60s. LBJ did. So that is one of the main reasons. Second, JFK is an icon and no one in the South has to think much on whether to vote for him. Third, Bill Clintn lost the South, and he was the best politician I have ever seen, and not exactly the Fighting Dem we are looking for today.
It is time to understand some basic things. The "tribe" under discussion does not like the Democratic Party for what it has done, for what it stands for and for what they think it will do.
A hard pill to swallow, but there it is. Russ Feingold will not play in the South. And it is foolish to think he will.
I am a Fighting Dem/Politics of Contrast adherent, but it bothers me that many smart people think that is an appproach for the South. It is not. It is for the other "tribes."
Here is what I think:
Markos revisits issues that have been central to our discussions here on political strategy - how do Democrats win in 2006? How do Democrats motivate the base? How do Democrats seize the initiative and brand the GOP while energizing the base?
Since November 2004, I have argued that a politics of contrast, what I label Lincoln 1860, a Fighting Dems approach - where Dems aim to label the GOP as extremist, corrupt and incompetent and Dems as fighters for their ideals. I have also argued that Dems should ignore the nonsensical "no positive agenda" blather you'll hear from the Media. Here is an example:
Robert Hirsch wonders where all the statesmen have gone. Ed Laliberte wishes politicians would stop bickering and start fixing the nation's ills. Diane Heller says everybody in Washington is corrupt or out of touch.
"I don't see any great leaders on the horizon," says Heller, a Pleasant Valley, N.Y., real estate broker. These voters are not alone. More and more, Americans are frustrated with politics as usual in Washington, where incompetence, arrogance, corruption and mindless partisanship seem the norm rather than the exception _ a pox on both the Republican and Democratic parties.
Puhleeeeaze. These stories are printed EVERY election cycle. And every election cycle the GOP relentlessly and viciously attacks Dems with every possible insult. The GOP knows better than to pay attention to foolish political reporters who lazily write the same story every year. My view is that the strategy for Dems is to pound the Republicans relentlessly. With everything. Do we need some BS Dem Contract With America? For PR purposes sure. But keep the focus on the Republicans. Give a small target.
The target is the Rubber Stamp Republican Congress and Dems need to relentlessly, fearlessly, pitilessly attack it. Want to fire up the base - REALLY take off the gloves. Don't concern yourself with the"pox on both houses" voter or the "values" voter or other figments of pundits' imaginations. Show that Dems are fighters for THEIR values.
Matt Santos said it best - let Democrats be able to say:
"I'm proud to be a member of the Democratic Party."
In December 2005, there was another special election in California - that one was in CD 48. Eugene wrote a very prescient diary about it:
[T]he CA-48 experience shows some different, yet key points:
1. Immigration did not hurt Young's candidacy in any way.
2. A politics of contrast - Armando's Lincoln 1860 - approach can be of great use in these kinds of district.
3. CA-48 is very Republican, and very conservative. We were never likely to win there.
4. Republicans will not necessarily abandon their party for the Democrats out of anger with Bush.
. . . Clearly, in a district with 23% Democratic registration, the fact that Gore got 39% and Kerry 40% suggests something. One is that the district has 7% of voters who will vote for a Democratic presidential candidate but NOT a Democratic Congressional candidate. Why is that?
To my mind it can only be a politics of contrast. You have a district that is wealthy, suburban, cosmopolitan. They are not generally a bunch of Dobsonites (though they certainly exist there). And Gilchrist was unable to break 25%, which suggests a limited appeal for anti-immigrant paranoia. Instead you have a lot of fiscal conservatives and Reagan conservatives - and Reagan moderates - 7% of whom are not fond of Bush.
This then is a major lesson of CA-48. Those folks aren't going to vote for Democrats in Congressional races. But they MAY vote for Democrats in presidential races, provided that the Democrat contrasts himself or herself with the radical Republican. It won't be enough to win the district's votes. BUT it could be enough to hold down Republican vote totals as we rack up big majorities in our solid areas (LA, SF Bay Area) and win narrow majorities in the swing areas.
So a politics of contrast makes a lot of sense.
Buying into ignorant bigotry on immigration makes NO sense for Democrats. Democrats are better off letting Republicans fight amongst themselves over the issue. A politics of contrast means we cannot go in for bigotry or anti-immigrant b.s. It instead means we are a more responsible, more equitable, less paranoid, less racist party on that matter.
I think Eugene is wrong on one thing NOW - people WILL vote against the GOP because of Bush. The beauty of this approach is that, imo, it also motivates OUR base. I have said this many times. About Roe. And about the futile chase for values voters.
On Roe I said:
What is Balkin saying here? Simple. It requires an extreme judge fully out of the mainstream to overturn Roe. And such a judge will not be extreme just on Roe. He'll be extreme on Griswold. Extreme on the Commerce Clause. Extreme on Separation of Church and State. Extreme on the Fourth Amendment.
Who were the Justices who recently voted for overturning Roe? Scalia. Thomas. Rehnquist. That is the type of Justice who wants to overturn Roe.
But so what? you say. What does that have to do with the politics of Roe? This, Democrats can only be the Rational Party, the Moderate Party, the Sane Party if they stand firmly against the extremists. Given the feeling of the American People that Democrats don't stand for much imagine what they will think if Dems stop fighting for the right to privacy! Why then would a moderate voter look to Dems to protect them against the Extremism of the Republican Party?
In short, to give up on Roe is to throw away any notion the American People have left that Dems stand for anything. It is to rip apart the progressive wing of the Party and fracture Democrats in a way that was last seen when the civil rights laws were passed.
See, we have already had our split on privacy and abortion . Single issue anti-choice voters are Republicans. And they will never be anything else. The mistake that is made by Levinson is to assume that by putting abortion rights in play in the legislative arena this will automatically deliver all pro-choice voters to the Democrats. NOT IF THE DEMS ARE COMPLICIT IN DESTROYING THE WOMEN"S RIGHT TO CHOOSE! They will flock to those who will protect what they value. Dems giving up on Roe destroys the idea of Dems as protectors of women's rights. Those voters who suddenly find that the right to choose is in jeopardy are not likely to run to Democrats just as voters in 1856 and 1860 did not run to the Whigs and other politicians who sold out on slavery.
So let's consider the probable political effect of a Dem cavein on Roe -- (1) complete alienation of the progressive wing of the Party - bad. (2) Laws banning abortion in the South and other Red States - neutral for Dems politically. (3) No such laws in Blue States where Republicans will be permitted to be pro-choice - neutral for Dems.
On "values" voters, I said:
In an earlier diary I argued that Lincoln in 1860 is the guide for us. But, strictly speaking, this approach is not aimed at the NotSouth part of America, but rather is aimed at that part of America that is not radical, anti-science, anti-gay, or enamoured of the Radical Right Wing Agenda. Sure, this strategy would alienate a part of America. Coincidently, it will alienate a good part of the South. But, like Lincoln in 1860, I believe that Dems must present a stark choice for voters--in our case, the reactionary radicalism of the Right vs. the sensible enlightened policies of the Democrats.
The bottom line is this strategy is a fool's errand:
My take is decidedly different than that presented by Democracy Corps. Again the notion of the cultural divide as the great obstacle to Democratic electoral success rears its head. And yet, the idea that going to voters who went for Bush 4-1 in 2004 and expecting anything else seems strange to me. Are these swing voters?
What is the essence of the qualitative findings of the study? I would point to this:
With most voters expressing little understanding of the differences between Democrats and Republicans on . . . [substantive] issues, they felt it safe to assume that if a candidate was "right" on cultural issues . . . that candidate would also come closest to their views on these other issues.
I believe that finding is critical. But I think I take a different lesson from it than does Democracy Corps. While their prescription for a "change agenda" is, no doubt, right on the money. I of course agree with their apparent advocacy for a politics of contrast. But I think they see the cultural divide as something to be avoided. I think it something to highlight.
The Republican Party can fairly be labelled the Party of Dobson, called to heel by the Radical Right. In my estimation, voters who feel as described by the study are NOT fertile ground for our voters. We should NOT trim our social message on a fool's errand. If we get those voters, it will be because of other parts of our message, and trimming won't change their views on the social issues or make them forget where we stand.
We need to embrace proudly our commitment to civil rights, women's rights, economic justice, equal protection under the law, the right to privacy.
We are for these not because we are serving special interests. African-Americans are not special interests. Women are not special interests. The working class is not a special interest. These are Americans. Who deserve a fair shake.
We are for the Common Good and for doing the right thing. For being fair and being honest. Because that is the Democratic Way. And the American Way. We don't divide the country in segments or groups. We believe that ALL Americans are entitled to good, honest, competent government.
And the Bush years make clear that Republicans are not. They are beholden to one group, that has not only imposed its views on the Republican Party, but now will settle for nothing less than imposing their views on the entire country. We've seen how the Republicans govern - disastrously. We need to make sure the country understands this.
The country saw how Democrats governed in the 1990s.
So the question to be presented to the voters is clear - "Are you better of now than you were in the 1990s?"
The answer is clear. Democrats are the answer.
I betcha that message would motivate the base.
NOTE: I think people make too much of the turnout in the Busby race. I think we HAVE a problem, I always have. I just am not sure the Busby race is the strongest evidence for it.