Short Term Gain, Longer Term Pain

Americans like their Congress about as much as they like their President. According to a recent CNN/Opinion Research Corp poll, the approval rating for the new Democratic Congress is 22 percent(1) , a number that might make Nancy Pelosi envy George W. Bush.

Democrats floated on a tide of optimism after their sound victory in the 2006 midterms. Few dared hope that the Democrats would take back both the House and the Senate. Republicans were humbled, and the President entered his lame duck phase, with two years to go in his second term. Rahm Emanuel, the mastermind of the victory, looked like a genius.

Admittedly, the Democrats promised very little. With a thin majority in both chambers, there was very little they could really accomplish. They could not override a presidential veto, and they did not have the sixty votes needed to stop a filibuster in the Senate.

Behind the scenes, deep in the batcave of the Democratic National Committee, DNC Chairman Howard Dean and Emanuel, the head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, butted heads over strategy. Dean took the long view, advocating a rebuilding of the party and attempts to make inroads into traditionally Republican territory.(2) Emanuel preferred to win immediately, focusing more on battleground states and short-term gains. Dean’s plan may not have won the Senate and House majorities in 2006, but it could have potentially gained the Democrats a broad and solid voter base that would have served the party for decades to come.

The old guard stands.

After the 2004 defeat, young Democrats and visionary Kerry voters went back to the drawing board. Tired of failure, bright new minds were working on the problems that have plagued the party since the Reagan era. They wanted to take back the label “Liberal”, to make the word “Progressive” mean something again, and to call the Republicans on their Orwellian language. George Lakoff’s Rockridge Institute has pioneered the concept of political framing to Liberal candidates.(3) The election of Howard Dean to the DNC chair was a clear signal that the rank and file were ready to experiment with new tactics.

The old guard has something that the Young Turks have not yet developed: political savvy. The Republicans were falling apart, stumbling over scandal after scandal, and dragged down by their Iraq war stance. Rahm Emanuel and Senator Charles Schumer saw a vulnerability, a chance to grab Congress on the cheap. The American people wanted a change, and they wanted an end to the Iraq war, and they saw the Democrats as the means to achieve their ends. For their part, though, the Democrats were careful not to promise too much. They didn’t follow Lakoff’s lessons about reframing the debate and talking about core values. The 2006 election was about Republican scandal and the Iraq war, and the Democrats just happened to be in the right place at the right time.

This strategy would seem to make sense, considering how little the Democratic controlled Congress would be able to accomplish. At best they would be able to prevent the Republicans from doing any additional damage, but without a larger majority or the presidency, they could not push through a positive agenda. Emanuel’s side appears to have been right.

The Democrats were a little too clever for their own good. Whether the candidates promised an end to the Iraq war or not, the American voters clearly expected them to deliver. The public had expectations of the Democrats, and they had no interest in excuses. Now, with virtually every Democratic legislative plan derailed, the disapproval rating for the Democrats in Congress has risen 11 points, to 51 percent.(4)

The political savvy gap is carrying over into the presidential race. Hillary Clinton, the leading old guard candidate, leads in the primary polls, while the promising new face, Barack Obama, trails. Obama has made efforts to cut into traditional Republican strongholds, and is quoted in Rockridge Institute publications. Nonetheless, the presidency requires more than just good ideas. Obama’s deficit of political savvy may be an indication that he lacks the qualities necessary to be a good president. Clinton can play the game.

I would recommend that the new wave of Democrats not give up their goals. For the long-term viability of the party, the new tactics of framing and reaching into new territory must be implemented on a broad scale. Eventually, the Howard Deans and the Barack Obamas must win. To win, they need to pick up some of the political skills that their opponents have honed through decades of experience.

The Democrats will likely win the White House and a broader majority in Congress in 2008. This should not be considered a vindication of the Rahm Emanuel short-term strategy. It is only a residual effect of the dissatisfaction with Republicans and the Iraq war. If the Democrats fail to use the new resources that are available to them, they will eventually give back all of their gains.

The Republicans are aware of this, and they are already hitting back with anti-Congress rhetoric. “Their inability to govern is making it increasingly clear that there's a real crisis in leadership on Capitol Hill because nothing is getting accomplished,” said House Minority Leader John Boehner.(5) The Republicans sense a weakness, and they are trying to exploit it. Nevermind the fact that the Republicans are the reason why nothing is getting accomplished, they will ride the public dissatisfaction with their legislature all the way to victory.

There lies your challenge, Democrats.

(1) http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/26/poll.congress/index.html
(2)http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/10/AR2006051001927.html
(3) http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/
(4) http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/26/poll.congress/index.html
(5) http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1640263,00.html

© 2007 Bryan Lower

Feedback: