Don't define ourselves by the Republicans!

[pattim]

We usually say this to mean that we shouldn't be a "Me too." party, like Al Gore's pathetically friendly showing in the 2000 debates, or the DLC's "We'll just be Bush, only not so much."

But the unfortunate fact of American politics right now is that for every two admitted liberals, there are three admitted conservatives. In order to win a general election, we must have 60% of the moderates. No less. Can you blame the Democrats for appealing to those moderates rather than the liberal wing that they've, to be frank, locked up? For example, I'm not voting for a Republican no matter what. And so they can afford to move their positions away from me and towards something more appealing to the center. Yes, they need a clear message, and yes, they shouldn't be jellyfish. But I believe--strongly believe--that the message should not be "The Republicans Suck." That message has not ever and will not ever win elections. It was our fundamental message in '02 and '04. It was the core of Kerry's campaign--"I am not George W. Bush." People don't want to vote for a "I am not" any more than they want to vote for a "I agree with the other guy." Both are problems.

If your fundamental issue is "We're not the other guys," you have, in the bank, the liberal base, and have against you, without hope of recovery, the conservatives. But now you have a new problem—you start at a political disadvantage. Not only do they have more votes to begin with, but now you've given the momentum to them. First of all, in a high-negative campaign, you'll alienate more and more moderates, removing the voters from which you can pull your minority. But more importantly than this, they set the debate.

They set the issues. If your fundamental platform is "We'll block the bastards," they get to decide what you'll be blocking and how they'll introduce it. If you lock yourselves into a frame of opposition, all they must do is define themselves positively—appeal to patriotism, platitude, and pluralism—and they've immediately made you the anti-American, overly talky, elitist party, and you're on the defensive. Going on the automatic, full-court offensive doesn't give you the advantage, doesn't make you a take-charge candidate, doesn't mean you're a fighter. It means you've said, "I am defined by not being you." All they need to is to very slightly shift their percepted image, and you're screwed.

Rather, we need a forward-looking, forward-thinking, dare-I-say-it-moderate party with similar candidates. A party that does not define themselves by the opposition, a party that takes the ideological advantage. We have ideas. We have good ideas. And we need to sell them. DeLay, Frist, Rove--the media is our friend on these. Come '06, let the media hammer them. You can ride the wave of opposition to them, but not as the central tenent of your platform. Be against cronyism and corruption, yes. Brand the Republicans as being the party of these two traits. But do not think that is a platform. That is a strategy for attack ads. A platform is "We will," not "We will not." "We will not" is not forward-looking. "We will not" is not inspirational. "We will not" does not make voters proud to believe in you, "We will not" is not an optimistic view of the future. "We will not" is a reaction. And a reaction, while making a good attack ad, does not inspire people to flock to your party.

[kentuck]

1. You lost me with your first ill-informed sentence about....

"... like Al Gore's pathetically friendly showing in the 2000 debates"

which tells me you have been listening to the wrong sources...

[mattclearing]

3. Ugh...that's what I get for skimming.

Gore was too friendly in the second debate, and the changed hairstyle was bad as well, but that doesn't change the fact that the media really tore into him unfairly, and gave Bush a pass on his outrageous tax cut from nowhere.

[pattim]

5. Yes, they did tear into him unfairly

I don't deny that. All I claimed was that Gore over-agreed with Bush, and even then that was just as a counter to my actual point.

[pattim]

4. Not at all.

Rewatch the tapes. Note how many times Gore says "I agree with that." Or just google for the transcripts.

He may have had better points, but he failed to define himself by failing to draw distinctions and thus failed to beat George Bush conclusively. You never say "I agree" in a debate, unless it is a lull for an immediate counterpunch.

And even then, that line is in no way related to my main post, but is merely a counter-introduction to it.

[mattclearing]

2. I agree in part.

I constantly advocate that we not allow Republicans to set the terms of the debate, whether it be issues, language, or accusations they throw at us.

However, I do believe that we should make a point of opposing this administration, though I agree that we should not be defined by that opposition.

[pattim]

6. Hm. Must have been too long.

Or just not worth reply.