Newspaper OpEd (2006)
Robert P. Watson
"THE DEMOCRATS CAN WIN" Every so often there are truly meaningful elections: 1828, 1860, 1932, 1948; elections when the stakes are high and the outcome often proves to be a turning point in American history. With the country now at a crossroads, 2006 and 2008 might well prove to be such critical elections, and there might be no turning back from the choices we make.
With the `06 campaign season upon us we will soon be making our decisions about which ideas and individuals will lead us. America faces record budget and trade deficits, a record (and growing) national debt, and a homeland that is completely insecure. Meanwhile, the cost of a college education, basic healthcare, and gasoline skyrockets, while "good government" has been replaced by an inability even to provide our troops in Iraq with adequate armor, vaccinate our children during flu season, or respond to a hurricane. We find ourselves more divided at home than any time since the Civil War and more despised around the world than any time in U.S. history.
The Bush Administration and the Republicans who control every branch of government – would seem to be doing everything by the book to guarantee resounding losses in 2006. Tom Delay, Scooter Libby, Duke Cunningham, Jack Abramoff, Harriet Myers, and Donald Rumsfeld have become poster children for corruption and incompetence. However, I have little confidence in the Democratic Party to take advantage of the opportunity that has been handed to them on a silver platter. As Democrats should have learned in every election since 1998, it is not a strategy to have no strategy B to simply hope Republicans drop the ball while offering voters little choice but opposition to Bush. Rather, Democrats must give the voters something to vote for, not simply someone to vote against.
On that note, I propose four basic strategies for Democrats to win in 2006.
1. Lead the agenda For most of the 20 th century the Democrats controlled the agenda. It was the Democrats who successfully prosecuted two world wars, brought us out of the Great Depression, and gave the country women = s suffrage, Social Security, the GI Bill, civil rights, Medicare, Head Start, and public funding for scientific research and the arts. The Republicans opposed nearly every one of these vital initiatives, which contributed to their long tenure as the minority party.
Yet, since 1995 the positions have switched. Simply saying "no" to the Republican-led agenda of tax cuts for the rich, corporate giveaways, lax environmental standards, and war in Iraq is, at best, nothing more than an "anti" agenda, and at worst, a formula for failure. Democrats must offer the country a choice by differentiating their platform from the Republicans and being proactive in offering positive solutions to public problems.
2 . " It's not the economy, stupid!" In 1992, in response to the first President Bush's inability to understand his unpopularity and the concerns of average Americans, the Clinton campaign responded with the slogan "it's the economy, stupid!" Although clever, this premise could not be further from the truth. If it really was about the economy, Democrats would be in power. The 1990s were a period of unprecedented growth, while George W. Bush became the first president since Herbert Hoover (1929-1933) to have a net loss of jobs (1.7 million) during his first term.
Democrats continue to mistakenly believe that people are rational voters who vote with their pocketbooks in mind. Republicans have figured out that people actually vote with their hearts, not their heads. Elections are often won by linking your message (and your messenger) to deeply held beliefs and making connections with people on a personal and emotional level. Does this sound like Gore, Kerry, or the Democrats? Not anymore.
3. Reframe the issues So how do Democrats connect with voters? I believe the Democrats have better solutions to problems, yet are losing (and losing badly) the public relations battle. Most Americans support restrictions on assault weapons, know families can't live on minimum wage, favor clean air and clean water, and believe America is always strongest when leading our allies, not bullying them. So Democratic policies don't need to be changed, but the way they are presented to the country does need to be changed.
For example, the Republican Party, like a good courtroom attorney, frames debates in such a way that to oppose the war is to oppose our troops ("Support the President, Support the Troops"); to criticize or question Bush is to be unpatriotic ("Victory or cut-and-run"). Democrats need to lead on national security and the fight against terrorism by reminding the country that being patriotic means providing our soldiers with protective armor, a livable wage, fair death benefits, and the truth about the war.
In order for complex issues such as the record budget deficit and ballooning national debt to resonate with the public, Democrats must reframe them by using simple, straight-forward terms such as "baby tax" or "birth tax" (think of Republicans' claims of a "death tax" or "marriage penalty.") That is exactly what the deficit and debt are: Bush is taxing our children and the unborn by passing along an insurmountable debt while claiming to be pro-family.
Republicans have given themselves an advantage by framing the abortion debate as pro-choice versus pro-life. Why? By favoring choice, Democrats play into Republicans' hands because "life" always trumps "choice." But, because it is not a "choice" (a choice is whether one orders vanilla or chocolate ice cream) but rather a woman = s right, a personal freedom, and an important public health issue, Democrats must reframe the debate. How? One cannot claim a "culture of life" yet rabidly favor the death penalty and cut pre-natal care. One cannot claim to love a child in the womb but let the baby fend for herself after birth by gutting child vaccinations, early childhood nutrition, and school lunches. In reality, Republicans are pro-birth, not pro-life.
4. It's about the messenger, not just the message People view politics in a personal way and want to make connections with their elected officials. After all, what explains the popularity of Reagan or Kennedy? Or the hostility toward Clinton? Certainly not their position on interest rates! Personality always trumps policy. Democrats need to make the election about both the message and the messengers, nominating candidates who can connect with the public and inspire us by their example.
As long as Republicans continue to run the country into the ground, Democrats have a chance of winning back both houses of Congress in the upcoming election. I believe the House will go Democratic, but the Senate is too close to call. But if Democrats rethink their strategy, become proactive, and take off the gloves to hold the Republicans accountable for the colossal mess they have made, they could pick up larger margins in Congress, in state legislatures and governorships, and win back the White House in 2008... but more importantly, maybe, just maybe, the country will win.
