The K-Drum Challenge

Kevin Drum wants to know what liberals are whining about exactly:

So here's my question: when we blogosphere types complain about this weak-kneed attitude, are we complaining because (a) we think the centrists are wrong; they could keep their seats in marginal districts even if they toed the progressive line on national security issues. Or (b) because we don't care; they should do the right thing even if it means losing next November?

Here's the thing. I can't guarantee that standing up against a corrupt, unpopular, and incompetent president's right to grant retroactive legal protections to large corporations for their complicity in illegal spying won't lead anyone to electoral defeat. What I can say is that the evidence that it will lead to electoral defeat doesn't seem incredibly compelling. Democratic efforts to hug the GOP on security and fight elections on other issues didn't pay much in the way of dividends when they were tried. The desire to avoid fights on these issues seems to me to largely reflect a kind of laziness. If the people advising the party on how to win elections don't think it's possible to craft compelling speeches, sound bites, advertisements, etc. around liberal views on national security policy, then someone needs to fire all of those people and hire some new people who are willing to give it a shot.

Alternatively, if they want to endorse Bush-like policies -- labeling elements of the Iranian military a terrorist group, saying that we need to keep threatening to launch an unprovoked preventive war on Iran, saying that companies that participate in illegal surveillance should be retroactively immunized from legal responsibility for their lawbreaking, etc. -- they ought to at least find a way to appear that they believe these things. I'm not sure what the political upside is supposed to be to transparently caving. It prevents you from mounting an argument that might convince anyone you're right. It demoralizes the people who agree with you. And people who care passionately about taking the side of authoritarianism and militarism are still going to see the Republicans as the go-to party for that stuff.

Yesterday, Tyler Cowen revealed his Angry Ape Theory of American politics: "Under this theory foreign policy disasters, no matter who caused them, will help the Republican candidate. We will demand An Angrier Ape." That theory may or may not be correct, but the last thing you need is for Democratic political strategy to be framed by people who think it's correct. That just guarantees loss. You need to find people who think they can persuade the public that an Angry Ape isn't the way to go and let those people have a crack at it.

Comments

Shorter MY: Dems should have the courage to fight for their convictions.

Posted by dogfacegeorge | October 25, 2007 12:20 PM

Actually, I'd kind of like to know if Dems actually have some convictions.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | October 25, 2007 12:25 PM

When Dems wear the Angry Ape suit, it can get really ugly when the mask comes off. Sometimes you just have to look away.

Posted by Blue Me | October 25, 2007 12:33 PM

Bill Clinton said basically the same thing, that the GOP wins by being Strong and Wrong on these issues.

Posted by bob | October 25, 2007 12:35 PM

W/r/t to Kevin's question, the answer for telecom immunity is clearly A. If a marginal Dem is going to lose, it's not going to be on that issue, which is sort of hard to explain in a scary 30 second ad. It might be a slightly different story if they vote against wiretapping generally, but that's just not what's going to happen in any of these bills.

Plus, it's not like the GOP isn't going to run similar scary ads no matter how the centrist Dem votes, even if you vote with the GOP basically 100% on these issues. We can actually see if this prediction is true by looking at the most marginal Dems and seeing what kind of race the GOP runs against them and what use they make of their voting records.

I would imagine Zach Space in Ney's old district in Ohio and Nick Lampson in DeLay's old district in Texas will get tied to Nancy Pelosi and the House leadership pretty much regardless of their actual voting record. Same with marginal Dems in, say, North Carolina or Texas.

Posted by bob | October 25, 2007 12:44 PM

Look, I sympathize with the sentiment. But I think it's important not to treat all of these policies the same.

Yes -- there are certainly some issues where Dems should think bigger and be bolder. These include retro telecom immunity, Iran, FISA, etc.

But there are other things where it would be political suicide in the balance-of-power regions. Impeachment and playing chicken with war funding. I know you have spoken before about Dems surrendering on the Battle of The Narratives that was war funding. But the executive is in a structurally privileged position in that fight, and it really would translate into very nasty ads, etc. that would inflict real damage on the Democratic majority. Granted, they should have held out longer than they did. But still, the source of the problem is the 2004 election and continuing willingness of half the country to elect GOP congresspeople.

I think everyone agrees with the ends here. But look, half the country voted for Bush in 2004 despite the obvious awfulness. Half of VA and Montana voted for odious Senate candidates despite what they knew.

There are simply a bunch of nationalistic, war-happy Americans out there. I hate that, but you have to be sensitive to it if you want to gain power.

Bottom line - yes, fight harder on some stuff. But understand nuances on other stuff and don't sacrifice the only thing that matters - winning the presidency. The Dem leadership sucks, but doesn't suck as bad as everyone is saying.

(One last point, I'm not sure Iran is a function of fear of GOP. I think that's internal Dem interest groups -- lobbies that dare not speak their name).

Posted by publius | October 25, 2007 12:45 PM

The answer is clearly a). The public hates Bush, the Iraq occupation, and the GOP in general. Democrats didn't win "marginal" seats in '06 by pledging to be more like Bush and his Congressional enablers but by pledging to be totally different from him and them. The way to keep those seats and win more of them in '08 would seem logically to be to follow through on those promises.

Posted by Ron | October 25, 2007 12:49 PM

There are simply a bunch of nationalistic, war-happy Americans out there.

Fewer than before. It wouldn't kill Dems to pick an Internal Enemy, and at least some subset of those described above would work pretty well.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | October 25, 2007 12:49 PM

The biggest thing Democrat strategists have yet to learn is that the truth isn't a shield against attacks. You can be a legitimate war hero and be called a traitor. You can give nightly speeches denouncing Move On and you still be called part of the group. The truth doesn't matter.

Also triangulation only works if there is a triangle to use. Sure you candidate can say Peter Stark was mean and should apologize, but Stark actually apologizing doesn't help you. If Pete Stark isn't out there attacking Bush there is no moderate position saying he's going too far.

Posted by Rob | October 25, 2007 12:51 PM

You need to find people who think they can persuade the public that an Angry Ape isn't the way to go and let those people have a crack at it.

(*waves arms frantically*) Over here! Over here!

As I note in the post, I've been laying out an alternative national-security frame for Democrats for about two years now, frequently cross-posting at Firedoglake in hopes of stimulating some discussion on the topic.

Still can't seem to get them read by the right people, though, since the leading lights of the blogiverse continue wringing their hands and saying "What to do? What to do?" Maybe folks should look around a little more aggressively and see if someone's suggested an answer.

Posted by Swopa | October 25, 2007 12:51 PM

ron - i agree. there is a sort "dems need to fight vader to become a jedi" element here. and they sort of finally did that in 2006. but criticizing a wildly unpopular war is one thing. pulling funding (which they will inevitably be perceived as doing in the nationalistic my-daddy-is-the-best-daddy worldview of many americans) is quite another.

Posted by publius | October 25, 2007 12:53 PM

See, Swopa, you assume that the leading lights of the blogosphere (are you calling Drum one of those? On good days he's a thoughtful center-leftist; on his bad days, he's a gullible concern troll who buys GOP frames) *want* to do more than wring their hands and say, "What to do? What to do?"

Just like the way the media highlights Dems who *talk* about Dem problems, but not Dems who *do* things about them (you can always get a Dem to go talk about "What Dems need to do differently" because that's talking about the problem instead of the policy). It's not nearly as important to *ask* the questions as it is to be *seen* to ask the questions.

On a related note, when Matt writes,

"I'm not sure what the political upside is supposed to be to transparently caving. It prevents you from mounting an argument that might convince anyone you're right. It demoralizes the people who agree with you. And people who care passionately about taking the side of authoritarianism and militarism are still going to see the Republicans as the go-to party for that stuff."

...it makes me imagine a Democratic consultant saying, "Perfect!"

I know that's cynical, but look how often that's their strategy: don't contest the default frame, show that you can compromise "for the good of the country" (or at least for David Broder's fragile, conservative ego), don't risk persuading anyone (and thus pissing off the Republicans whose hegemony you might threaten), don't risk arousing the passions of your supporters (which'll also piss off Republicans), and don't risk "selling out" or mimicking your enemies/opponents by doing what it takes to win.

After all, that way, you can still live with yourself in the morning -- you've neither sold out, nor have you compromised yourself. You're complicit, but then again, it's easier than trying not to be...

Posted by Chris | October 25, 2007 1:00 PM

It seems Drum is asking why anyone would actually support any position other than staying in power for its own sake. Why do I care if the Democrats stay in power if they don't actually support policies and positions that I support? The fact that he even asks such a question speaks volumes.

Posted by jim | October 25, 2007 1:04 PM

Does anyone really believe the consultant class's claim that centrist Democrats are balking because they don't want to be branded "soft on terror"? I don't see it at all. I think the real concern comes in two parts:

1.) Key Democrats want telecom campaign money; and

2.) Key Democrats are concerned that civil suits against telecom companies will uncover serious law breaking they don't want exposed, since it would force them to either (a.) fight the Bush Administration on surveillance or (b.) deal with angry constituents.

In other words, they want the telecom industry's money and they want this issue to go away quietly.

Posted by owenz | October 25, 2007 1:17 PM

Geez people.

Are a candidate's voting record or issue positions all that decide elections? The assumption here seems to be that they are. How very ninth-grade civics of everyone.

No one has talked about another big piece of the puzzle: money.

If you're a Dem in a swing district, your vote on telecom immunity is not likely to cause some devastating 30 second spot to be run against you.

It may, however, cause many thousands of dollars of industry, lobby, and individual money not just to flow away from you, but to your opponent. Losing a dollar would be like losing two dollars.

In a close race, call me crazy, but that might matter. Not to say such the telecom vote would not be worth the hit, but we should be at least talking about the proper set of costs and benefits.

Posted by a | October 25, 2007 1:18 PM

owenz- your comment was not up when I posted. Spot on.

Posted by a | October 25, 2007 1:20 PM

Not to dispute the points of owenz and a, but this question from owenz:

Does anyone really believe the consultant class's claim that centrist Democrats are balking because they don't want to be branded "soft on terror"?

...has more than one answer.

Consultants, and others, *do* make that claim, and multiple audiences hear it. Republicans, centrist Democrats, Democratic leadership and aides, the media, liberal activists, conservatives activists, and the great unwashed masses in the middle (who wash less then the activists on either side, I guess) -- any and all may hear that claim, and whether they think it's true or not, they may well wonder how the other audiences are hearing it and reacting, and given what kinds of things a variety of people *say*, it sounds like if it isn't persuasive to people about what *they* think, it sure does paint a picture of what *other* people think, and *that* encourages a surplus of caution.

A simpler question would be, "Is everyone *sure* that centrist Democrats *aren't* balking because they don't want to be branded 'soft on terror'?"

I don't think the answer to that one's a universal "No."

Posted by Chris | October 25, 2007 1:32 PM

Oh, good grief, the Democratic Party in large measure signed on with state-driven authoritarianism so many decades ago that anything they do now is pretty trivial. The Democratic Party, for instance, has hardly done anything in opposition to citizens having their their property, even their homes, confiscated by law enforcement, absent any criminal conviction, and now they are going to become outraged regarding this? Hell, people have their doors kicked in in this country in the middle of the night, by law enforcement personnel who do not identify themselves, and are actually shot to death in their night clothes. People yawn.

Posted by Will Allen | October 25, 2007 1:41 PM

Will Allen:
Soeaking of Kelo vs New London, how sad is it that Scalia and Thomas were the ones that voted the right way in that case? Stopped clocks are still right more often than those two however.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | October 25, 2007 1:48 PM

I think you are dead on right on this Matthew.

But even if Kevin's original two choices represented a fair dichotomy (I think you are suggesting, correctly, that it doesn't), put me in for number 2. If there is anything worse than sending our soldiers to die, and to kill other people, for the sake of our hegemonic ambitions, it's sending them to die, and to kill, for fear of losing an election.

And, yeah, I know Kevein wasn't talking directly about supporting foreign military adventures, but it's all part of the same package. But if you want to be depressingly literal, then put it this way instead: If there is anything worse than dismantling our civil liberties for the sake of our hegemonic ambitions, it's dismantling our civil liberties for fear of losing an election.

Posted by LarryM | October 25, 2007 1:49 PM

Vote vs. telecom and see them make sleaze campaign against you via proxie(media mergers) and at the same hold back funds from you.

Ootential class actions sound like a possible solution. Any person spied has standing.

Posted by Mr.Murder | October 25, 2007 1:50 PM

If the people advising the party on how to win elections don't think it's possible to craft compelling speeches, sound bites, advertisements, etc. around liberal views on national security policy, then someone needs to fire all of those people and hire some new people who are willing to give it a shot.

Um, this come disconcertingly close to the attitude the Bush admin took towards the people advising it on Iraq war policy. Success depends on taking the advice of the people who make the most sense, not on taking the advice of people who just tell you what you want to hear.

On the larger issue of when to compromise and when to take a hard line, it really depends on the particular case. Fighting against telecom immunity is probably good strategy, but right now it’s probably best for the dems to compromise on other details of the FISA law, especially given that the law will be revisited after the 2008 election. Similarly, taking a hard line against starting a war with Iran is good strategy, but taking a hard line against declaring the Al-Quds force a terrorist organization isn’t.

Posted by RC | October 25, 2007 1:55 PM

"If the people advising the party on how to win elections don't think it's possible to craft compelling speeches, sound bites, advertisements, etc. around liberal views on national security policy, then someone needs to fire all of those people and hire some new people who are willing to give it a shot"

(shrug) It's how George Steinbrenner & sons run the Yankees (well, substitute "around a nine-digit payroll" for "around liberal views on national security policy" and "win a world series" for "(list of actions)", obviously). The principle is, "If people who are supposed to do a job, can't, don't, or won't, get people who can, do, and will."

Just because a management tactic/principle can be used by people for bad ends isn't a reason to abandon it for other, and even good, ends.

Posted by Chris | October 25, 2007 2:28 PM

Goodness, Joe, I wish it was just limited to abusive eminent domain. Unfortunately, via the War on Drugs, drunk driving laws, prostitution laws, etc., the criminal law is frequently used to grab the property of citizens who are never convicted in court, and neither major political party gives a damn.

Posted by Will Allen | October 25, 2007 2:31 PM

I will also say this about Thomas, Joe. He will more consistently reign in the power of the Federal Government than any other justice. He is willing to say, for instance, that Congress has no power to criminalize the cultivation of marajuana for personal medical use.

Posted by Will Allen | October 25, 2007 2:36 PM

fire all of those people

Do any of "those people" have names?

Posted by Ralph | October 25, 2007 2:54 PM

There are simply a bunch of nationalistic, war-happy Americans out there.

When they start showing up at the recruiting offices, I'll believe it. Oh, I'm perfectly aware lots of Americans like to say stupid things, and make threats (otherwise we wouldn't have restraining orders) but fighting multiple tours in the Middle East is not like stalking your ex-wife.

If they're so goddam war-happy, where the hell are they, I was going to ask, but then I saw who signed the comment and I realized the answer was simply, "Yeah, you wish there were".

Posted by Mooser | October 25, 2007 2:57 PM

argh. stupid blockquote tag...

Posted by Chris | October 25, 2007 2:59 PM

Oh Jeez, I'm sorry Publius, I thought you were somebody else. I got all you ancient Roman and Greek orators mixed up.

Posted by Mooser | October 25, 2007 3:05 PM

He is willing to say, for instance, that Congress has no power to criminalize the cultivation of marajuana for personal medical use.

And at the same time, argue in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld that the President has the unlimited power to detain US citizens by unilateral suspension of habeas corpus, which gives him the power of a pre-thirteenth-century king. Freedom from government coercion, thy name is Clarence.

I also find a bit rich that the Justice who oh-so-piously wrote in Kelo that "Though citizens are safe from the government in their homes, the homes themselves are not," proceeded to argue as he did in Hamdi, or in Hudson v. Michigan, where he endorsed evidence from illegal searches being used to convict people. Truly a poster boy for one's home being one's castle.

Crikey, has "libertarian" really come to be equivalent to "fascism with royalist property rights and pot smoking"?

Posted by mds | October 25, 2007 3:10 PM

Crikey, has "libertarian" really come to be equivalent to "fascism with royalist property rights and pot smoking"?

When was it ever equivalent to anything else?

Posted by James Gary | October 25, 2007 3:20 PM

On the larger issue of when to compromise and when to take a hard line, it really depends on the particular case. Fighting against telecom immunity is probably good strategy, but right now it’s probably best for the dems to compromise on other details of the FISA law, especially given that the law will be revisited after the 2008 election. Similarly, taking a hard line against starting a war with Iran is good strategy, but taking a hard line against declaring the Al-Quds force a terrorist organization isn’t.

Out of idle curiosity, are you even remotely interested in what may or may not be good policy?

Posted by McGurk | October 25, 2007 3:21 PM

Illiterate as always, MDS, in that you somehow came to think that I wrote that Thomas' willingness to reign the power of national government was always in evidence. Crikey, learn to read before posting again, will you?

Posted by Will Allen | October 25, 2007 3:29 PM

McGurk, of course I'm interested in good policy. I probably enjoy thinking about policy more than thinking about than thinking about politics, in fact. But if one wants to actually acheive anything, considerations of political strategy have to be factored in. That's just the way democracy works...

Posted by RC | October 25, 2007 3:33 PM

As I keep saying, there IS that Rasmussen poll last month ( http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/64_agree_with_court_ruling_on_patriot_act ) showing an overwhelming majority (64-16!) in favor of the idea that the government should need a search warrant to ask Internet providers for their customer lists.

Question: are the Democrats such shivering mice on civil-liberties issues largely because they're receiving lousy advice from the party's political consultants? And to what extent is this the fault of the Clintons?

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | October 25, 2007 3:34 PM

"And at the same time, argue in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld that the President has the unlimited power to detain US citizens by unilateral suspension of habeas corpus, which gives him the power of a pre-thirteenth-century king. Freedom from government coercion, thy name is Clarence."

Posted by mds | October 25, 2007 3:10 PM

Considering President Lincoln actually did unilaterally suspend the right of habeas corpus and did hold American citizens without charge during the Civil War, Thomas' position is not without precedent.

Posted by Chicounsel | October 25, 2007 4:11 PM

Matt,

K-Drum had an item on his blog yesterday about a topic you used to blog about: Scott Beauchamp. Remember him? Have you no interest in reevaluating your previous comments in light of the news since then?

Michael Yon takes the high road here ("Beauchamp and the Rule of Second Chances"), though I wish he took the opportunity Beauchamp's battalion commander offered him to interview Beauchamp yesterday. It would have been nice to see Franklin Foer lose the last fig leaf hiding his complete lack of journalistic integrity.

Posted by Fred | October 25, 2007 4:23 PM

Christ, Publius, did you have to take this post as an opportunity for exactly the kind of equivocating "hey I'm in the middle!" self-congratulatory nonsense that has been killing the Democrats for the past fifteen years?

If Congress funds the war in Iraq along with deadlines for withdrawal, there is no way there would be a public backlash. If you haven't noticed, the public is completely sick of the war in Iraq and wants to get out. And the public doesn't really give a crap if that leads to a civil war in Iraq when we leave.

This is not a fringe idea.

Posted by Whispers | October 25, 2007 4:48 PM

Publius: "I know you have spoken before about Dems surrendering on the Battle of The Narratives that was war funding. But the executive is in a structurally privileged position in that fight, and it really would translate into very nasty ads, etc. that would inflict real damage on the Democratic majority."

Only if Democrats themselves keep pushing that narrative.

The Republicans' strength comes from very fragile surface tension. Once that tension is broken, it will all come crashing down for them.

Unfortunately, the post quoted above is yet another example of Dems strengthening, rather than challenging, that fragile tension that keeps the Republicans afloat.

Posted by VictorLaszlo | October 25, 2007 5:24 PM

Simple way to communicate the issue to the public:

Make a television ad, using some public-domain footage of a prison breakout, or images of all the doors in a prison opening simultaneously, followed by the escape of every felon within.

Voiceover:

"George Bush and congressional Republicans think that wealthy corporations deserve get-out-of-jail-free cards, even when the laws that they've broken exist to protect our most basic rights and freedoms. Why don't Republicans believe in law and order?"

Yes, it really can be that easy.

Posted by Matte Kudasai | October 25, 2007 6:11 PM

Kevin in his typical opaque way misses the forest for the fleas.

Wrong question: "Why are liberals whining? [B]ecause [they] don't care; they should do the right thing even if it means losing next November?"

Better question: "What, precisely, -- when the putative Democratic nominee lies, dissembles, equivocates on Iraq, Iran, torture, unitary executive power, coverage-not-healthcare for the uninsured v. guaranteed windfall to insurance companies -- would liberals be winning next November?

Posted by Keli | October 25, 2007 6:44 PM

"Why don't Republicans believe in law and order?"

Try squaring that with the Dem approach to illegal immigration.

Posted by Juan | October 25, 2007 7:22 PM

A guy named Juan complains about immigration.

What's wrong with this picture?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 26, 2007 12:24 AM

"A guy named Juan complains about immigration.

What's wrong with this picture?"

You think everyone with a Spanish name is an illegal alien? My parents immigrated here (legally) from Spain and I was born here.

Posted by Juan | October 26, 2007 2:22 AM