The Lesson of 2007: Be (Better) Prepared

by publius

Looking back at Year One of Reid/Pelosi, I realize that my view of the Democratic leadership has been schizophrenic. On some days, I prefer a Kossian pitchfork. On other days, I sympathize with the formidable challenges of dealing with vulnerable members and legislative minorities with veto power. In this sense, I embody the fault line described in Matt Bai’s book. (ed. You mean you’re a billionaire or an establishment player or a blogger that matters? Um, no, that’d be a different sense there johnny).

Bai’s book (surprisingly good, though not without periodic flares of wanker) got me rethinking some of this stuff, and I hope to write more in the days ahead. But regardless of where you fall along the compromise-to-“no surrender” spectrum, everyone can hopefully agree that the leadership is failing (rather miserably, rather Gephardtedly) to look more than one move ahead on the political chess board. Developing strategy and tactics is tough stuff – especially considering that subjective ideological differences necessarily inform those choices. But planning ahead is not tough. It should be done, and the leadership isn’t doing it.

Throughout the year, the Dems have grappled with issues that fall right along what I’ll call Bai’s Fault Line (i.e., where it isn’t clear whether to compromise or go nuclear). These issues include FISA, All Things Iraq, telecom immunity, spending, AMT, SCHIP, and the energy bill, to name a few. The general pattern here was strong initial opposition (voiced in “no surrender” rhetoric) followed by either compromise or capitulation, both of which seemed meeker in light of the initial uncompromising language. Understandably, progressives vary on what the appropriate strategy and tactics are for each issue.

I won’t presume to have answers to these difficult questions – I’ve struggled with them all year, often inconsistently. (I’m just a caveman). But one thing I do know is that, regardless of which path the Dems ultimately choose, they need to plan ahead and adopt tactics consistent with that particular strategy. For the new year, I’m not necessarily asking the Dem leadership to compromise less (or more). My more humble request is that they just frickin’ figure out what they’re doing ahead of time, and plan accordingly.

The reason why planning is necessary is that both strategies call for very different tactics. For instance, the “no surrender” strategy essentially recognizes that no legislation will pass. Maybe strong stands will lead to a breakthrough here or there, but the ultimate result is generally stalemate. The point then of this strategy is not so much to persuade the opposition and to win in the short-term, but to scare them and win in the long-term. The aim is to politicize the issue and tee it up for the next election. In this context, the post-vote strategy is more important than the pre-vote strategy.

An alternative is what I’ll call the compromise strategy. This strategy actually envisions some form of final (if flawed) legislation, and thus calls for a different set of tactics. For instance, if compromise is your preferred strategy, you should avoid scorched-earth tactics that will chase away potential allies across the aisle. Similarly, if you know you’ll ultimately “settle,” you should lower initial expectations by refraining from promises and threats that everyone knows are non-credible (e.g., pretty much everything Reid says about Iraq spending).

Both political strategies are perfectly reasonable – appropriate in some circumstances, inappropriate in others. But both come with their own respective “tool kit” of tactics. That’s what the Dems aren’t recognizing. If they adopt a “no surrender” strategy, they must understand that the underlying point is politicization. They must understand that the “no surrender” strategy is almost always going to lose as things stand today. But that’s ok, assuming they’ve explicitly planned for that contingency. And if they haven't, the no surrender strategy is a dumb move.

Take Iraq spending. If you’re going to start with a “no surrender” strategy, you need to be simultaneously planning the PR rollout for the inevitable stalemate. Vulnerable Republicans should get blanketed with “he/she supports endless war” ads before, during, and after the debate. There should national media strategies, etc.

Even better, these individual arguments should fit within some broader narrative (again, one that requires advance thought). For instance, one such meta-theme might be that Republican filibusters are blocking popular measures that would improve Americans’ lives (it obviously needs Luntzian wordsmithing, but that’s the idea). Then, each filibuster would be exposed not only to a narrowly targeted attack on the merits, but would reinforce a broader political argument that Republicans are impeding progress, etc.

The Dems, however, aren’t big fans of chess. By only thinking one move ahead at a time (usually reactively), the Dems too often hit the sweet spot, by which I mean the worst of all possible worlds – i.e., a no surrender strategy devoid of no surrender tactics, resulting in excessively and unnecessarily flawed “compromises.” Because Dems don’t think through the endgame, they come out with guns blazing, promising to stand down the Republicans and bend them to their will. When Republicans rudely fail to oblige, the Dems flail about and – visionless – begin to splinter and get picked off. Rather than leveraging inevitable “defeat” to gain political traction, they cave and look even more pathetic than if they had adopted an “across-the aisle” compromise strategy from the start.

So that’s my free advice for the 2008 – listen to the Boy Scouts and be prepared. Whether it’s no surrender or compromise or a little of both, some advanced planning would sure go a long way.

Comments

[Johnny Pez]

I think that if the Dems were only suffering from lack of foresight, they would eventually learn from their mistakes and develop some foresight. The fact that they keep making the same mistake over and over and over and over indicates that there's something else going on here.

I believe we should give serious thought to the Blackmail Hypothesis.

[Jesurgislac]

How do you plan for Dick Cheney setting fire to the Vice President's office to destroy evidence of his own criminal activity?

[cleek]

i'm sticking with : they ain't a-fighting cause they be likin the results.

[Frank]

The Republicans are (near) perfectly united and disciplined in large part because there are external factors: money in politics, media that never met a facist they didn't adore, a base thats strongly motivated to take action when they see something they don't like.

With the Democrats all the above factors are working against us. The Republicans are only about as far right as the public will let them get away with. If the Democrats were the width of a human hair more to the left they would be losing campaign contributions, and getting bad press to no good purpose. There isn't any reai reward for making people like us happy.

[Tom]

they ain't a-fighting cause they be likin the results

I get why it seems that way, but I doubt that's right across the board, though there are individual Dems of whom I'm sure that's true (Feinstein for instance).

For most of them, though, why go to all the trouble of being a Democratic politician, if not because you actually want to do progressive things? While I don't want to oversympathize, it really is a tough job -- getting reelected every two years (for many of them), constantly dialing for dollars, frequently being publicly criticized, all for a lower salary than a lot of them could get in the private sector. I know I'd hate the job with every fiber of my being (though being a staffer might be interesting, I'd imagine). So it seems to me only fair to imagine that many of them are doing this unpleasant job for the right reasons, because otherwise they'd be doing something else.

Which isn't to say they're doing it well. Publius's thoughts on strategy seem insightful to me.

[wlson]

I'm with Tom. I think it's both. We need to find those who "be likin" and "be gettin them gone". It's finding the Bush Dog DINOs, exposing them and fighting them.

We may be aided by a complete crumbling of the Repubs singular facade into neo, theo, eco-con pieces, which may scare away those who side with them for cover.

[russell]

This is an interesting piece, but I think the choices publius presents are not quite accurate.

Compromise occurs when both sides make concessions to find some less than perfect but mutually agreeable middle way.

To my knowledge, no compromise on any important topic has ever been put on the table by Bush. There's only what he expects of Congress, along with a consistent refusal to accede to any form of Congressional oversight.

The choice Congress faces is either to draw a hard line, or to concede to Bush's intransigence. Not compromise, concede.

Given that choice, the only reasonable option I can see is to draw the hard line. You're either going to be an obstructionist or sleevelessly weak, so you might as well go for obstructionist. At least you might win a few.

The Democratic Congress' most amazing achievement, IMO, has been to make Bush's petty, perhaps criminal, truculence seem like strength.

I don't think it's a lack of planning, I just don't think they had the stomach for Bush's particular game. That's not suprising, most folks would rather cooperate if they can. But "cooperate" is not in the Bush MO.

They should have cut him off at the knees, early and often, or gone down swinging.

Thanks -

[Bill]

Re: ‘Cavemen’ aka ‘Another Lesson from 2007’

I’d like for someone to explain to me why our Democratic congress, looking out for the little guy, voted against banning federal farm subsidies to those farmers with incomes of over $750,000 per year. If you believe Bush, he wanted to set the ban at $200,000 per year (I’m not sure he was serious either). Why are waitresses subsidizing multi-millionaire farmers? Why did congress vote against the cutting of government subsidies to people making millions per year? I’m pretty far right, but this is just wrong.

Central America is an interesting political place. There is usually a handful of men who run a country (Mr. Citrus, Mr. Seafood, Mr. Bottler, etc.). There are democratic elections where everybody gets to vote. And whoever wins the election gets to cut a deal with the guys who run the country. I like to call it ‘demoligarchy’ ©. Demoligarchy requires an uninformed electorate.

In 1789, when the Founding Fathers set our ship on its way; around 12% of American citizens were allowed to vote. There were taxation and property requirements to meet. Non-Citizens and 88% of Citizens had no political voice. But those 12% who did get to vote managed to elect leaders that guided this Country to the point where it’s poorest Citizens’ biggest health concern today is obesity.

In my opinion, universal suffrage is leading us to the point where our elected representatives, both Democratic and Republican, are just shadows on the wall of the cave. Just like Central America. Don’t get me wrong, Central America is really nice, if you have money.

[Xeynon]

I know it's fashionable to blame Bush, the Senate Republicans, and or the Octopus-like grip of corporate America on politics for the failure of the Democratic Congress to do anything of note, but I think it's incorrect to overlook the role that incompetent Democratic leadership plays in the equation. Pelosi and Reid can't even propose meaningless, symbolic legislation without making themselves and their party look bad (the Armenian Genocide condemnation flap) - how are they going to adopt and enforce a party wide legislative strategy?

If I were the Democrats, I'd focus on battles where the public is completely on their side for now - for example, raising the minimum wage. No Dem, not even the blue dogs, are going to be vulnerable to Republican attacks if they vote for that. As far as the Iraq War goes, I'd like to see it ended as much as anybody, but it ain't gonna happen while Bush is still in office and setting the strategic agenda, and failing to "support the troops" by continuing to fund it WOULD be an electoral catastrophe for Dems in conservative-leaning districts. Given that that's the case, I don't understand why the Democrats keep shooting themselves in the foot by grandstanding about de-funding it when they should know that's impossible for the time being. Hang on another 12 months and they won't have a problem if we've got President Obama or Edwards running the show (not sure about Hillary, though.)

[Xeynon]

I know it's fashionable to blame Bush, the Senate Republicans, and or the Octopus-like grip of corporate America on politics for the failure of the Democratic Congress to do anything of note, but I think it's incorrect to overlook the role that incompetent Democratic leadership plays in the equation. Pelosi and Reid can't even propose meaningless, symbolic legislation without making themselves and their party look bad (the Armenian Genocide condemnation flap) - how are they going to adopt and enforce a party wide legislative strategy?

If I were the Democrats, I'd focus on battles where the public is completely on their side for now - for example, raising the minimum wage. No Dem, not even the blue dogs, are going to be vulnerable to Republican attacks if they vote for that. As far as the Iraq War goes, I'd like to see it ended as much as anybody, but it ain't gonna happen while Bush is still in office and setting the strategic agenda, and failing to "support the troops" by continuing to fund it WOULD be an electoral catastrophe for Dems in conservative-leaning districts. Given that that's the case, I don't understand why the Democrats keep shooting themselves in the foot by grandstanding about de-funding it when they should know that's impossible for the time being. Hang on another 12 months and they won't have a problem if we've got President Obama or Edwards running the show (not sure about Hillary, though.)

[OCSteve]

Publius: As the year winds down, I would be remiss in not noting that I think you are a great addition as a front-pager here. Obviously we don’t often agree, but you make me think about things, and that is the most important thing. Welcome, and I hope you stick around…

[liberal japonicus]

One could regard the inability of the Dems in particular and liberal/left in general to agree upon a strategy as a feature rather than a bug. I agree completely that I wish they would get their s**t together, especially now, but I tend to think that a left/liberal worldview *generally* invokes a bottom up notion of power relationships, and the necessary result of viewing relationships like that is a certain lack of focus.

Finally, just to echo OCSteve's compliment, kudos for all your work here.

[Tony P.]

Being prepared means planning for contingencies -- even for horrible contingencies. The thing that worries me most about the Democrats in general, and the Democratic presidential candidates in particular, is their apparent lack of planning for the worst possible contingency: "the next 9/11".

Anyone who thinks we have invaded enough countries, tortured enough suspects, tapped enough phones, and hassled enough airline passengers to prevent "the next 9/11" is unfit to be President of the United States. Therefore, anyone who IS fit to be president must have a contingency plan for responding to "the next 9/11". In particular, any serious Democratic candidate for president ought to be prepared, now, to handle "the next 9/11" if it happens before the election.

The Republicans have it easy: if "the next 9/11" happens before the election (i.e. on Dubya's watch, again) they will proclaim that brave, steely-eyed Dubya's only fault was that he did NOT invade enough countries, torture enough suspects, tap enough phones, or hassle enough fliers. Rudy McRomney will assure us that they will rectify this shortcoming. Huckabee may promise, in addition, to pray harder to Jesus. Politically, the Republicans are ready if "the next 9/11" comes to pass in the next year.

Now, what about the Democrats? You'd think they could make the obvious response: all that invading, torturing, phone-tapping, and airport hassling DID NOT WORK, did it? But that's a logical argument. You can't get anywhere with logical arguments AFTER a nation goes, justifiably, nuts. So you have to make the logical argument NOW. You have to get the GOPers to declare, today, whether they believe "the next 9/11" will require more invading, torturing, tapping and hassling. Make them nail their colors to the mast now, while the country is marginally sane enough to grasp the absurdity of the GOP line.

It worries me that none of the Democratic candidates is making this point. It's almost as if they think we really ARE safer from al Qaida now than we were on 10 September 2001.

The risk, of course, is that the American electorate is NOT sane enough to handle talk of "the next 9/11", even today. But if that's true, then the Democrats are good and fucked already, and planning ahead is beside the point.

-- TP

[Gary Farber]

"If I were the Democrats, I'd focus on battles where the public is completely on their side for now - for example, raising the minimum wage."

The minimum wage was raised back in May.

[trilobite]

Good post, publius. Merry Xmas.

Some pure speculation follows:

I think the problem is ultimately due to gerrymandering. Which, given the last Supreme Court decision on the subject, means there's no solution until a much bigger crisis hits and makes the public pay attention. Simply put, most incumbents will not pay a price for doing nothing much. Sure, a few Dems get voted out because the party as a whole looks ineffective, but that's pretty random and arbitrary -- you're a lot more likely to lose by looking soft on crime/terrorism/gays, and that's still not much. Our incumbency rate is better than Soviet Russia's because we are so good at gerrymandering (and because our electorate does not pay much attention).

So, vote by vote, case by case, incumbents learn to sit back and not push hard. They can't do very much anyway until they build up seniority, and by then they and their staff internalize the timidity of the leadership. The only downside to not getting much done is that they don't get much done. And even that never really hits home, because they get lots done, it's just that very little of it makes a big change. It's probably very easy to get lost in the minutiae, even for a politician who started out as a devoted progressive. I'm sure most of them feel like they're fighting important battles when really they're just rearranging the deck chairs.

By the time they have enough seniority to matter, they've settled into the routine: they run full-time for reelection, reflexively avoid unsafe fights, and bury themselves in trivia. And they probably feel good about themselves because they're not using the same tactics the Republicans across the aisle are to get re-elected.

So, why work so hard at strategy, why pull together? Their jobs are pretty safe, they feel busy and virtuous, and nothing much is going to change anyway. Right?