Why the Dems Are Losing
They're waging a permanent campaign by seeking temporary advantage.
BY BRENDAN MINITER
Tuesday, November 18, 2003 12:01 a.m. WSJ.com
When are Democrats going realize that campaigning may be what's costing them elections?
It's not the normal electioneering that precedes Election Day that's the problem. Rather it's "The Permanent Campaign," a term future Clinton operative Sidney Blumenthal coined in his 1980 book of the same name. President Clinton was a master at this form of retail politics. He raised enormous sums of money at grip-and-grin fund-raisers throughout his presidency. His poll tests and focus groups were legendary. And despite repeated scandals and impeachment, he managed to stay ahead of the public's mood.
That, however, was a more tranquil time. Since Sept. 11, events have been moving too fast to lead by following polls. The times now call for real leadership, not political gimmickry. Those tricks can work during the short duration of a campaign. But they aren't tactics that will work for a party out of power facing a party with real governing accomplishments during wartime. The Democrats have tried to seize every apparent advantage only to find that they can't keep up with events.
That's what happened with the economy. Democratic presidential candidates have been taking cheap shots at President Bush almost since he took office. Instead of offering real plans to get out of the mess and acknowledging the realities of the Sept. 11 attacks, they blast away on tax cuts for "the wealthy" and yelled about three million lost jobs. That was fun while it lasted, but the economy is turning around. Sure, they'll chant the mantra of a "jobless recovery" for awhile, but only until hiring picks up again.
The Democrats have seen even more ups and downs on the war in Iraq and against global terrorism. The party has jumped at every perceived momentary opening, winning some short-term gains even as it now finds itself shaken up and on the floor. Missing pre-Sept. 11 intelligence, abusing detainees in Cuba, and overreaching with the Patriot were all supposed to weaken the Bush administration.
But in each case things turned against the Democrats. Missing pre-Sept. 11 intelligence isn't as important as preventing the next terrorist attack on U.S. soil. They detainees, it turns out, are being treated very well, just kept under close guard. And the story about those poor librarians disappeared as soon as Attorney General John Ashcroft announced that the Justice Department has never used Patriot Act provision in question. No one was throwing the book at librarians.
Last year the Democrats tried to buy union support by insisting on civil service protections in the Department of Homeland Security. That move cost them control of the Senate when Max Cleland went down to defeat in Georgia last year. His conservative constituents were more interested in national security than union job security.
<font size=5>
There's also that internal Senate Democratic memo that reveals the politicization of pre-Iraq war intelligence hearings. Everyone now knows the Democrats planned to drag hearings out just to damage the president, not for national-security reasons. Barking about prewar intelligence is now seen for what it always was, partisan politics.
<font size=3>
The permanent campaign is causing the most damage to the Democratic presidential candidates. Sen. John Kerry voted to oust Saddam Hussein when it seemed like the popular thing to do. He then hit the ground hard among Democratic primary voters and has since been struggling to explain how he favored authorizing war but opposed waging it. To lesser degrees, Dick Gephardt and John Edwards have also tried to distance themselves from the war they backed. For his part, Wesley Clark is just standing off to the side looking dazed. He can't decide where he stands on the war because he's not really sure which position will put him on top.
Howard Dean is the only Democrat to negotiate the war issue successfully. (Mr. Gephardt may yet give Dr. Dean a run for his money, thanks to his strong private-sector union support from years of carrying water for organized labor.) He did that by doggedly staking out a principled position and sticking to it despite the news. But he will have a chance of winning the general election only if Iraq is a disaster a year from now. If by next November Saddam is in custody and Iraq is stable and sovereign, there will be no serious antiwar resentment for Dr. Dean to tap into.
It didn't have to be this way for the Democrats. The party was fully capable of staking out a principled opposition without riding the ups and downs of news events. The one "candidate" who seems to have understood this is Hillary Clinton. She's remained popular not only because of her celebrity, but because somehow she's kept herself out of the spotlight. Instead of yammering away at President Bush every time he seemed weak on the issue du jour, she's earned a reputation for governing as a senator. That's a better electoral strategy than playing cheap politics.
Mr. Miniter is assistant editor of OpinionJournal.com. His column appears Tuesdays.
opinionjournal.com |
