Dems can win elections without selling their soul
______________________
by Gilbert Martinez
the Stanford Progressive
a Stanford University Voluntary Student Organization
April 2005
progressive.stanford.edu
----------------------
Mentioning “Karl Rove” to progressives and Democratic candidates is a lot like mentioning the boogey man to children. You get to watch them cower.
Rove has earned the attention of any Democratic office holder or would be candidate—by winning bitter and nasty campaigns. His win-at-all-costs campaigns have made him highly regarded amongst conservatives and highly despised by Democrats. Nonetheless, many are calling for the Democratic Karl Rove. But before getting too enamored with this thought, it is worth revisiting Rove’s last three big election successes: the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections and the 2002 mid-term election.
In 2000, Rove faced an uninspiring candidate embattled by the Clinton controversy. For most of the campaign, George Bush was the candidate to beat. Al Gore faced a hostile media that shamefully misrepresented his statements, while Bush faced few questions on his National Guard service or past drug experience—strikingly, much research has shown that Gore had considerably more negative press. Yet Bush still managed to lose the popular vote and dubiously won the electoral votes. Bush’s primary win against a then unknown John McCain was considered by some on both sides of the aisle as one of the dirtiest campaigns ever ran—at one point, rumors circulated that McCain had a secret, half-Vietnamese child out of wedlock.
Immediately after the September 11th attacks, Rove publicly stated that Republicans needed to exploit the atrocities to help them win. The lead-up to the 2002 midterm elections was dominated by discussion of Iraq and it’s importance to the war on terror. Not surprisingly, many Democratic candidates were portrayed next to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. The exploitation of people’s fear and anger helped them win. (When such tactics were carried out during the Democratic primaries, they were quickly condemned.)
As a wartime president, Bush went unopposed during the 2004 primaries and raised over $200 million. Immediately after John Kerry became the Democratic candidate, Rove and company spent tens of millions of dollars on what the Washington Post called the most negative campaign by an incumbent president in history. The Swift Boat Veterans’ attacks on Kerry were discredited, but only after they had made the desired impact. One Bush campaign advisor resigned due to his connection with the group. Again, Bush faced a docile media that failed to challenge blatant distortions. Despite all this, Bush won in the closest reelection campaign for an incumbent president—and incumbent wartime president at that.
While Rove has been successful, he has had to rely on campaigns that will no doubt go down in history for their negativity and the exploitation of peoples’ fears. Before asking for a Democratic Karl Rove, Democrats should ask whether that is they truly want.
Of course, there are examples of better Democratic advisors. David Axelrod’s media strategy helped turn Illinois Senator Barack Obama from an unknown to the Party’s most promising rising star. Melissa Bean’s surprising Congressional win over Republican incumbent Phil Krane was largely aided by pollster Anna Bennett.
These two are excellent examples of winning the right way: with a positive message based on the issues. |
