Spencer Critchley

Democratic Party

THIS is what it looks like when Democrats stand for something

by

Last time, I cited a textbook example of how Democrats lose elections by campaigning as bureaucrats instead of leaders.

This time, I’m happy to point to a textbook example of the opposite: Michigan State Senator Mallory McMorrow’s powerful denunciation of a false and hateful attack on her by a GOP colleague.

You may very well have seen it, since it’s gone viral. If you haven’t, I hope you’ll watch it now. It’s fantastic.

Why? Because McMorrow shows how you answer the all-too-pressing question of what Democrats stand for: You stand for it.

This wasn’t “messaging.” It was presence.

Too many educated but alienated Democrats, from left to center, struggle to conjure this simple but elusive phenomenon.

It isn’t McMorrow’s policies that are so persuasive here, the packets of information being transmitted from her brain to our brains. It’s her obvious, full-body, bone-deep commitment to the values behind those policies.

I’ll bet there are plenty of voters who disagree with some of her policies who would still vote for her. Most voters don’t actually care about much about policies, or even understand them very well. They care about what McMorrow showed them.

I sure hope the many Democratic politicians studying her video right now can see what that is.

The “Democratic Establishment” Is Working & Middle Class African-Americans

by

Narratives settle in and effectively become reality, even when they’re wrong. The story that the “Democratic establishment” turned around the primary for Joe Biden is not only wrong, but insulting to the very voters Democrats need in order to win. Biden’s campaign was saved by the mostly African-American, working and middle class people of South Carolina, with a huge assist from a trusted local leader, Rep. Jim Clyburn. Otherwise, Biden would have lost, or squeezed out a disappointingly narrow win, and we wouldn’t have seen the cascade of support for him on Monday. On Tuesday, he won other states thanks to a lot of other working and middle class voters, with more strong support in particular among African-Americans.

A key reason for the willingness to believe the “establishment” narrative is also a key reason why Democrats lose elections we should win: we’re strong on economics and really bad on culture. The narrative depends on the mistaken belief, going all the way back to Marx and still hanging in even among people who don’t think of themselves as Marxists, that there’s a monolithic working class and that its economic struggle against the capitalist class explains everything about history and politics.

But as Marx might have learned if he had lived long enough to overlap with the field of psychology, there is a working class when it come to income levels and some shared economic interests, but not when it comes to behavior. Instead there are millions and millions of individuals who are members of wildly variable cultures.

I’d guess, for example, that many people would be surprised to learn that even though a huge majority of African-Americans are Democrats, only about a quarter identify as liberals.

Culture frequently trumps economics when it comes to behavior — as it did with Trump, BTW. This leaves many on the left scratching their heads and wondering what just happened to them — again. They ask themselves questions like, “What’s the Matter With Kansas?” Their confusion comes from a mistaken worldview that thinks economics drives everything.

What’s the matter with Kansas is that a lot of white working class people who used to vote Democratic stopped doing that because of culture.

And more black people might too, if they keep having the experience of being overlooked, taken for granted — or outright insulted, like we’re seeing right now.

The Democrats’ Circular Firing Squad Is In Full Effect

by

There’s nothing we Democrats like better than a fight — with each other.

Even now, when we face a threat analogous to a giant asteroid hurtling towards Earth, our response is to form a circular firing squad.

As we see with the current Bernie-Elizabeth battle. It has hurt both of them while helping Trump, by providing new themes for his attack ads:

“Bernie Sanders hates women!”

“Elizabeth Warren loves fat cats!”

Neither of these charges — originating, remember, with Democrats — is remotely likely to be true. But what does Trump care?

Truth is for chumps, not Trumps.

Am I arguing that the Democratic primary candidates shouldn’t criticize each other? Of course not. The point of a primary is debate.

But attacking the character of a candidate from your own party is both destructive and strategically stupid:

  • The odds are, and never more so than now with such a crowded field, that you are not going to be the nominee. If you damage the person who is, you are hurting your side’s cause in the general election.
  • You’re damaging your own cause, too. If and when you eventually have to praise the candidate you’re now attacking, your personal brand will take on a heavy admixture of “just another political hack.” (Hi there, Lindsey Graham.)
  • And although the conventional wisdom says candidates must show their “toughness” like this, that advice comes from consultants who should have learned better after losing so many elections. Democrats have a natural electoral advantage against a Republican Party that mostly serves the rich by exploiting the anger of rural whites. And yet, going back to the 1960’s, Democrats have managed to lose more than they win.

Yes, toughness can be good. But it falls flat when there’s too much show in the showing. Then the attacker looks the opposite of tough: fearful, reactive, and led — by circumstances, staff, and polls — instead of leading.

That’s the impression left by Elizabeth Warren’s charge that Bernie told her a woman is unlikely to be elected President.

It’s also the impression left by Bernie supporters, with what looks like his tacit approval, when they claim that the formerly Republican Warren is secretly in the pocket of the plutocrats she now goes after.

Neither claim is credible, and both do more harm than good, to both candidates, to Democrats overall, and, in this election, to democracy itself, which is under attack by the worst president in history — the giant asteroid.

Lately, we hear there’s a truce between the Sanders and Warren factions. A hopeful sign?

Nope. The point of the truce appears to be to enable both camps to train their fire on moderates like Biden and Buttigieg — or Steyer, Bloomberg, Klobuchar, or Yang, if and when any of those surges in the polls.

Again, should there be a vigorous debate of policy? Yes, yes, yes. But to claim, for example, that Joe Biden is against Social Security, as we hear now from the Sanders campaign?

Destructive and strategically stupid.

In citing Sanders and Warren, I don’t mean to suggest that it’s only progressives who join the circular firing squad. In this primary, moderates like Kamala Harris, Eric Swalwell, and even the usually Buddha-like Cory Booker resorted to friendly fire, before dropping out of the race. In the 2008 primary, Hillary Clinton (whose 2016 campaign I did some work for), engaged in some shameful attacks on fellow moderate Barack Obama (both of whose campaigns I worked for).

If the circular firing squad had somehow produced a record of success, volunteering for it might make some sense. But ask Hillary, Kamala, Eric, Cory, and the rest how well it worked for them. Then compare the records of happier warriors like Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, Obama, and, in the current cycle, Biden, who have kept their eyes on the true prize.

Unlike with a real firing squad, no one is forced to serve on a political one. The candidates, and we their supporters, can simply decline the invitation to participate in mutually assured destruction.

Is it too much to ask?

UPDATE, Jan. 21, 2020: Just in the two days since this was posted we’ve seen two more volleys by the circular firing squad:

  • The Bernie Sanders campaign circulated an op-ed accusing Joe Biden of “corruption.” So if Biden becomes the nominee, as is entirely likely, the Trump campaign will be able to quote Bernie saying he’s corrupt. And Bernie (to be precise, his campaign) said it just before the impeachment trial, during which Trump will try to make the same claim. This was, as I argue above, destructive and strategically stupid. I’m glad to see Bernie has since apologized.
  • Hillary Clinton was quoted as saying “nobody likes” Bernie Sanders and that she couldn’t commit to endorsing him if he becomes the nominee. If he does, Trump will quote her saying Bernie “got nothing done” in Congress and that he’s “all baloney.” Hillary’s comments were destructive and stupid, too. I’m only sort of glad to see that Hillary has only sort of backpedaled.
Illustration of a circular firing squad aiming at the year 2020.

Running From the Polls, Democrats Stumble Into Leading on Impeachment

by

As I’m not the first to point out, when Democrats see bad polls, they run from them. When Republicans see bad polls, they change them, through persuasion.* With polls showing a dramatic swing in favor of impeaching President Trump, Congressional Democrats have stumbled into leading on the issue, now that leading and fleeing point in the same direction.

On Friday’s “Morning Joe” (Sept 27, 2019), House Speaker Nancy Pelosi explained her new support for impeachment: her position hasn’t changed, the situation has changed, because the glaring clarity of Trump’s abuse of power in the Ukraine scandal has made the case for impeachment so easy for the public to see and understand. She quoted Abraham Lincoln’s famous assertion (from his first debate with Stephen Douglas):

With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed.

I respect Pelosi, and I often agree with her choices of pragmatism over purity. But here’s what’s missing from her precis of politics: the rest of what Lincoln said.

…Consequently he who moulds public sentiment, goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions. He makes statutes and decisions possible or impossible to be executed. [Emphasis added.]

The case for Trump’s impeachment was made a long time ago, certainly by the time Robert Mueller released his report and came as close as he could to calling for it in the face of the Office of Legal Counsel’s directive against indicting a sitting president. But Congressional Democrats couldn’t rise to the challenge of making the case to the public.

They had to wait for Trump to do that for them.

All smart politicians check polls, often daily. But there’s a difference between checking polls and being led by them. Leadership means standing in front of the crowd, not behind.

Democrats in Congress now find themselves in front of a crowd, one that’s growing. All they need to do is to keep moving forward. Hopefully they’ll get used to the feeling.

*I think I first heard Bill Maher say this, but I’m not sure if he originated it.

Smacked Around by the Schoolyard Bully, Congressional Democrats Threaten to Maybe Someday Do Something

by

I often call out Republicans in Congress for their cowardice and complicity in the face of Trump’s assault on our democracy. But many Congressional Democrats are making it hard to see how they’re any better.

Caricature of the Marquess of Queensberry, namesake of the boxing rules, from Vanity Fair, Nov. 10, 1877 via Wikimedia Commons
Caricature of the Marquess of Queensberry, namesake of the boxing rules, from Vanity Fair, Nov. 10, 1877 via Wikimedia Commons

If these Democrats continue to say that Trump is guilty of impeachable offenses, as he so obviously is, but then shy away from impeaching him, their overriding message, no matter what explanation they offer, is that they’re too weak and fearful to follow words with actions.

It would be better just to stay quiet.

Like it would be better not to invite people like Corey Lewandowski to show utter contempt for Congress, and just sit there and take it. They only play the helpless victims of the schoolyard bully:

SMACK — “Hey! That’s not right!”
 SMACK — “You’re breaking the rules!
 SMACK — “If you do that again, I’ll tell!”
 SMACK.

Given the choice between the bully and the bully’s victims, many voters will choose the bully.

They may feel sorry for the victims. But they sure won’t follow them.

That’s because above all, leadership requires strength, or at least the appearance of it. If you can’t stand up for us, why would we stand behind you?

And you can’t convince people you’re strong by talking about it. You have to show it.

It means you may have to get in an actual fight, which means getting hit, and hitting back. Not scheduling a meeting to consider hitting back at some point in the future.

Most importantly, getting in an actual fight means taking the risk that you’ll lose.

That’s scary — but that’s all it is. Leaders know that losing is not the worst outcome.

If you do lose, you still will have shown the character and courage of a leader, one who can lead again in the next battle, or inspire others to.

But if you won’t even fight, you’ve lost already.

And you should face, at least, this: You’re not a leader.