Democrats Are Politically Stupid

Posted By MJ

One would think after losing two straight presidential elections the Democratic National Committee would learn a few tricks and find a solid voice. Not since Bill Clinton has the Democratic Party had a politically savvy leader. Even then, some Democrats were at odds with President Clinton’s policies and his centrist views. Some people say that George W. Bush, who appears to be intellectually dumb, is actually politically smart. I disagree with this notion also. Sure I think Bush is smart when it comes to politics, but I think that Bush assuredly has one of the smartest political advisors of a generation when it comes to Karl Rove.

Of course, that all depends on what you consider “politically smart” to be. If you consider the strategy of playing off people’s fears and hypothetical situations while translating that into votes (it worked for JFK in 1960) to be politically smart, then yes I consider Rove politically intelligent. The problem for Democrats is they think they have to be the polar opposite of anything Republican. The same is true for Republicans as well, but Republicans do it in such a way that they appear more steadfast, or actually, more stable.

For some time now, Democrats have been playing right into the Republican playbook. Even President Clinton admitted recently that he probably made a mistake by refusing to negotiate healthcare reform with Republicans in the 90s. Clinton’s lack of compromise resulted in a flat-lined healthcare plan that probably became one of the biggest bruises (next to impeachment) of the Clinton administration. The Republicans loved stifling an incumbent president’s proposal, especially considering First Lady Hillary was in charge of it. But, by 1998 Republicans learned forcing their agenda too strongly proved very costly at election time.

So, what Republicans have learned to do, is to let Democrats define the debate. In other words, Republicans throw out a bone and Democrats fetch it. And not since 1998 have Republicans lost a single seat in the Congress.

There are many examples I could use to prove my point, but I think the Social Security debate will suffice.

Essentially the SS debate is not about privatizing voluntary accounts; it’s about complete SS phase out. Since its inception Republicans have been against Social Security. Maybe it’s the word “social” they spurn the most; all the same, the demise of SS is their goal, whether in stages or one giant swoop.

The Democrats, however, have failed to recognize this. For some idiotic reason, the Democrats want to debate Bush on the social aspects of leaving in place a form of universal coverage government. And a socialist debate about a welfare state and “ownership” accountability is exactly what Bush- actually it’s Rove- wants. What better for Republicans than to have a national debate about capitalism?

Eventually, capitalism is right where this debate could end up going. For instance, worse comes to worse, Bush loses his bid to phase out SS at this time. The Republicans are then forced to compromise with the minority Democrats. And knowing full well, that if Clinton had compromised in the 90s with healthcare reform, at the very least he would have looked like a president doing whatever is best for the country, and doing whatever it took to achieve something that he assuredly believed in. Compromising SS privatization in a Republican controlled government will still present the majority party with the upper-hand; and eventually only benefit the Republicans while giving off the presence that Bush did whatever he could to thwart off some sort of SS crisis and do-nothing Democrats. Phase out isn’t achieved, but a national debate about socialism, capitalism, welfare and the American way of life is. The Republicans already have this all thought out. And they are steadfast enough to make it happen.

Now, that does not change the fact that Bush and other Neocons have as their ultimate goal the complete phase out of SS. It just means they are willing to do whatever to ensure a political victory.

I could name so many other political issues that Republicans just throw out in the air and let the Democrats debate. Abortion, gay marriage, taxes and war and defense are just a few. Notice since Bush’s reelection, he has stated that he would not push for a Constitutional ban on gay marriage and has said even less about abortion, yet the Democrats won’t shut up about either. However, come late 2005 and all through 2006, Republicans, led by Bush, will be throwing out the gay marriage and abortion bone, and once again we will all hear how strong of leaders Republican's are during war.

Strategically, Democrats won’t stand a chance until they can learn to define their own debates. A start would be to not fetch this SS bone and start publicly blasting how many times Bush has already flip-flopped on the issue since last November- not to mention since his unsuccessful bid for Congress in the 70s. It’s not rocket science. More than anything, Democrats have to learn that common ground is a base.