More on Strategy

At the weekend, I interjected my thoughts into a salon on the analysis of a recent study that, at its essence, reiterates the claim that the Dems are too liberal and must move center to win a majority. The Gadflyer’s Paul Waldman has also posted a response to the Galston and Kamarck study, in which he deems the report “appallingly wrong,” and explains why.

The ugly fact of American public opinion is that most people know next to nothing about politics. They don't have a clear understanding of where the parties stand on most things, and they don't have a meaningful grasp of exactly what it means to be "liberal" or "conservative." Tweaking your issue positions just won't register with them.

Let me offer a bit of supporting evidence. Since 1964, the National Election Study has asked respondents, "Which party do you think is more likely to favor a stronger government in Washington?" Regardless of recent developments in the Bush administration, for those immersed in politics the logical answer to this question is the Democrats. So how many Americans respond that way? In 1964, during the reign of that apostle of big government, Lyndon Johnson, the number was 35%. In 2000, 23% said the Democrats, while 50% said they didn't know. Similarly, until 1992 the NES asked respondents which party is more conservative on the national level. This may be the most basic fact about American politics one could imagine; if you don't know that the answer is "the Republicans," then you really don't know anything. The last time the proportion of people answering this question correctly cracked 60% was 1968; the last time it was asked, in 1992, 57% got it right (and they had a 50-50 chance by guessing, after all).

What these data tell us is that the content of ideology and the meaning of ideological terms is utterly opaque to most Americans. The notion that a party can make a few of their positions more "centrist" and widen their appeal is thus simply false.

This is, of course, not the only supporting evidence that a party’s positions alone can’t win elections. Poll after poll indicates that the majority of Americans side with the Democrats’ positions on key issues. The problem, of course, is that elections are, fairly or not, about more than policy. Waldman notes:

The fact is that Democrats lose not because voters reject their policies, but because voters reject them.

This is what the entire DLC crowd seems not to understand. Elections, particularly presidential elections, aren't about what you want to do, they're about who you are.

And, in reality, not even who you are, but who you appear to be. Therein lies the problem for many liberals; we don’t call ourselves the reality-based community for nothing. We believe in truth and reason, and to many of us, the absurdity of wholly created personas for the express purpose of winning elections is anathematic. Yet Bush’s fabricated façade has been unquestioningly embraced as authentic by many Americans. Political junkies see through it—those who admire him know the truth and simply don’t care—but his veneer is solid in most quarters; even many disinterested Dem voters don’t rigorously question his cowboy credentials. This is the reality with which we are faced, even as much as we don’t like it.

So what are the Democrats to do, as they continue to win on issues, but lose elections? As the process remains rigged in favor of smoke and mirrors? As policy matters less and less, and politics matters more and more?

I don’t have the answer. It seems a liberal candidate of integrity can’t win in this environment unless s/he is also gifted with a universally appealing personality that the media consents to fairly articulate. If that’s an accurate assessment, all of America loses no matter who wins elections.