Democratic Demolition Derby

Democrats have had big losses across America this past election, and they are once again puzzled and confused because they believe that “people are voting against their own self interests.” Is it possible that Democrats themselves are not very good at understanding the self-interests of others?

The Democrat’s perception of the issue is that Democrats stand for everything that Americans want and need; lower taxes on individuals, universal and inexpensive public education, social programs for the old, poor, and infirm, etc., and that the voters are either uninformed or unappreciative of that fact.

While Democrats do indeed have a long and proud history of standing up for the little guy, much of that is viewed as ancient history, and what isn’t ancient history is so poorly presented by Democrats as to make it irrelevant. To rephrase Thomas Jefferson; “If you think the people are incapable of understanding an issue you are not explaining it so it can be understood.”

There is no dearth of advice to Democrats as to how best to communicate with voters; be assertive, not passive, use words that communicate your values in terms others can understand and relate to, rather than use political jargon (George Lakoff has been a voice crying in the wilderness for years), but there don’t seem to be any takers, outside of the rank and file Democrats who say, “Yes, yes, go for it.” But the rank and file doesn’t make party policy, and those who do aren’t interested.

David Domke, chairman of the University of Washington’s Department of Communication, has likened political party allegiance to how sports fans pick their favorite team. He holds that it is much more of an emotional attachment than an intellectual one. Democrats, however, continue to rely on logic to make their case. Unhappily, logic is their enemy.

Democratic election strategy seems much more cautious – and much less passionate – than it needs to be, and perhaps much more strategic than it should be. Because of the economy of getting votes in Democratic strongholds (mostly urban) there has been a lack of interest in going for votes in other areas. This has led, in Montana, to a polarization of urban and rural voters which is not good for democracy or America.

While Democrats may like to talk about “grassroots” campaigns, there aren’t any out there, or at least not where it would make a difference. True, they do have huge “grassroots” efforts to get people to the, polls, but that’s only at harvest time, and the planting and cultivation of Democratic values goes untended.

When parties raise money, which is neither easy nor fun, they do it with winning statewide or national elections in mind, so almost all of that money is dedicated for use in the election cycle and not for party building. When parties go after votes they concentrate on fertile pastures and neglect the marginally productive fields. That dynamic of concentrating on national or statewide elections coupled with the strategy of easy pickings have worked together to make the cultivation of the grassroots less than an afterthought.

As further polarization takes place there is a purging of the “impure” in both parties. This not only leads to further polarization, it replaces candidates who actually think about issues with candidates who merely react to them. In less polarized areas the distinction between parties is blurred by the over cautious approach of Democrats who present themselves as “Republican Lite”.

If Dems have something to say, they need to say it with conviction and passion. America needs candidates who run for office because they stand for something worthwhile, not because they need to win at all costs.

In short, making your case to the American public is more important than winning, because once that case is successfully made, the winning will follow. Now would be a good time to start.