More Than A Dime's Worth
Some time ago, I was sitting on my couch with a friend who is what I call a “Democrat by Inertia.” Commonly found in my neck of the woods, DBIs are those who continue to identify with the Democrat party, although their beliefs and values diverged paths with the party leadership some time ago. They continue to identify with the party just because their family always has identified with it.
This particular friend once told me that “if it was good enough for my granddaddy and daddy, it’s good enough for me.” As I tried to discuss the differences between the twenty-first century incarnations of the major parties, my friend could only grin, point his eyes to the ceiling, and say, “Seems like I remember something about Watergate, Iran-Contra, and things like that.” This little episode was called to my mind as I read a Washington Post story this morning on the plans for the Democrats to nationalize next year’s congressional elections.
The idea of nationalizing congressional elections is certainly not a new one. Led by Newt Gingrich, the Republicans used such tactics with great effect in 1994 when they won control of both houses of Congress. The Democrats’ Congressional Campaign Committee has even noted that a new series of small TV ad buys is but “the beginning of a campaign to fuel an anti-incumbent fever like the one that swept its party out in 1994.”
The problem is that a desire to sweep the party in power out is about all the current campaign, as envisioned by the Democrats, has in common with the 1994 GOP effort. Unlike the campaign that led to the “Gingrich Revolution,” the Democrats are focusing their efforts on attacking Republican House members on questions of ethics – beginning with six members who are targeted for their alleged ties to “special interests.”
But what people like those on the DCCC, as well as my friend, fail to grasp is that various and sundry scandals – ABSCAM, Watergate, House Banking, Pardongate, etc. – are what Democrats and Republicans have in common. Both parties have been caught up in such in their distant, and not so distant, past. And both will continue to have to deal with members caught up in scandals in the future. Indeed, even in the current dust up over congressional travel and relations with lobbyists, prominent members from both sides of the aisle are currently being investigated. This fact of political life may be the one instance where the oft-heard charge that “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference” between the parties is actually true.
What the parties do not have in common – and therefore what the American people should take note of when deciding which to support, or not to support – is what they stand for and what policies they advocate. This was the fact that the Republicans banked upon in 1994, by making their intentions for what they wanted to do if they were placed in power a matter of public record before the election. And, as it turned out, the American people liked what they heard.
What the people heard that year was what the Republicans stand for. If the early ad buy by the Democrats is an indication of how they intend to “nationalize” the 2006 elections, the American people can look forward only to hearing from them what/who they are against, with their best campaign slogan being, “We’re not the Republicans.” This type of strategy is more closely akin to the 1998 elections, when Republicans made their opposition to Bill Clinton their rallying cry – and lost seats in both houses.
Of course, this may be a purposeful difference from 1994 on the part of the DCCC. Judging by the results of the 1994 elections, when the people were allowed to evaluate both parties on what they stand for, it may be that the Democrats feel that their best chances lie not in informing the people of their positions, but in simply trying to tear down the image of their opponents in the eyes of the people, and hope nobody notices that they are avoiding a rational discussion of the issues. And if this is what they are thinking, I’d be inclined to agree.
This particular friend once told me that “if it was good enough for my granddaddy and daddy, it’s good enough for me.” As I tried to discuss the differences between the twenty-first century incarnations of the major parties, my friend could only grin, point his eyes to the ceiling, and say, “Seems like I remember something about Watergate, Iran-Contra, and things like that.” This little episode was called to my mind as I read a Washington Post story this morning on the plans for the Democrats to nationalize next year’s congressional elections.
The idea of nationalizing congressional elections is certainly not a new one. Led by Newt Gingrich, the Republicans used such tactics with great effect in 1994 when they won control of both houses of Congress. The Democrats’ Congressional Campaign Committee has even noted that a new series of small TV ad buys is but “the beginning of a campaign to fuel an anti-incumbent fever like the one that swept its party out in 1994.”
The problem is that a desire to sweep the party in power out is about all the current campaign, as envisioned by the Democrats, has in common with the 1994 GOP effort. Unlike the campaign that led to the “Gingrich Revolution,” the Democrats are focusing their efforts on attacking Republican House members on questions of ethics – beginning with six members who are targeted for their alleged ties to “special interests.”
But what people like those on the DCCC, as well as my friend, fail to grasp is that various and sundry scandals – ABSCAM, Watergate, House Banking, Pardongate, etc. – are what Democrats and Republicans have in common. Both parties have been caught up in such in their distant, and not so distant, past. And both will continue to have to deal with members caught up in scandals in the future. Indeed, even in the current dust up over congressional travel and relations with lobbyists, prominent members from both sides of the aisle are currently being investigated. This fact of political life may be the one instance where the oft-heard charge that “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference” between the parties is actually true.
What the parties do not have in common – and therefore what the American people should take note of when deciding which to support, or not to support – is what they stand for and what policies they advocate. This was the fact that the Republicans banked upon in 1994, by making their intentions for what they wanted to do if they were placed in power a matter of public record before the election. And, as it turned out, the American people liked what they heard.
What the people heard that year was what the Republicans stand for. If the early ad buy by the Democrats is an indication of how they intend to “nationalize” the 2006 elections, the American people can look forward only to hearing from them what/who they are against, with their best campaign slogan being, “We’re not the Republicans.” This type of strategy is more closely akin to the 1998 elections, when Republicans made their opposition to Bill Clinton their rallying cry – and lost seats in both houses.
Of course, this may be a purposeful difference from 1994 on the part of the DCCC. Judging by the results of the 1994 elections, when the people were allowed to evaluate both parties on what they stand for, it may be that the Democrats feel that their best chances lie not in informing the people of their positions, but in simply trying to tear down the image of their opponents in the eyes of the people, and hope nobody notices that they are avoiding a rational discussion of the issues. And if this is what they are thinking, I’d be inclined to agree.
posted by JeffreyH | 12:10 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home