As hard as you might try, you’ll probably never forget the words “I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it.” That awkward phrase was supposed to explain why he’d voted against funding the Iraq war (Kerry wanted to pay for the effort by raising taxes on the wealthy–but Republicans didn’t want to pay for it at all). But instead it haunted Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) for months until the day he lost the 2004 election.
Fast forward to 2009, when Republicans did much the same–voting against war funding under Obama after years of supporting it under Bush — and yet they’re poised for a landslide victory in the 2010 midterms. Why can’t Democrats make stuff like this stick? That’s a question with many answers. And with the economy in the pits, Democrats have done themselves few favors by not learning them.
“The Democrats have not done what they could do if they were willing and able to play political hardball to turn those issues into an electoral asset,” says Congressional expert Norm Ornstein. “You have a large number of Republicans who are on the record as voting against ending preexisting conditions…extending insurance to children. You do have these votes on omnibus bills where [Republicans] voted against funding the troops.”
Back in the day, Ornstein adds, “Republicans used votes on omnibus bills against Democrats” all the time.
This is a perennial problem for Democrats who, Ornstein says, find themselves on the opposite end of the governing spectrum from Republicans. Whereas Republicans don’t really have a constructive agenda and “have much more of a focus on how you frame issues politically, Dems just aren’t as good at that. They tend to think first about their governing agenda.”
Going into the 2010 midterms, Democrats face political problems, most of which are rooted in the fact that the economy is still slumping and unemployment is sky high. But though Democrats have pursued an ambitious legislative agenda–and though they remain more popular than their Republican nemeses–they haven’t been able to translate their policy initiatives into a political liability for their opponents. And that’s allowed the Republicans to assume a mantle of populism even as they’ve stood in the way of a number of populist causes.
In 2003 and 2004, by contrast, Republicans approached the coming election with their eyes on politics. Perhaps to a fault. But that meant they would routinely force congressional Democrats to take difficult “wedge” votes–on symbolic issues like gay marriage and national security–and then use those votes against them.
The same phenomenon presented itself when Democrats were in the minority. The rules of the House of Representatives allow the minority to force contentious procedural votes. These “motions to recommit” can kill major legislation, and don’t have to be germane to the issue being debated. So a war-funding bill can be sidelined because members aren’t willing to cast an unrelated symbolic votes that might put them at odds with their base.
“Democrats had opportunities there, and the main opportunity was with the motion to recommit with instructions,” Ornstein says of the Bush years. “Democrats did not regularly use that as a political vehicle.”
(Both Republicans and Democrats in the House have become fairly disciplined, and don’t often allow motions to recommit to derail important legislation.)
Part of the problem, Ornstein says, is that Democrats don’t have a vast propaganda machine.
“When an issue emerges–how to pound away at it? You don’t need to [conspire]…Republicans just kind of know how to do that,” Ornstein says. “It becomes an echo chamber that once its out there for a bit, bleeds over to the rest of the press. If it doesn’t, then those entities [Rush Limbaugh, etc.] pound away at the Times, the Post and the Sunday talk shows for ignoring a big story.”
That echo chamber goes hand in glove with a separate advantage Republicans have: a willingness that Democrats lack to tell huge whoppers about their opponents.
“Republicans are wiling to take rhetoric that goes way beyond reality–continuing to talk about the health care plan as a government takeover. It doesn’t matter much if you can take the fact and say it’s not true.” Once it’s out there, it’s out for good.
