Thursday, November 1, 2007

In politics, the enemy is your friend


Brad DeLong misses his rendez-vous with Carl Schmitt:
There are, in general, three ways to compete for the majority of the votes:
  1. To demonstrate that you will implement policies that will make the majority of potential voters freer, more prosperous, and happier.
  2. To convince a majority of voters that they are under an obligation to vote for your party because that is, fundamentally, who the are.
  3. To convince a majority that they are threatened by vicious and deadly enemies--and that the other party is, at some level, in league with those enemies.

The northern Democratic Party has by and large pursued the first. The northern Republican Party used to pursue the second--with Civil War memorials and Lincoln Day speaches and how the sainted martyr Abraham had saved in the Union and it was our duty to his memory to carry forward his banner.

Starting early in the twentieth century, however the Republican Party has been increasingly pursuing the third...

In the real world, (2) and (3) are actually the same thing and (1) is not possible without the other two. The only way to convince people that your political party is, fundamentally, who they are is to also make it clear that those people -- those people over there, you know who I'm talking about -- are not. They're your enemies, they want to do you harm and if you vote for the other ticket, you're voting for them.

Take the northern Republican Party of yore that Brad admires (and not wholly without reason). Of course they held Civil War memorials and made Lincoln Day speeches. But then in the peroration, they would always remind their audience once more of the perfidy of that party, the party of Rum, Romanism and Rebellion. (See the Thomas Nast cartoon above - the priest and the Irishman carving up the goose that laid the Democrats' golden eggs.)

What about the Northern Democratic Party of yore, supposedly a follower of (1)? Tom Frank once wrote about Harry Truman's Turnip Day speech, which he delivered during the 1948 campaign:

Truman was explicit: “[T]he Democratic Party is the people’s party, and the Republican Party is the party of special interest, and it always has been and always will be.” He reveled in what Mr. Klein would call “class war,” calling a Republican tax cut a “rich man’s tax bill” that “helps the rich and sticks a knife into the back of the poor” and describing politics as a contest between the “common everyday man” and the “favored classes,” the “privileged few.” Even more astonishingly, Truman went on to talk policy in some detail, with special emphasis on Mr. Klein’s hated “jobs, health-care, and blah-blah-blah”: He called for the construction of public housing, an increase in the minimum wage, expansion of Social Security, a national health-care program and the repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act. And this sort of high-octane oratory propelled Truman on to win the election in a historic upset.


Note that in this speech, Truman clinches (1) through a studied combination of (2) and (3). And if you read the speeches of Robert Wagner or FDR you'll find the same thing.

And today's Democratic Party? Over the past few decades, aided by a capacious social vision and and soaring oratorical command, the Democrats have perfected a form of political appeal more stirring and irresistible to the democratic masses than any ever devised. I'd summarize it this way: "This election isn't about ideology. It's about competence."

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

David Brooks: Hope springs eternal






















Today's Brooks on "The Happiness Gap":

this election will be shaped by the gap within individual voters themselves — the gap between their private optimism and their public gloom....

....The polling — and I, for one, believe people are pretty sensible when it comes to evaluating their own lives — suggests that people are not personally miserable or downtrodden.

Their homes are bigger. They own more cars. They feel more affluent. In a segmented nation, they have built lifestyle niches for themselves where they feel optimistic and fulfilled.


Today's report from Stan Greenberg's polling shop (PDF):

In the focus groups, we handed people a page of
positive facts about the economy – and we nearly
had to rescue the moderator from the disbelieving
and angry participants. In fact, before this
exercise, we asked people to write down two
important things happening with the economy and
none of the 40 participants said anything
positive, with their negative notations centered
on the high “cost of living.” It is hard to
underestimate the power of a Democratic message
that simply recognizes the economic realities
that are very real for these voters. Indeed, the
very invisibility of their issues is for them
evidence that this economy works for the big
economic actors, not for average Americans: “this
applies to a bigger business and the wealthy”;
“it’s about big business, not the little guy”;
“CEOs at the top of corporations worrying more
about themselves instead of their companies”;
“yes, thank you”; “It is not for the average
family”; “this is probably true but not for us.”

...

These swing voters – about half non-college and
half college graduates – nearly attacked the
moderator because many are on the edge: “Over
half of Americans are what? Two paydays away from
living on the street”; “absolutely”; “that’s me.”
Nobody except the super-rich has seen salary
increases in years; not if you are in a “straight
regular job”; “people don’t make any raises,” and
if you are lucky, your spouse gets 2 percent in
some years. Some are working 2nd and 3rd jobs
because they “can’t make ends meet”; “I’ve never
known so many people to have two jobs or more
than I have lately.” Still, “they are cutting
back on everything.” They are struggling to fill
up the gas tank twice a week; and they fear a
visit to the hospital will wipe them out. They
are watching their own companies, even the large
ones, reduce and freeze hiring. They talk about
Wal-Mart almost wistfully – not with resentment
or anger – as a place where a lot of people
losing out on good jobs “have to put food on the
table. They have to pay the electric bill.” And
one woman interrupted the moderator trying to
move on, “I hope I don’t get to the point where
I’m that desperate where I have to go work at
Wal-Mart.”
Such an optimistic bunch. They even talk "wistfully" of having to work at Wal-Mart.