American politics summed up

The post-mortem on the Presidential election started about 5 minutes after the result was formally declared, but after the passage of six months we are starting to get some facts, as opposed to speculation.  I weighed in on this topic previously, but it is worth raising the issue again now that some details are known.

What has come out is frankly not surprising. The major contribution is Shattered, a book by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes.  Without getting too much into the weeds, the book observes that one problem was that the Clinton campaign had no message except that Hilary Clinton ought to be President. This is not a revelation, given that the commercials for her that I saw only made the case that her opponent was a lying, pervy lunatic, which were the very reasons most of his voters had for supporting him.

An article from the McClatchy news group echoes these themes.  What I find disturbing is the talk of Democratic strategy going forward.  Basically the choice laid out is whether to try and increase turnout among loyal Democrats, or try and craft a message that picks off just enough GOP voters to win in the next election (or the 2018 mid-terms).

The article makes the point that many Democratic strategists see increasing turnout as cheaper, more cost-effective, and more likely to be effective.  That may be right.  But how entrenched are people’s actions?  If Democratic voters couldn’t be bothered to vote to defeat Donald Trump, just how loyal are they to the Democratic Party?  Conversely, would those GOP fence-sitters be easily persuaded by a few platitudes and an acknowledgement that just maybe blue collar workers are as valued by Democrats as gay, drug-using, immigrants?

I think the choice—increase turnout or pick off the minimum needed GOP voters—is fundamentally the wrong question, and a fitting commentary on current American politics.  Neither strategy is about governing after victory, only about winning.  Yes, winning is important; just ask Hilary.  But if you squeak out a victory with 50.1% of the vote and alienate the other 49.9%, you won’t be able to accomplish anything that helps anyone, base or opponent.

What the Democrats should be doing is crafting a message that explains to blue collar Midwestern workers that Democratic policies will help them more than a billionaire who’s only focus is making himself and his friends richer, a message that simultaneously motivates the base AND convinces a larger pool of the American populous that the Democrats are more likely to make things better than the Republicans.

It may be easier to push buttons and pull levers in order to get a few more Democrats to the ballot box, but if the Democratic party can’t explain to middle America why their leadership is better than the current President’s, then they should go away and let Bernie Sanders lead a socialist revolution.  Building a coalition among a broader swath of the voters would enhance their chances of victory and improve their ability to lead, something the current president is having trouble doing despite his party controlling both houses of Congress.

The Democrats did a magnificent job of presenting a united convention, where they wrapped themselves in the flag and made the case that liberalism was as American as apple pie.  This was in contrast to the GOP convention, where a bunch of overweight white men screamed “Lock her up!” (a campaign vow immediately reneged on by Trump) and portrayed America as a dystopian hellhole.  If Democrats had presented that message in the general election, instead of just saying “vote for Hilary because . . . I dunnow, she’s a Clinton?” the outcome might have been different.

I wish there were more politicians like Daniel Moynihan, Jerry Brown, and yes, Ronald Reagan, all of whom put a priority on governing instead of carefully counting votes; with staking out a consistent vision (in Jerry’s case, a consistently inconsistent vision) rather than catering inflexibly to interest groups.  All politicians have to be politicians at times, but it seems that most simultaneously want to please their constituencies while displeasing no one near the middle, leaving themselves in a pretzel-shaped mound of irrelevancy.

If the Democrats can’t explain to blue collar America why their policies will improve American for everyone, then they need to rethink those policies.  If Republicans can’t explain to a legal immigrant from south of the border that the GOP can make their lives better, then the fastest growing demographic group in America will never vote for them.

We need leaders who want to govern, not just win elections.