A Media Watch Special Report......... September 11, 2003
THE
DEMOCRATIC MESSAGE IN 2004: LOOKING BACK TO FIND THE FUTURE
by Gloria R. Lalumia
On August 11, 2003, Former Texas Governor
Ann Richards paid a visit to Larry King; a caller asked the
following question:
CALLER: We all know that Democratic
candidates are reduced to basically soundbytes and ridicule in
the media. How can Democrats force attention back to the fact
that whether it's the problems with the economy, national
security, utility and industrial deregulation are the products of
failed regressive Republican Party policies…
RICHARDS: Once our nominee is chosen, the
opportunity for getting the message out there is going to be much
easier than it is now. Because there's so many candidates it just
kind of becomes a clutter. But once that nominee is
chosen the biggest problem the Democrats are going to have is
choosing a single message and not being all over the place.
Because of the Bush record on the economy, on medical care, on
education, we have such a wealth of stuff that we can use, that
I'm afraid that we're going to get too splayed out and there
isn't going to be a concise message. Do you understand? KING: You
would make it a one-issue campaign?
RICHARDS: Well, no, you don't do that, but you try to select an
issue so that it can encompass more than one or two things and
consistently drive that message home
(http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0308/11/lkl.00.html).
********************
Here’s my take on the situation, Ann.
THEN
Think back and remember that by 1992 we had
endured 12 years of Republican rule. Reagan had drained the
economy and our spirits. The constant hammering on
women’s rights, welfare mothers, basically anyone and
anything that wasn’t with the right wing program, left many
feeling as if they weren’t welcome in their own country. The
Right-to-Lifers were unleashed, unions were slammed, and David
Stockman told us of the plan to spend like crazy on defense and
destroy the safety net. Lebanon was disaster. Then
the out-of-touch Poppy Bush came along and dragged us into the
90’s but not before leaving us with the first TV war in
Iraq.
Sound familiar? Of course it does,
except these days we’re experiencing the same agenda turned
up about 100 notches, with a heavy dose of Bush 2’s
arrogance and testosterone thrown in for good measure. It’s
been a pretty dispiriting couple of years.
But let’s not kid ourselves—the
Reagan/Bush 1 years were just as stressful and enervating. By
1992 Democrats and Independents were desperate for air,
sick of feeling stifled and worn down.
Then, out of the blue came Bill Clinton.
A teacher friend and I took notice. As the primary season
unwound, we discovered that not only did we want change…we
were hungry for it. A testament to this deep and
desperate longing to get rid of the repressive Reagan/Bush 1
years is the fact that I have stored away video cassettes full of
Clinton rallies, speeches, and sax playing during the primary and
general election campaign. I just taped and taped, hanging
on everything Clinton-Gore and saving it just in case we
didn’t win the election and I would need some good memories
to get through another four years.
The media had not become a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Republican Party just yet. Clinton/Gore
barnstormed on a bus and the debates were incredible (Perot was
too short for his stool and Bush helped by looking at his watch
as Clinton prowled the platform.) My friend and I found the
energy electric. We went to see Hillary at a campaign stop at
Rutgers and we worked the phone banks. Election night we
got together at her house, had a pizza, and counted the electoral
votes. When it was all over we cried tears of relief. We felt a
huge weight lift…after 12 years of tension and frustration,
we felt free!
Aside from that memorable election night,
the high point of the whole election cycle for us occurred the
night before on November 1, 1992 when we went to the Meadowlands
in East Rutherford, NJ for the final Clinton/Gore campaign rally.
The place was packed to the rafters with supporters and
volunteers. The music was loud, the 20,000 hungry could almost
taste victory as the candidates appeared and wound up their
campaign. It was probably one of the biggest adrenalin
rushes of my life.
Of course, in hindsight, we didn’t have
much time to enjoy victory because the “hunting of the
President” started almost as soon as Clinton was elected.
But for a while in 1992, things couldn’t have been
better…we were reinvigorated and full of hope as we looked
forward.
NOW
Because of that campaign, I don’t think
Ann Richards’ worries about the Democrats’ ability to
get out a simple and clear message have to become the reality.
If Democrats rummage around their campaign memorabilia and think
back, they may find they don’t have to reinvent the wheel.
I’ve done some rummaging and I think
I’ve found the “single message” that could be the
foundation for the 2004 campaign. It’s printed on a
souvenir I’ve kept from that incredible election eve
rally…a simple card which bears the theme of the
Clinton/Gore campaign and subsequent agenda:
“It’s time to PUT PEOPLE
FIRST…FOR A CHANGE!”
Why do I think a message similar to the one
used in 1992 is perfect for 2004? Well, as I’ve
pointed out, we’re now experiencing a replay of the
Reagan/Bush 1I years—with a vengeance. Four years of
Bush 2I will certainly prove to be as grueling, if not more so,
than the 12 years of Reagan/Bush 1. Not only has everything
Clinton did to restore the country been undermined, but
Bush-Cheney have gone back to finish the job started in the
80’s, even resurrecting the same cast of players to
accomplish the final sell-out of the country to corporate
interests. PNAC has moved from theory to full operations, with
dire ramifications for both domestic and foreign policies. The
“compassionate conservatism” mantra of the 2000 Bush
campaign—a steal from the ‘92 Clinton/Gore playbook, in
my opinion—has turned out to be a hollow manipulation of the
original message. Whereas Clinton/Gore tried to
follow through on the agenda outlined in their campaign book
“Putting People First,” it’s clear that Bush never
had any intention to be compassionate about anything.
It’s not my goal to rehash all the
destructive policies of the Bush Administration which have worked
against the citizens of this country while smoothing the way for
business interests. One outrageous rule change follows
another. It’s almost impossible to think of even one
action that this gang has done for the people of this country.
Even on the vital question of security for America, the Bush
Administration is coming up short. (“Government's
Hobbled Giant – Homeland Security Is Struggling,” Sunday,
September 7, 2003 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36519-2003Sep6.html).
Meanwhile, the campaign promises of a
“compassionate conservative” approach to governance
have disappeared. In terms of economic policy, large tax
cuts to the highest income Americans have resulted in slashes in
needed services at the state level and local levels of
government. The ranks of the poor are growing. Clean air and
water and the condition of the national parks have become low
priorities, while the opening of public lands to drilling is
proceeding. The EPA has even lied about the air quality
following the attack on the World Trade Center. Workers
face the loss of overtime pay. If they have their way,
hospitals will have the legal right to turn you away from the
emergency room if you don’t have insurance. The proposed
Medicare drug plan serves the pharmaceutical companies better
than recipients. No-bid contractors such as Halliburton
exploit close ties to the Administraton and profit in Iraq, while
our soldiers have to get by on a couple liters of water a day for
drinking and hygiene.
Even Bush supporters supporters are restive
as indicated by comments reported in an August 26, 2003 recent
article in The New York Times entitled “Compassion'
Agenda: A Liability in '04?” by Elisabeth Bumiller (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/26/politics/26MEMO.html?hp):
In his NYU/MoveOn.org speech on August 7,
2003, which Ann Richards believes Democratic candidates
“will read and crib from,” Al Gore
touched on the subject of Bush’s “compassionate”
agenda, stating that “they [the Bush Administration] also
promote the myth that there really is no such thing as the public
interest…The test of compassion is action. What the
administration offers with one had is the rhetoric of compassion;
what it takes away with the other hand are the financial
resources necessary to make compassion something more than an
empty and fading impression.”
For Americans who swallowed the bitter pill
of the 2000 “selection” and have had their worst fears
about how the Bush agenda would unfold come true, there’s
never been any question that Bush must go in 2004. And the
hunger for “regime change at home” will reach a
crescendo as the election campaign year goes into full swing.
And now as we enter the election campaign
season in earnest, the question on my mind is, who will have
the ability to deliver the “single message” that Ann
Richards sees as being the key to victory in 2004 and will it
harken back to 1992’s theme of making the needs of people a
priority?
All the
candidates, of course, have their websites up and and running. A
quick visit to each reveals that all the Democrats have
attractive, serviceable sites with the usual pages dedicated to
issues, news, schedules, volunteering, and contributing. Taking
a page from Clinton/Gore, John Edwards has written a campaign
book (downloadable from his website) which outlines his take on
the issues facing the country. But its title, “Real
Solutions for America,” doesn’t pack the punch of
Clinton’s book titled “Putting People First,”
which directly reinforced his campaign’s theme and which
“was a useful blueprint that offered a sense of where
Clinton was headed.” (Business Week, 9/2/1996, http://www.businessweek.com/1996/36/b34918.htm).
(Clinton himself regards this campaign book as a vital part of
his 1992 campaign’s success.)
Among the other
candidates’ sites, Bob Graham’s site with it’s
masthead message “Working for America’ evokes some sort
of vague connection to the American people.
The Dean For America website title is also
fairly general, but a closer look reveals a theme that is a bit
more focused. Under the section for contributions, Dean
connects with the visitor by asking him or her to “Help
Take Our Country Back.” Even more telling is the fact
that of all the nine websites that are up and running, only
Dean’s uses the word PEOPLE as a prominent part of his
presentation. For example, Dean has been using the term
“People-Powered” in his fundraising report
announcements (June 30 and July 15, 2003 press releases). And,
to top it off, Dean has a logo with a Trumanesque “Give
‘Em Hell Howard” message coupled with the
“People-Powered” phrase used to describe his
“debate rallies.”
A recent Washington Post article titled
“Short-Fused Populist, Breathing Fire at Bush” by
Evelyn Nieves (July 6, 2003) depicts Dean “…the
Democrats' angry Everyman…” even though “Most
Vermonters would say that Dean the Passionate Populist who extols
health care and equal rights for all is a Different Dean from the
one they know…. Whether it's his message ("You have the
power to change this country" is a campaign mantra) or his
method, or both, Dean's passionate, bare-fisted pounding at the
Washington power structure is obviously working, at least for
now”
(http://www.hrc.org/campaigns/2004/candidates/news/dean_washpost070603.asp).
It seems to me that Dean’s whole
campaign effort has been very strong on “connecting”
with people so far, particularly in his brilliant use of the
Internet. But will Dean develop his
“People/Powered”/You have the power to change this
country” references into a powerful overarching campaign
theme that can be as effective as 1992’s “Putting
People First—For a Change”?
2004
That bit of musing might have been the final
thought in this essay, until I happened across some words
of wisdom by none other than Clinton’s 1992 mastermind,
James Carville.
In the March 11, 2002 Salon Interview with
Joan Walsh, Carville was already commenting on what he saw as
strong currents in the Democratic party and the nation and the
type of candidate he favored:
Carville: “And I think there's a
real hunger in the party, and in the country, for someone
who's gonna stand up for them, stand up and fight for
something.”
Walsh: Who might that be? Do you have a
candidate for 2004?
Carville: You know what? I'm for the
person who can stand up and articulate where this party ought to
go, who can do it in a tough way, who's not saying something one
day and apologizing the next. I'll be for that person.
(“Carville on His Candidate: The Salon Interview: James
Carville”
(http://www.salon.com/people/feature/2002/03/11/carville/index_np.html?x
intro only
http://www.angelfire.com/indie/pearly/htmls/carville-salon.html
full text).
Within the last few months Carville has
talked in more specific terms about the message such a candidate
should deliver. In a July 23, 2003 interview with
TomPaine.com, Carville argues that Democrats need a “big
issue” in 2004:
‘"If it comes to who is going
to get a break, people who make $1 million today or young kids
who will make the country tomorrow, you don't even have to
look."
And that lead to what Carville said was
the big issue for Democrats in '04, what he called the Bush
administration's reversal of "the generational promise of
America – each time we do what we can do to make the next
generation better."
"That promise, today like no other
time in our lifetime, is under attack," he said. "The
idea that we are a society beyond our own self-interest is under
attack. We are told America is best when people are interested in
ourselves. We know America is better when we're based on a common
interest.
"We have a president that is no
longer interested in what happens to the next generation. We have
a president that is no longer interested in what happens to the
promise of America.”’ (“James Carville's Rx
For Democrats,” Steven Rosenfeld, TomPaine.com, July 23,
2003 http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8430).
In 1992, “Putting People First”
carried with it the idea of reversing years of “losing
ground” that many Americans had experienced under
Reagan/Bush; Carville’s new twist on “generations”
takes the 1992 mantra and connects it to the theme of what the
people of this country can expect to leave for their
children’s futures. (In my view, Clinton’s signature
theme song, “Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow”
by Fleetwood Mac was used to rev up anticipation for a Clinton
presidency rather than the idea of “generations.”)
A message of “the generational promise” seeks to
reconnect Americans to a sense of “the greater good”
and a positive sense of unity as a nation; it takes the
“Putting People First” mantra to a higher level and
gives Americans the opportunity to consider a broader purpose
when they vote.
At the moment, all of the Democratic
candidates are speaking out in mundane terms about working
families and ways to address the problems they face. For
example, during his September 7th appearance in San
Francisco, Dean took on Arnold Schwartzenegger’s statement
that he (Schwartzenegger) would not be taking any money from
unions because he considers them a ''special interest"
group.
Dean looked at the women surrounding him
at the podium, and recited their occupations: nurses' aides, food
service workers, and physical therapists. "Not exactly
special interests," Dean said wryly. "I call them hard
working Americans. (“Presidential Hopeful Howard
Dean Gets a Big Show of Support in S.F.,” Carla Marinucci,
San Francisco Chronicle, September 7, 2003 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/09/07/MN31311.DTL).
BUT…are ANY of the candidates moving
beyond this sort of “sub-issue” and broadening
the message that can form the “big issue” and
inspiration for the 2004 campaign?
Well, yes, but it isn’t one of the
frontrunners. At the end of the September 4, 2003 Democratic
presidential debate in Albuquerque, Univision’s Maria Elena
Salinas queried the candidates on the subject of immigration and
amnesty for illegal workers in the U.S. In the last minutes
of the discussion, Carol Mosely Braun remarked:
And this election– this election
really does pit which direction our country is going to head. Are
we going to put ourselves in a position to move forward, to reach
out to others, to resolve these issues instead of having people
locked up and their phones tapped and their e-mails tapped and
locked up in secret arrests and the like?
Instead of doing that, can't we begin to
reconcile our relations with others, to work well with others at
the international community to begin to restore the kind of hope
and optimism that has always characterized this country?
Because I believe–if I can finish this–I believe the
real issue here is our generation's responsibility to make sure
that we leave no less for the next generation than we inherited
from the last one. And working together is the only way we're
going to be able to that. (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/debate03/part5.html)
There it is, the “big issue.”
Hats off to Carol Mosely Braun for putting this idea out there!
But, now we’ll have to wait in see if the message gets
picked up by any of the other candidates any time soon. And,
of course, we’ll have to see if this concept becomes the
core of the Democratic national campaign in 2004.
I fervently hope that the Democratic
candidate who goes head to head with Bush doesn’t waste
valuable time, effort, and money searching for a new playbook
when it’s obvious that building on the message of 1992 is
the key. I implore the candidates – listen to Carville
and, if Braun isn’t the candidate, listen to her!
And, heck, while they’re at it, why
shouldn’t they listen to me! “PUT PEOPLE FIRST,
NOW…AND FOR THE FUTURE!” – it’s a start and
it could be a winner. For, I think most folks believe, just
as in 1992, that people have to count in this country –
now, in 2004, and for always.
Copyright 2003, Gloria R. Lalumia