| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Who Ever Knew Democrats Couldn't Spend Money? |
| 2006-10-24 |
| In this space a few weeks ago I stuck out my wattled neck and declared, with the kind of confidence only political columnists can summon, that the Democratic party is busy developing policy ideas about how to run the government - - assuming, of course, its members win control of Congress next month. And ever since, I've been looking for further evidence that my confidence was well-placed. I've come up empty. Hoping to find a new version of the GOP's winning "Contract with America" in 1994, I've found instead that this year's Democratic campaigns for Congress are essentially negative -- against the war in Iraq above all. "I'm not a Republican" seems to be a sufficient argument to wow voters at the moment, and who can blame them? A substance-free strategy in this season of discontent may be smart politically. And it's tactically efficient. But it also helps explain a curious anomaly in many polls: As approval ratings for congressional Republicans fall, congressional Democrats haven't enjoyed a corresponding rise the way Republicans did against their Democratic counterparts before the 1994 election. It's hard, in other words, to build positive ratings without a positive message. Next year and beyond, Democrats may come to regret they didn't have one. War of Ideas An excellent clue to why they didn't is found in a well- wrought piece of investigative reporting making the rounds among Democrats this month. Ari Berman, a writer for the Nation magazine, has one answer: Democrats -- and liberals generally -- don't know how to spend money, at least when it comes to what activists like to call the "war of ideas." Democrats themselves had begun to suspect as much. Last year, in a widely noticed article in the Stanford Social Innovation Review (not the easiest place to get widely noticed, by the way), City College Professor Andrew Rich demonstrated that "liberal foundations" outspent "conservative foundations" by as much as 10 to 1 in developing public policy ideas, but to little effect. "Conservatives have found ways to package their ideas in more compelling ways, and their money is providing more bang for the buck," Rich wrote. Textbook Case Berman used his Nation article to examine a textbook case of the phenomenon: the Democracy Alliance, a loose association of 100 very wealthy liberal donors who hoped to pool resources to provide a durable source of long-term funding for like-minded (and chronically penurious) scholars, researchers, writers, magazines and activists. The Alliance rose from the ashes of 2004, when vast and ultimately unsuccessful expenditures were made by well-funded liberal groups like the inaptly named America Coming Together, which quickly fell apart. By contrast, the Alliance's original goal, as Berman explains it, was "movement building" -- to think beyond the politics of the current election cycle and develop an enduring network for the dissemination of liberal ideas, much as wealthy conservatives did from the 1960s on through movement organs such as the National Review magazine and the Heritage Foundation. "It's too soon to draw any conclusions about the Alliance," Berman says. But he makes clear that preliminary signs aren't promising. Dissension Already At the Alliance's first formal meeting -- held, you'll never guess, at a winery-resort -- a relatively paltry sum ($29 million) was promised to a relatively small (nine) number of groups. Any veteran of progressive confabs -- such as the memorable 1970 meeting of Students for a Democratic Society that spent 18 hours debating whether to have a beach party -- won't be shocked to hear that dissension soon erupted. Factions formed and asserted themselves. The first round of grants struck many participants and observers as unadventurous, weighted toward groups closely allied to the Democratic Party establishment. And movement bean-counters noticed to their horror that "16 of 17 presenters were white males." At the next Alliance meeting, surprise guest Bill Clinton offered a heated defense of his wife's vote for the Iraq war. His outburst was described by one rich donor as "an extraordinary display of anger and imperiousness." Even though short-term political campaigns are precisely what the Alliance hoped to steer away from, some progressives worried that it would become "a front group for Hillary '08." Off Limits The fear of further factionalism has led the Alliance to shun certain "off-limits" subjects that are dear to the liberal heart: cutting the military budget, the influence of corporate money in the two political parties and U.S.-Israeli relations. Meanwhile -- and perhaps as a result of its ideological timidity -- "the Alliance hasn't been deeply involved in idea creation in the same way conservatives have been," Berman writes. Promises to fund low-circulation, high-impact intellectual magazines, for example, have so far gone unfulfilled. So where does that leave the Alliance almost two years into its existence? Oddly enough, given the fabulous wealth of its members, it's running low on funds. "After two grant cycles," Berman writes, "the Alliance is overextended." Yet even that isn't its most serious problem. As the Democrats may soon learn, there are some things that money can't buy. The most telling fact in Berman's brave and stinging piece is this: "In its early stages, the Alliance, following the lead of (the Heritage Foundation), attempted to hammer out a mission statement for the organization. A year later, the document is still a work in progress." Throw more money at it. Lots more. Dip deep into the DNC and 527 funds. That'll do the trick. |
| Posted by:.com |
| #2 "I'm not a Republican" seems to be a sufficient argument to wow voters at the moment...' "No matter what slogans are used to describe it, the President's Iraq policy has been a dismal failure. It is long past time for a new direction in Iraq." House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi - Oct. 24, 2006 YJCMTSU |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2006-10-24 14:24 |
| #1 Of course the answer is the same that it's always been. The Democrats DON'T HAVE any ideas beyond warmed over Marxism, Theological Greenism and self loathing. Hard to develop a "positive" message there. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2006-10-24 14:10 |