Or Strateg(er)y for Du(DEM)mies
Hi everybody
I've seen a lot of soul-searching, agonizing, suggestions, criticism, etc. regarding the election loss and the future of the party here. There are a lot of good ideas (better policies, better "framing," speaking to values, retake the media, make our own echo chamber, etc.), but one thing I think we're missing is a framework to put them in - that is, a comprehensive strategic guide to defining whom the party is, what it stands for, and how to win.
This post is meant to help fill that void. It is nothing earth shattering. I'm sure a lot of you have worked with strategic roadmaps, game plans, or the equivalent. The leadership of any organization should have one. Sadly, it is apparent that the Democratic Party leadership either doesn't have one or they have one that is really shitty. We wouldn't have questions like "What do we stand for?" "How can we frame this?" that don't have immediate and halfway decent answers if they were okay in this department.
This is quite long. But it includes some charts.
This sort of exercise would be done behind the scenes, so the rest of us would not (and should not) see it. But the results of it would be readily apparent based on party leaders' actions and how they communicate, and many of the action steps have a role for the broader party membership.
0. A Strategic Framework
This is a simple 6-stage framework for how we get from defining a set of core principles to winning elections. This table summarizes the six steps, and my take on the main problem I see in each step along the way.
I'll leave the history to others more informed, but that's the position we're in now, as I see it If you are starting from zero, you would go through these stages in sequence, but in an existing organization, you would adapt different parts at different times. Although the Democratic Party is not starting from zero, the basic problem is that without a set of clearly articulated core principles, we are making the job that much harder for ourselves in all the following steps.
I will walk through each step and identify what needs to be done focusing on some areas more than others, depending on where I feel like I have something worthwhile to say.
1. Core Principles
The lack of clearly articulated core principles is the root problem, as we all know. Republicans have a crystal clear identity, and Democrats have a murky - if any - identity. Before rushing to fill the void, though, I hope the party makes an effort to clearly and objectively understand the current situation. They should do some market research of a variety of voters to get an objective view of what they think the two parties stand for. It's likely to reveal widely varied (if not outright contradictory) beliefs about the Democratic Party - even among self-identified Democrats. An example of what top line conclusions might look like:
So, we need to articulate our core principles: a set of precepts generally agreeable to nearly all of us that stand for who we are, what we want to accomplish, and how we would govern. They need to be:
- DISTINCTIVE - they position us competitively against our opponents
- CLEAR - simple to understand and easily communicated; and
- RELEVANT - they address the major concerns of peoples' lives.
I identify relevance in three areas of concern to voters - Security, Economy, and Values. This is of course debatable but I'm going to proceed with it so there is a clear structure. I also set an arbitrary but I believe logical limit of
three two-word phrases that we should be able to boil it down to, one for each area of concern. Our core principles might look something like this, matched up vs. the Republican positioning:
I have drawn from discussion in previous threads (e.g., from dumb angel here) and my own thinking to come up with these. I didn't agonize over it for too long, so I mean it as a reference point, not the final word, but for anyone who wants to propose alternatives consider these limitations:
- I would encourage both the inner circle and blogosphere to Keep It Simple Stupid like this and resist the temptation to throw in pet issues (deficit, environment) or sacred cows (social security, pro-choice) - these are the core principles, not the means to achieve them or a laundry/wish list.
- We need a security/defense position -being "pro-peace/anti-war" just isn't going to cut it with enough voters. I also don't think we can "out-Strong Defense" the Republicans. I elaborate below how I believe we can position "Protecting Freedom" to our advantage in this area.
- We also need an economic positioning that is more than "Corporations are Evil." Nobody likes Haliburton or Enron, but if that's all we got, it won't be compelling to pocketbook voters. Based on some of what I've read the last couple days, a positioning around moving society and out economy "forward" makes a lot of sense (example here from Joey Dee), and embracing science and technology, which the Republicans will have inherent problems doing (below) led me to label it "Progressive." (and by the way, for those who would stereotype corporate types, scroll down here to see that Harvard MBA's lean Dem)
- I believe our "Personal Freedom" positioning should be captured under our security positioning because A. I think it resonates better with a larger audience - we would have to be in a virtual police state for many voters to start voting based on social freedoms and then it will be too late, and B. Part of the GOP base precludes them from being the "party of freedom" so I see it as almost a freebie for us, and more helpful to position it behind something else.
As I mentioned, all my ideas are debatable, but I believe the framework should follow this simple structure.
2. Define a winning coalition
It's nice to say we "need a candidate who stands for something" but that's all hot air if we don't have a plan for how it will succeed.
I am convinced that our party leadership has a 19th century view of voter groups (racial/income/gender divisions) or as a series of over-simplified continua (liberal-conservative, urban-rural) and that they actually listen when the media ramble about the voting bloc de jour ( "Nascar Dad" "Value Voters").
So much Bullshit.
Unplug yourself from the prattle and talk to people. Outside of our base and the wingnut base, people decide how to vote in very different ways - even people in the so-called bases have different reasons for being there (even within the base - see this recent roll call - even among this like-minded community you have an incredible diversity of reasons for being here.
Voters should be segmented based on their own criteria on how they decide to vote. The party needs to do extensive research on this and develop a breakdown of blocs of voters - what they base their vote on, how they tend to vote, why they might change their mind, how many of them there are, where they live, etc. Here is a link to what a summary page might look like for various voting groups - it's too big to paste here (but has some funny Simpsons references, so click through when you have time). Non-voter groups should also be analyzed for why they don't participate and how they might be persuaded to.
It is completely pulled out of my ass, but should give you an idea of what our party is lacking right now in terms of understanding voters. Pollster Stan Greenberg published something like this recently, but in my view it's too simple (I haven't read the book, I could be wrong. He also may have a more detailed insider version). I also do not find Sullivan's framework compelling either - it shows regional trends, but does not explain to me why people decide to vote the way they do.
Based on analysis, insight, and trial & error, party leaders can define a coalition that - if executed successfully - will give us a working majority based on how they vote and where they live, and allow to be at least competitive in nearly every state in every region of the country. This step of the process may be done in conjunction with the first and third (see next section), where you can adjust the articulation of core principles to test their appeal to different combinations. Even in many Southern states we have a 40%+ base, and can easily put much of it in play even if its not part of the core governing coalition (discussed by citizen lehew here). Republicans would love for us to declare Red vs Blue war, since they will always at least have the Senate, by the way - we have to be competitive nearly nationwide.
Let me emphasize that the results of this type of analysis are dynamic - people will change their voting criteria over time (for example, the Security-focused voting groups probably grew after 9-11), and that part of the analysis is determining how you might change someone's voting criteria - it is not purely reactive. If you are sinister like the GOP, you will also look for ways to move populations from one group to another (e.g., anti-union legislation).
Having a robust analysis like this would allow party leaders to evaluate the advice they get. If someone says that we need to reach gun-owners or moral values voters or whoever, that's okay. If someone claims we can motivate non-voters, also a possibility. We can listen. But they have to prove it.
3. Framing and positioning
Next, everyone's new favorite, framing and positioning our views to appeal to our targeted voters. Here is a general idea on how to reframe major issue categories around our core principles. The main goal is to frame all the major issue categories of the day within one or more of our core principles and thereby serve as a competitive position statement of what we believe on those issues vs. the opposition. My example:
The word capitalized emphasizes the competitive framing. For example. Republicans own the "Strong defense" positioning. We often try to cozy up to it, to match it, to out-Republican them. Instead, we can reframe our position as "Strategic Defense" (or Smart defense if you prefer) to emphasize decision-making. I believe this position can be salient and effective currently because our primary enemy is small, nimble, and stealthy, not a goliath, and because nearly everyone agrees Bush has made some very bad decisions.
These are my top-of-mind ideas and again, open to question, so I won't go through them all (some detail in next section). Many others are looking at framing, but I would suggest the most important framing in any debate stems from how core principle are discussed, not how Policy (below) is discussed, which many people focus on. For example, it is more compelling to a wider audience to say you believe in "protecting the same freedoms for ALL Americans" when discussion civil unions than because you believe in "GAY rights." Similarly, I think putting a pro-choice position in the context of protecting freedoms in general instead of getting into abortions, women's rights, etc. is more effective.
4. Policy
I don't have a lot of knowledge here, so I won't add much. In general, policy should be put in context of the core principles and flow naturally from our framing and positioning of the main issue areas. We should promote policy initiatives based on our principles and/or based on public concerns in the current political climate. Here is an example of several policy areas/issue memes we might pursue following from each core principle and each major framing/positioning area:
Atrios commented on this recently (can't find the link), on how the party needs to be more strategic in policy proposals. Sometimes a policy should be advanced to appeal to a certain voter segment - the Republicans are masters at this. I think we can do it without compromising our values or shilling for the corrupt like them, but policy is sometimes a strategic tool, not only an end in itself. Similarly, policy initiatives even if they are unsuccessful, are part of the communication process.
As a final note, consider that Core Principles are likely to be pretty consistent over time, which Policy focus is likely to change relatively quickly (with Framing & Positioning in between).
5. Messaging and Communication
Another area beyond my expertise and that has been analyzed extensively, so I'm not going to say much. Content-wise, if core principles, framing, and policies are aligned, the messaging is fairly straightforward. Then it's just a matter of making sure you communicate effectively to the right groups.
Regarding getting the message out, I know people are busy building the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy and a nascent real "liberal media" in being developed, but I don't see it as the panacea many others do. If you don't have an aligned message, it's just a bunch of people making noise, and if you have a good message (like Clinton did), it's easy to overcome structural barriers. Nevertheless, part of the DNC's role is to understand what information voters get, how they form opinions, and to make sure we are fully represented in that process.
6. Tactical planning & execution
Finally, the DNC needs a better calendar of activity, including focus issues, policy proposals, talking points, communication plans, etc. planned well in advance of election cycles. Except for GOTV processes, this is another area I think the DNC is in the dark ages relative to the GOP. Below is an example of what I would like to see the party do over the next two years. I just pulled this out of my ass again as an example, but if the framework makes sense, we should hold our party leaders accountable for developing something similar. It should include projections of what is expected from the other side and how we plan to counter/preempt them (which I skipped but should be easy for those in the know).
Assuming it takes about 3-6 months for whomever the new DNC chair is to get his act together and take stock of the situation from January or so, I would position a tactical calendar something like this:
MID-LATE 2005: REINTRODUCE THE "NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY" TO AMERICA
This is not only communicating to independent voters, but rallying our base around our core principles. Something like what Apple computer did a few years ago when Steve Jobs came back as their CEO - this commercial, the start of the "Think Different" campaign, was as much an internal rallying cry as an external communiqué.
Our situation is bleak and morale low, so I think we need to make a similar big splash. For example, we could run a major commercial during the baseball all star game or first game of the World Series (Super Bowl unfortunately at the wrong time). Fuck the CW on advertising in an off year - it's easiest to break through the clutter than when there is none. It would be an opportunity to communicate simply and clearly what the "New" Democratic Party stands for to each other and to the general public. For example, there could be three short monologues/vignettes build around each core principle. I'm sure some ad geniuses could come up with something good.
LATE 2005 TO EARLY 2006
The first reaction to such an advertising campaign would probably be dismissive and/or ridiculing. Hah! Look at what these silly Democrats are trying to do! Which is why it needs to be followed up with action. This will be tough as the minority party, but I believe it is achievable if our leadership coordinates around "Policy Clusters" - a series of issues/policies that can be promoted around a theme that communicate our principles and (hopefully) emphasize our opponents' disadvantages. As I mentioned above, the important thing at this point is not to get anything passed, but to make ourselves visible standing for something.
Policy isn't my area, but just pulling some random ideas together, below are three policy clusters around which our leadership can propose legislation, echo talking points, set the agenda, and raise the specter of conservative bogeymen (Specter, ha ha). Some might blanch at using those kinds of tactics like the GOP uses, but they actually have real bogeymen (corrupt corporate and political cronies, Saudi ties, and religious nuts), whereas ours (liberal elitism, I-hate-America, and welfare queens) are largely fabricated.
1. Responsible and independent energy policy cluster:
Specific proposals:
- Increase tax incentives for alternative energy resource infrastructure development
- Economic sanctions against Saudi Arabia by the end of the year, unless they meet certain free press criteria
- Country of origin labeling for gasoline at the pump so people know if they're buying gas from terror-supporting regimes like Saudi Arabia (how come no one has ever tried this!?!?)
- Offers a compromise on ANWR drilling (for example, drilling ok in only certain areas and if company takes massive insurance policy to restore environment in case of any damages)
Talking points:
- Stand tough against dictators/ Criticize Bush and GOP ties to Saudis, Middle East Oil (Protect Freedom)
- Stand for freedom of populations so they don't become terrorists (double Protect Freedom)
- Yesterday's friends of convenience are today's worst enemies (compare support of Saudis now to support of Hussein, bin Laden in 80's - GOP not responsible to next generation, make them go nu-cu-lar by smacking Reagan policy)
- Promote new energy resources (Economic Progress)
- Show we're willing to compromise on the short-term, Republicans should be willing to compromise on the long-term solution (responsibility)
2. Economic Vitality Policy Cluster initiative:
Specific proposals:
- Stem cell and evolutionary biology/genetics research legalization, funding (Progress)
- Cut the outsourcing tax break (Responsibility)
- Forgive some % of student loans for those earning degrees in engineering and sciences (Progress)
- Deficit reduction (Responsibility - maybe target some of that red state welfare - it will never pass but will make the point)
Talking points:
- Support science and new technologies for economic growth, quality of life (Progressive Economy)
- Tie equal opportunity to societal progress (scholarships to low-income groups à progress for all)
- Force the GOP to stand against progress (because they have to placate their base with "creation science" and things like that)
3. Restore America to "Beacon of Freedom for the World" Cluster
Specific proposals:
- National voting and election standards improvement like paper trail, auditing (Responsibility, Freedom)
- Require labor freedom standards to be included in any free trade agreement (Freedom for all)
- Further limits on money in political campaigns (Responsibility)
- Expand political refugee status to women escaping abuse from Saudi Arabia, maybe other countries (Freedom)
Talking points:
- Can't promote democracy abroad if it isn't respected at home (Freedom)
- Clean up the corrupt political system (Responsibility, the "Anti-Washington" card)
Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. These are just examples form someone who doesn't know squat, but that's the idea. It should be easy to see how parts of these could be targeted to/promoted by those representing certain parts of our base - for example, representatives of low-income areas would probably be interested in promoting more student aid, and I bet we could even get Joe Lieberman to start giving morality lectures on how damaging Bush's cozy relationship with the Saudis is.
As the minority party, we can't drive the agenda, but between congress and Bush's vacations, there will be enough beltway quiet time for us to grab some headlines and dominate a few news cycles with our proposals and their promotion to start to make a name for ourselves. In the short term, not much will pass, but the point is that the public will see the party as unified, standing for things they agree with, and promoting a positive agenda based on core principles. It will give candidates something to refer back to in mid and late 2006 as the election nears. It will also help us play up the anti-Washington card, since these ideas probably would not be heard out by the Republicans in power.
In mid/late 2006 things will transition into the campaign. This is where most of the party efforts are currently focused, and may be the one area where they say we are at parity to the GOP, so I'm not going to add much. The point is that we lay the groundwork to exploit the openings at election time.
______________
Looks good? Ready to act? Want to know what to do next? Ready to pay me 6 - nah - 7 figure consulting fees to help the party get back on its feet? Here's what I recommend:
First, if you think this material is valuable for party leaders to see, please go ahead and steal, copy, adapt, modify, whatever you need to do and get something similar into their hands and heads. If I could do so credibly I would, but I'm about as "outsider" as you can get. If you have connections to the DNC members, you might present something similar to them and suggest they incorporate it into their review process for choosing the next DNC Chair. (They might even do some of the background work themselves so they can ask good questions to the candidates about their visions for the party)
Second, use it to demand accountability. In your interactions with those in the power structure, make sure they are acting strategically. If you see them asked "What are your plans for 2005?" and their only answer is "We need to fight the Bush agenda," you say "BZZT! Wrong answer!" and raise hell about it.
Third, over time, figure out our/your role. Many of these activities things have to be done behind the scenes, from the inside, but many also include a role for grassroots activists, policy types, loudmouths at the corner pub, or whichever category you put yourself in.
And one last note on how this related to fielding candidates for office. Like danthrax, I am so tired of arguments on who we should nominate in `08. That is the last thing to worry about. If we have a compelling message, good communication, and the right target, then we only have to choose the candidate who's communicating it the best.
Look at the Republicans - they nominated a draft-dodging, drunk-driving, English-mangling, trust-fund son of a failed president (with the same name) and parlayed him into a winner - or at the very least, a narrow loser within stealing distance - because he communicated their message to their constituency clearly. We need to stop looking for a candidate with the best message and start looking for a candidate who will best deliver our message, or something close to it. Similarly, I don't really care who our behind the scene operatives and party hacks are, and if we have "insiders" or "outsiders" in charge - the point is that they start to do the right things.