Sigh. I get frustrated with conservative Democrats as much as the next blogger. I get equally frustrated with actions taken by progressive activists that don't help us either persuade a reluctant Democrat to support progressive legislation (or at least vote for cloture) on policy or don't help us create a political environment in the reluctant Democrat's state that would give the reluctant Democrat political cover.
One of my problems with some of the efforts spearheaded on the blogs and by some national activist groups is that while the tactics and strategies advocated by these people may work with many Dems and may help drive message and channel momentum on the Hill in the right direction, some of the tactics championed are actually unhelpful with some reluctant Democrats whose votes we need. It's also clear that many people just do not understand the way some members work and the political environment in certain states. If you don't take those things into consideration, your efforts aren't helpful.
There are many examples of progressive activists missing the mark, but I'll concentrate on the most recent version.
Last night, there was a diary highlighting Sen. Ben Nelson's threat over the ads that Democracy for America and Progressive Change Campaign Committee. I may personally find Nelson's stance on this annoying and ridiculous (really? threatening to stop legislation because of an ad?!) but he is entirely consistent with regard to attack ads from national organizations. He doesn't like them. He's frozen out other organizations completely in the past for running attack ads against him. And if you think his ire regarding ads from national organizations (anything that is not based in Nebraska) is directed just at progressives, you'd be wrong. A press release from Nelson's office on December 19, 2008 targeted a conservative organization that was running ads with all kinds of lies about the Employee Free Choice Act. In fact, the press release that criticized the Orwellian named "Americans for Job Security" was just as harsh as the one issued against DFA/PCCC. Here's the text of the press release from December 2008:
"Sometimes you see something so dumb you know the creators thought they had a brainstorm. But it really was just a drizzle. That’s how I reacted when I saw sleazy and intentionally confusing advertisements running in Nebraska media outlets that mention me.
"The ads, paid for by a Washington special interest group that hides its donors, are an insult to Nebraskans who are interested in a proposed bill, the "Employee Free Choice Act," and have shared their thoughts with me. While I have expressed concerns about the legislation and continue to weigh it, these ads are unfair to those who deserve an honest, fact-based debate if it is considered next year by Congress.
"The good news is I know Nebraskans are smarter than this special interest group thinks they are. We Nebraskans certainly know a snow job from a snow storm.
"The ads apparently address a provision that would eliminate the rights of employees to cast secret ballots on union organizing petitions. There are clear views for and against this idea. But the ads cook up a stew of innuendo linking Illinois’ embattled governor to political campaign contributions, to unpopular "bailouts" for the banking and auto industries, and to the bill somehow being a bailout. This has nothing to do with the "Employee Free Choice Act."
"If Americans for Job Security, which paid for the ads, is convinced that the legislation has enough support to pass, I can’t imagine how this demeaning and misleading media campaign would persuade any member of Congress to vote no. I can take debate and criticism on the merits of issues before Congress, and believe that Nebraskans deserve to know where I stand when I cast my vote.
"But smear tactics that insult me and my fellow Nebraskans?
"These folks shot themselves in the foot. While aiming."
The subtext of this press release slamming an organization opposing the Employee Free Choice Act was: I don't support EFCA in its current form (as of December 2008) but back the fuck off. You're only hurting your standing with me.
A similar subtext is in the press release criticizing the ad from DFA/PCCC. But there's more to it.
The members of Congress who seem to be most disdainful of attack ads from some national organization that helicopters in, seem to be those from rural areas or small states (ahem, coincidentally often the ones who need the biggest push to support progressive legislation). These members of Congress often reflect the sentiments of their constituents; some parts of the country really, really don't like outsiders coming into their state (one way that progressives have been able to defeat conservative ballot initiatives in purple-to-red states is by aggressively painting the supporters of those measures as out of state busy bodies.) Point is that a national organzation that runs an attack ad or sends robocalls into a district/state can sometimes be unhelpful.
Opposing ads from what some members of Congress would deem as 'outsiders' is not just something ingrained culturally in the electorate in that state (or House district). In some cases, opposing these ads is really a warning shot that also says: You're doing more to harm your cause with the public here than to help it. Ads from national progressive organizations can actually create a political environment that makes it more difficult and less likely for a reluctant Democrat to vote with the Democrats on a tough issue. (Same explanation in other words is found here.)
The fact is that Nebraska is a conservative state -- even many of the state's registered Democrats are pretty conservative. Nelson cannot be seen as someone who caters to liberal interests from out of state. It would hurt his standing politically with Nebraska voters. An ad from DFA/PCCC urging Nelson to support something that is clearly progressive is not creating an environment that makes it ok for Nelson to support it. He can't be seen as caving into interests of liberal interests from outside of Nebraska. He needs to be able to say to Nebraska voters that he met with many organizations from across the political spectrum (particularly those that are based in Nebraska and/or have some sort of tie to Nebraska), gathered all the information he could, and decided that the action he took on a particular piece of legislation was the right one for Nebraska.
(By the same token, Nelson doesn't like to be overtly partisan. Nelson publicly supported Obama last year and even campaigned for him. He went much farther in his support for Obama than he did with Kerry. There were several reasons for this. Not only was the Obama campaign investing resources in the state that would build up the Democratic party in Nebraska -- something that Nelson knows is necessary for him to continue to represent the state -- but Obama's personal style was also more in tune with Nebraska than some previous Democratic presidential nominees. Obama's personal style is to play the reasonable actor, even if he's already come down strongly on one side of the issue. Obama demeanor is more moderate than his positions on the issues, which is part of his broad appeal and in many ways was a way of contrasting himself with Bush.)
There are good things about the ad. It was smart to use a small business owner who could tell the story of why the public option was needed. (Every politician likes to say that he/she is a champion for small business, and local chambers of commerce which represent some small businesses can be influential.) However, the ad in question from DFA/PCCC had other flaws (that I haven't discussed already) that would actually make it more difficult for Nelson to support the public option and shows that DFA/PCCC did not do all the homework needed before going up with the ad:
- Targeting just Nelson. Nelson doesn't like outside attack ads. He especially doesn't like outside attack ads that single out him and don't mention the other senator from Nebraska (whether it was Hagel in previous Congresses or Johanns.) This is not unique to Nelson. Reluctant Dems in states where the other senator is a Republican don't like being singled out. (Either Landrieu or Bayh is another one, but I'm not sure.) Sometimes it's smarter to run an ad that is targeted towards both senators.
- Insurance industry money. The insurance industry is a big part of Nebraska's economy. The attack on taking money from the insurance industry is not going to be as effective in this state. All senators look out for the big players in their states. It's why anyone who represents Iowa hearts ethanol. It's why anyone in Michigan is particularly attuned to what the auto industry wants. It's why anyone from Delaware is particularly attentive to the banking industry.
- Nelson likes working out policy behind the scenes. He is willing to hear out progressives from Nebraska, and quietly cobbling together influential people and organizations from in state to meet Senator Nelson is a million times more effective than any ad from out of state liberal organizations. Case in point? The meeting that Jane Fleming Kleeb of Change That Works led. Kleeb not only points out the problem with singling just Nelson out for criticism but she also points to organizations that are doing the ground work to build support and create a political environment that would make it easier for Nelson to support comprehensive health care reform. Frequently these efforts do not get even 1/10th the attention on blogs that ads from DFA/PCCC or MoveOn get, so many bloggers assume that the ads are working even when they are not. The organization that jumped out the most at me (of those listed) was the Center for Rural Affairs, which is the kind of organization you'd want on board if you want to push Nelson in a more progressive direction. Her post is worth a read; if you read closely, you'll be able to better understand what wold work with Ben Nelson.
- The messenger counts. If you are to run any ads at all in Nebraska in support of progressive legislation, do you really think they should be sponsored by DFA and PCCC? You'd probably want to create a MCFL c4 called "Nebraskans for the Public Option" or "Nebraska Businesses for the Public Option." Something that would provide political cover for Nelson and would communicate that there were a lot of Nebraskans who supported the public option in addition to the Nebraskan who appeared in the ad.
I want to be clear: the reaction from bloggers to the press release from Nelson's office yesterday was completely understandable. On its face, the release and the sentiment expressed in it is ridiculous. Ultimately, the question is whether or not we want Nelson's vote -- at least for cloture if not on the final legislation. The answer is YES. As much as people are holding up reconciliation as the saving grace, it really is the option of last resort, and getting a comprehensive package is just a much better way (than budget reconciliation) to go for many reasons that folks who understand the legislative process much better have explained before.
So if the answer to the question I posed is yes, then, DFA/PCCC should strongly consider taking down the ad. At the very least, it should re-cut it so that it targets both Nebraska senators and puts more of an emphasis on the virtues of the public option.
No one likes coddling the egos of our elected representatives, but welcome to politics... and especially, welcome to the U.S. Senate. You do what you have to do to get what you want, and you avoid doing things that hurt your cause -- even if it's not as personally satisfying.