Opposing Bad Policy Is A Good Thing

by DemFromCT

[UPDATE] Polls like this cause Republicans to push the 'Dems have weaknesses, too' narrative; the press is only too happy to comply.

*****

EJ Dionne has an interesting column today. On commenting about the need for competence in the WH:

"You have to do the right thing," he said, "and you have to do the thing right."

The discussion revolves around the difficulty in focusing the fair and balanced press on who's in charge, who's in power, and who is accountable for bad policy and bad execution. Like this WaPo story, the press too often acts like they've been badgered once too often by Republicans to get a Dem story in there, substantive or not, to staunch the bleeding over the bad news. Like Pavlov's dog, the press complies just as it's conditioned to.

News about GOP political corruption, inept hurricane response and chaos in Iraq has lifted Democrats' hopes of winning control of Congress this fall. But seizing the opportunity has not been easy, as they found when they tried to unveil an agenda of their own.

Naturally this comes after the ABC WaPo poll has bad news for Republicans and the WH on the Iraq war. But Dionne makes the point that midterms aren't about the opposition's alternative policy, Presidential elections are.

The false premise is that oppositions win midterm elections by offering a clear program, such as the Republicans' 1994 Contract With America. I've been testing this idea with such architects of the 1994 "Republican revolution" as former representative Vin Weber and Tony Blankley, who was Newt Gingrich's top communications adviser and now edits the Washington Times editorial page.

Both said the main contribution of the contract was to give inexperienced Republican candidates something to say once the political tide started moving the GOP's way. But both insisted that it was disaffection with Bill Clinton, not the contract, that created the Republicans' opportunity -- something Bob Dole said at the time.

The Democrats' real problem is that they have failed to show how their critique of the Republican status quo is the essential first step toward the alternative program they will owe the voters in the presidential year of 2008.

Iraq's a mess and holding Republicans accountable for this and every mess they've made is what 2006 is about.

It should never go into a war without considering the probability of unintended consequences and planning for the worst case and not just the best one.

This is the basis for a saner foreign policy in the long run. As for Iraq, the voters should let the president know that he can no longer keep repeating his rah-rah mantras about standing down when the Iraqis stand up. Presidents deserve to be punished for insulting our intelligence.

Thus the shortcoming of Democratic leaders is not that they don't have a program but that they have not yet convinced opinion makers that fighting bad policies is actually constructive -- and that, between presidential elections, keeping matters from getting worse is sometimes the most positive alternative on offer.

Especially when the opposition doesn't control a single branch of government. Oversight, restraint, and accountability have nothing to do with whether Democrats have a better plan for the Iraq mess that Bush and the Republicans made. Americans have always preferred divided government. The pendulum needs to shift back to the way things were and away from the way things are. And the press will have little to say about it, just as they have little to say about how Americans feel about Iraq and Bush. On this, the press will be playing catch-up all the way to November.

Comments

[Mimikatz]

As long as Dem candidates keep hitting the Admin on issues of importance to their district, whether prescription drugs, port security, health care or whatever, and making the case that Iraq is bleeding the country and the incompetent Bush is making every problem worse, they should do ok. Promise a change of focus and less secrecy. "We trust the American people, and we will work for you."

He's lost the aura of competence, and when the GOP loses its twin issues of national security and lower taxes, they have nothing but fundamentalist morality, and that won't sell in enough districts to take the Dems over the top.

I'm increasingly hopeful.

[DemFromCT]

So are Dems. This is from Bloomberg. it has the obligitory 'can't get it together' message: "After years of disunity, disorder and disappointment, Democrats finally have something going for them: Republicans.".

[shep]

"Iraq's a mess and holding Republicans accountable for this and every mess they've made is what 2006 is about."

And not just '06. Making the case against the Republican movement has long-term implications, potentially seriously impacting the Republican and the Democrat brands.