A Party Inverted (The Democrats)

NY Times ^ | March 30, 2005 | BILL BRADLEY

[neverdem]

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

FIVE months after the presidential election Democrats are still pointing fingers at one another and trying to figure out why Republicans won. Was the problem the party's position on social issues or taxes or defense or what? Were there tactical errors made in the conduct of the campaign? Were the right advisers heard? Was the candidate flawed?

Before deciding what Democrats should do now, it's important to see what Republicans have done right over many years. When the Goldwater Republicans lost in 1964, they didn't try to become Democrats. They tried to figure out how to make their own ideas more appealing to the voters. As part of this effort, they turned to Lewis Powell, then a corporate lawyer and soon to become a member of the United States Supreme Court. In 1971 he wrote a landmark memo for the United States Chamber of Commerce in which he advocated a sweeping, coordinated and long-term effort to spread conservative ideas on college campuses, in academic journals and in the news media.

To further the party's ideological and political goals, Republicans in the 1970's and 1980's built a comprehensive structure based on Powell's blueprint. Visualize that structure as a pyramid.

You've probably heard some of this before, but let me run through it again. Big individual donors and large foundations - the Scaife family and Olin foundations, for instance - form the base of the pyramid. They finance conservative research centers like the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute and the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, entities that make up the second level of the pyramid.

The ideas these organizations develop are then pushed up to the third level of the pyramid - the political level. There, strategists like Karl Rove or Ralph Reed or Ken Mehlman take these new ideas and, through polling, focus groups and careful attention to Democratic attacks, convert them into language that will appeal to the broadest electorate. That language is sometimes in the form of an assault on Democrats and at other times in the form of advocacy for a new policy position. The development process can take years. And then there's the fourth level of the pyramid: the partisan news media. Conservative commentators and networks spread these finely honed ideas.

At the very top of the pyramid you'll find the president. Because the pyramid is stable, all you have to do is put a different top on it and it works fine.

It is not quite the "right wing conspiracy" that Hillary Clinton described, but it is an impressive organization built consciously, carefully and single-mindedly. The Ann Coulters and Grover Norquists don't want to be candidates for anything or cabinet officers for anyone. They know their roles and execute them because they're paid well and believe, I think, in what they're saying. True, there's lots of money involved, but the money makes a difference because it goes toward reinforcing a structure that is already stable.

To understand how the Democratic Party works, invert the pyramid. Imagine a pyramid balancing precariously on its point, which is the presidential candidate.

Democrats who run for president have to build their own pyramids all by themselves. There is no coherent, larger structure that they can rely on. Unlike Republicans, they don't simply have to assemble a campaign apparatus - they have to formulate ideas and a vision, too. Many Democratic fundraisers join a campaign only after assessing how well it has done in assembling its pyramid of political, media and idea people.

There is no clearly identifiable funding base for Democratic policy organizations, and in the frantic campaign rush there is no time for patient, long-term development of new ideas or of new ways to sell old ideas. Campaigns don't start thinking about a Democratic brand until halfway through the election year, by which time winning the daily news cycle takes precedence over building a consistent message. The closest that Democrats get to a brand is a catchy slogan.

Democrats choose this approach, I believe, because we are still hypnotized by Jack Kennedy, and the promise of a charismatic leader who can change America by the strength and style of his personality. The trouble is that every four years the party splits and rallies around several different individuals at once. Opponents in the primaries then exaggerate their differences and leave the public confused about what Democrats believe.

In such a system tactics trump strategy. Candidates don't risk talking about big ideas because the ideas have never been sufficiently tested. Instead they usually wind up arguing about minor issues and express few deep convictions. In the worst case, they embrace "Republican lite" platforms - never realizing that in doing so they're allowing the Republicans to define the terms of the debate.

A party based on charisma has no long-term impact. Think of our last charismatic leader, Bill Clinton. He was president for eight years. He was the first Democrat to be re-elected since Franklin Roosevelt. He was smart, skilled and possessed great energy. But what happened? At the end of his tenure in the most powerful office in the world, there were fewer Democratic governors, fewer Democratic senators, members of Congress and state legislators and a national party that was deep in debt. The president did well. The party did not. Charisma didn't translate into structure.

If Democrats are serious about preparing for the next election or the next election after that, some influential Democrats will have to resist entrusting their dreams to individual candidates and instead make a commitment to build a stable pyramid from the base up. It will take at least a decade's commitment, and it won't come cheap. But there really is no other choice.

Bill Bradley, a former Democratic senator from New Jersey, is a managing director of Allen & Company.

[neverdem]

This is an interesting analysis, especially since it avoided the first and last questions in the first paragraph.

[CaptRon]

And then there's the fourth level of the pyramid: the partisan news media. Conservative commentators and networks spread these finely honed ideas.

I guess being a Rhodes Scholar doesn't prevent you from becoming delusional.

[LibFreeOrDie]

"A party based on charisma has no long-term impact."

Charisma! What the h*ll does Bill Bradley know about charisma? Well, the lack of it, yes.

And this crock about pyramids... Maybe if he put a cardboard pyramid on his head he'd make more sense. (How conveniently he forgets about George Soros, the big donor to Dem-friendly organizations.)

Is he hinting at a run in 2008?

[Joe Bonforte]

I love to see these articles. They never deal with the possibility that the ideas the Democratic Party now stands for are simply rejected by a large majority of the population.

It's similar to the relationship between a marketing campaign and a product. A superb marketing campaign can't save a product that sucks, at least not in the long run. The answer is not better marketing - first and foremost the answer starts with improving the product. Then an appropriate marketing message can be crafted around the product's strengths.

The Democratic Party has no "product" - no ideas or philosophy that can win them national elections. Until that changes, no amount of "marketing" - clever strategies and tactics - will help their election prospects.

Leftism as a philosopy is as dead as Julius Caesar. Until the Democrats admit that, they will continue to lose elections.

[Plutarch]

Candidates don't risk talking about big ideas because the ideas have never been sufficiently tested.

They've got all sorts of big ideas, it is the entire leftist agenda. Their problem is more how to hide their big ideas more than it is communicating them.

[John Locke]

Exactly. The Republicans run on their ideas. The Democrats run on everything but their ideas.

Just like those stupid margarine advertisements: "I can't believe it's not Republicanism!"

[expatguy]

If Democrats ever want to even be taken seriously again they need to address their fixation on butt sex and gay marriage.

[Darkwolf377]

This article is precisely why the Dems fail over and over: Bradley comes on like he's gonna open up a can of tough love, and instead delivers more smokescreens for the Dem loyalists. "Yeah, we don't have any big contributor base!" says the party of Soros and big-time contributions (note that not even the liberal press tries to pretend the Dems don't have the biggest of big-time donors anymore), and "Whoever's on top doesn't matter!"--yet another of their self-delusions over Bush being a puppet and stupid.

Dems talk big, like they're ready for strong medicine, and then go right back to blaming themselves for not being shallow enough--wow, that's brave, Bill! Keep it up--and I mean that sincerly.

[DeweyCA]

There is no clearly identifiable funding base for Democratic policy organizations

Bradley is delusional. What do you call the suppor from the labor unions?? Good grief, they strip dues away from their membershio, 40% of which votes Republican, and send it to the Dems every election cycle, along with thousands of paid union activists. This is so typical of Dems, blame everything except their wrong stands on the issues, which they have to try to lie about and hide from the public

[carumba]

...there were fewer Democratic governors, fewer Democratic senators, members of Congress and state legislators and a national party that was deep in debt.

Charismatic leadership does have its drawbacks.

[gr8eman]

Title should be "The Party Perverted"

[Nuzcruizer]

You got to admit, if these idiots can't figure out why they lost the election yet, there isn't much hope that they will before the next one.

[InABunkerUnderSF]

Leftism as a philosopy is as dead as Julius Caesar. Until the Democrats admit that, they will continue to lose elections.

1. Julius Caesar WAS a leftist (of the Populari party).

2. Never underestimate the sheer stupidity of American voters.

[driftless]

Bradley is a nice guy and also the dullest and most reality-challenged Rhodes scholar I've ever heard.

[William of Orange]

Democrats fail to understand that the American electorate has undergone a tectonic shift in the last 40 years. In 1964 50% called themselves Democrats, 25% Republican. These days there is parity (37,5-37,5). The Roosevelt New Deal Democrats are either dead or dying, JFK voters are pushing 70 if not already past 70.

Instead of adapting to the new political reality, in the early 70's the Democrats (in wresting control from the political machines of Chicago -Daley- and the like) went off to the other side, radicalizing and veering off to the left, nominating McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis and Kerry. Have there ever been more unelectable characters than those?

Now what Republicans must do, is NOT fall for the same trap, not underestimate the opposition simply because the opposition seems down. But the question remains, who will be the Dems' Goldwater? And how do we prevent the same thing that happened to the Dems also happening to the GOP. By not underestimating the opposition. That is the starting point. In my viewpoint, the more conservative, generally speaking the better. The electorate however, historically always swings back and forth, the only question is how far will it swing? Therefore, to prevent rampant liberalism ever emerging, conservatives if you can, RINO's if you must. Better to have a RINO president with a more conservative congress than the other way round. It is easier and far less time consuming to fix whatever mess a RINO leaves behind than the utter destruction that a few terms of liberalism will cause.

[Samurai_Jack]

They tried to figure out how to make their own ideas more appealing to the voters.

The writer lost me right here... This is howard deans idea. He is consulting linguistic experts to try to find out how to make the democrats unpaletable ideas socially acceptable.

to spread conservative ideas on college campuses, in academic journals and in the news media.

And this is where I stopped reading. Boy what a great job lewis powell did spreading conservative ideas on college campuses and the news media!!! Boy was walter cronkite mad!

[mewzilla]

Inverted, Bill?

More like perverted, I'd say.

[mewzilla]

They tried to figure out how to make their own ideas more appealing to the voters.

Bill, Bill, Bill...

They got NEW ideas, big guy. They didn't try to sell the same old stuff that obviously wasn't working. They suggested new stuff that obviously has worked, which is why the country has decided to let them keep on trying out more stuff.

This ain't rocket science, Bill.

Our party has two, apparently insurmountable, problems: Dem ideas SUCK, and their proponents are, by and large, UNTRUSTWORTHY.

Fix that and you'll be addressing the real problems.

[e5man_r_u?]

There is also something to be said for the strength of our ideas. The think tanks Bill mentions are a real asset. They provide a forum for all strips of conservatives to work on and research ideas and solutions. Then we as rank and file conservatives participate in the free market of ideas. We hash out what we think will work and what we will support. Then the politicians figure out what they stand for based on that. The Republicans have a good solid tested car to sell the electorate. The Dems are left with no option but to keep polishing their sales pitch, in front of a cardboard cutout of a car.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

All these responses are excellent and show that we are all basically on the same page. The only small twist I would add is to say that Republicans are idea and values oriented and the Dems are process oriented. That is why to them politics is a blood sport, take no prisoners.

The Pubbies, being value oriented, are often surprised by the lengths to which they will go. Look at the filibuster tactic and other cheap tricks that previously had been considered out of bounds. I would like a dollar for every time I have heard our side say I am amazed that they would do that.

The foundation of the Republican pyramid is the Constitution and the implementation grows from there. Each election cycle the Dems are just looking for ways to debase the Republican offering rather than offerinbg a plan of their own. They are "aginners" and therefore must recoup every cycle once they find out what they are against. They must wait for their opponents to propose something before they can do that.

The Dems always react to Republicans rather than make bold proposals on their own. Hillary's health care debacle may have made them gun shy for awhile. The Dems always want the Republicans to go first, whether it is the budget, a SS proposal, a tax proposal, or whatever. Then they look for places they can attack and say how bad the whole idea is. They are devoid of ideas except the duplicity they learned from the Communist.

Being process oriented and idea poor, they concentrate on ways to steal the elections rather than win them.

I am sure Ann Coulter and Grover Norquist are flattered to be considered of equal influence as the NYTimes, the Washington Post, the LA Times, the Boston Globe, CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, and NPR combined.