Democratic Leadership: Rebuild a Coalition Party

Democratic Leadership,

Bush has been one of those unique figureheads that is just vague enough in his style to allow Republicans of all stripes to project their own values upon him. As a result, each leg of the Republican party got their own idealized version of Bush. He was a social conservative. He was a fiscal conservative. He was a moderate, compassionate conservative. He was a neoconservative. He was for business. He was for the middle class. He was for women. Heck, he was even for illegal Mexican immigrants.

This, my friends, is how you build a coalition party -- and why Bush eked out something even close to 50% of the votes in two elections, despite the fact that his actual policies are either unrealistic (democracy in Iraq through military occupation) or unpopular (stem-cell research ban).

This coalition paradigm is coming into focus because, well, it's easier to see a failure than a success. And Bush's coalition party is unraveling right in front of our eyes. Failures in Iraq, Katrina, Supreme Court nominee Miers, and a host of scandals under investigation have exposed rifts in the party that were always there, but nascent because Bush promised everything to everyone. Republicans of all types held their breath... until now.

To be a majority party in a two-party system, Democrats need to rebuild a coalition, just like the Republicans did, and just like politicians do in multi-party systems across the world.

Coalition building is not easy, especially if you're used to listening only to special interests with specific points of view (hint). Coalitions worthy of majorities in this country require more than just the ability to placate and patronize (another hint)... they require deep research into understanding what each segment in the coalition wants, and remaining open to a broad set of desires. The key is then to employ deft communication and negotiation skills to prioritize these wants without giving that nasty disenfranchising aftertaste.

Coalitions are transient. And this is a good thing, because a viable party needs to continually disassemble and restructure its constituents to effectively lead a nation through the ever-evolving problems and opportunities facing us.

As you watch the Republican coalition disassemble right in front of you, seize this opportunity to hone in on this political paradigm, and go build your own.

Democrats: Delay the DeLay Tactics

Democrats,

I've already heard and read about the carefully-crafted catch phase "Culture of Corruption." It's lovely, but there are three problems with it:

1. It's too early to throw down the gauntlet.

There's a lot of nasty stuff circling the Republican party right now, between Abramoff, DeLay, Frist, and even Rove himself. It's really tempting to start characterizing the entire party as corrupt. But please hold back. Hold back until the Spring of 2006. And slowly turn up the volume through the summer, and then lead to a crescendo in the fall, just in time for the elections.

2. It's too broad of a charge. It opens you up for attack as typical Washington Partisans.

For every DeLay, there is a McCain. Don't fall into the trap of overplaying your rhetoric (again). Tweak the "Culture of Corruption" tag-line to "Ring of Corruption." Sure, it doesn't have the alliteration that you might fancy, but a "ring" is much more defined and, frankly, harsher than the broad term "culture."

3. Do not get politically involved in the details of these investigations.

At this point in time, the bulk of these "corruptions" you're talking about are still in the allegations phase. And, unless you forgot your American Values, you'll clearly recall the idea of "innocent until proven guilty." If even one of these cases ends up clean, it effortlessly removes all the teeth from your "Culture of Corruption" attack.

Some hints on how to communicate effectively on this matter, without getting yourselves burned:

"Republicans like DeLay, Frist, Rove, and others are going to do what they're going to do with their time. Let their actions speak for themselves. Democrats, on the other hand, not being under various investigations of wrong-doing, are going to use the extra time we have to solving this country's real problems: the deficit, rebuilding our Gulf Coast, and finding a solution to the Iraq problem."

"It does look as though there is a ring of corruption within the Republican party right now, but the good news is that Democrats are free from these legal distractions, allowing us to work full-time to represent the American people."

"These various alleged scandals in the Republican majority, unfortunately, just add to the crisis of confidence the American people have with their government. America does better when American citizens trust their government. With Republicans having majorities throughout government, I think it's clear that we need to establish some balance between the parties if we're going to make America strong again."

"Corruption scandals, indictments, and malfeasance like this are the inevitable result of an imbalance of political power. The American people need to vote in 2006 to re-establish a healthy balance of power to ensure that Washington has checks and balances."

Think about it: There is no way Democrats can win the White House and Congress in 2006, so use this opportunity to appear to be the noble party, and develop the message of "balance of powers" for 2006. Tie these corruption allegations to an unhealthy imbalance, and encourage Americans to vote for balance in Washington to avoid even more scandals.

Start now. Get comfortable with the message. Tune the message in targeted markets, and then unleash the ready-for-prime-time message in full force in Spring 2006.

Democrats: Bush Engulfed by Own Hubris

Democrats,

The twin Gulf crises, Iraq & New Orleans (the Gulf War and the Gulf Coast), are further draining the focus and passion from this administration. In hindsight, it's easy to say that it was bound to happen. But, let's skip the preaching, and get right to the strategizing.

Americans can now see, in retrospect, that the Iraq war -- and maybe even 9/11 -- might just be more like Katrina than they originally thought. They might now see that a lack of preparedness, facts, and perspective -- combined with an abundance of hubris -- might have made these disasters appear in the first place.

Sure, Katrina was unavoidable. But was the callous, detached, seemingly ignorant federal response unavoidable?

Americans think that the Mayor, Governor, FEMA, and the President all dropped the ball. But only the President is the common link between the trifecta of tragedies that have plagued his tenure as President.

What to do? Reinforce the linkage for Americans. The linkage is that these crises didn't just happen to "W", he helped create them through a unique mix of ignorance, avoidance, and appointment of inept cabinet members to lead key government functions.

Some specific linkages to try out:

Link "Nobody ever thought the levees would break"
With "Nobody ever thought they'd use planes as weapons"

Link "Louisiana will let us know what they need"
With "The Army Generals will let us know what they need"

Link Cheney will solve the problem
With Cheney will solve the problem

Link Not enough food & water for American citizens in
          New Orleans
With Not enough armor for American troops in Iraq

Link Give no-bid contracts to special interest
          reconstruction firms
With Give no-bid contracts to special interest
          reconstruction firms

Link Reduce pay caps for local contractors in New Orleans
With Reduce benefits for soldiers in Iraq

Link Hide all body bags
With Hide all body bags

Link Appointment of Brown for FEMA
With Appointment of Rumsfeld for DOD

Link Go into debt and borrow money from China to fund
With Go into debt and borrow money from China to fund

Bush's response to this domestic disaster hit at the very core of the brand he and Rove have so carefully crafted: "We will protect you." He is now seen by more Americans as the hapless heir of a Bush Dynasty -- the same way Americans saw him before 9/11.

The Real Bush is Back. Now go tell America all about it in preparation for 2006 and 2008.

Democrats: The Nation Needs a Holistic "Putting Things Back on Track" Party, not an "Anti-War" Party

Democrats,

As you've seen in the latest polls, "W" is down, congress is down, and -- sorry -- you are down as well.

Considering you have little direct responsibility for what the majority party is doing to our country, this poor showing is still completely your failing. Why? Because you should be seen as the only hope for the country to get out of the quagmire that "W" and the 'Pubs have gotten us into. Yet, you're not. And you're running out of time to change deep-seated brand perceptions for the '06 elections.

The press seems intent on calling people pro-war or anti-war, and that's just a trap. You need to introduce a new persona the debate -- a persona that redefines the lines.

Do not get stuck in the pro or anti-war lines any longer. Make your side the "Getting Things Back on Track" side.

Americans are generally of the belief that Bush and his colleagues have made a mess of things, but at the same time, they don't want to see Democrats just stand up and point fingers (see Gallup polls).

Instead, focus on how your platform -- putting things back on track -- is about just that. Make "Democrat" synonymous with putting things back on track -- the feeling that Democrats have the logic, facts, and insight to analyze the situation and make the necessary changes to regain America's footing in the following areas:

The Iraq War
- Internationalize and legitimize the peacekeeping mission and political stewardship
The War on Terror Organizations
- Get our sights back on al'Qaida before they strike us again
Economy
- Not just regaining old jobs, but creating new, better jobs for Americans
Gas Prices
- Display America's global leadership by convening an international Fossil Fuel Summit to ensure gas prices once again become reasonable

Stand on these four pillars, own these four pillars, and embody these four pillars. Only through consistent adoption and communication of this go to market strategy will you begin to sway public opinion to start trusting your party to run America once again.

Rudy Giuliani said it best at the RNC Convention in 04...

"Neither party has a monopoly on virtue. But I do believe that there are times in our history when our ideas are more necessary and important for what we are facing."

...and the time is now for solemn, rational, fact-based leadership that Democrats are naturally more attuned to than the ideological Republicans in place today.

Rove to Democrats: Extreme Left Does Not Beat Extreme Right

Democrats,

It started out fine enough, when an anti-Bush mother-of-a-dead-soldier decided to stage a mini-protest outside of "W's" ranch in Crawford. The first few days went really well; Cindy Sheehan got a lot of press, sympathy, and gave a face to the negative side of the war effort.

Now, however, the Sheehan protest experience is rapidly deteriorating due to the hijacking of her cause by a bunch of anti-war/anti-Bush groups, which causes a strategic problem: Democrats need the money and votes from Liberal Activist Groups (yup, that's LAG), yet you also need to steer clear of them because they are a burden to your attempts to recapture the respect and dignity of the vast Moderate Majority of Americans.

Sheehan started out with a very effective message and campaign. But like fruit flies to a rotting banana, the LAGs glommed on, pimping her out to prostitute for their more divisive and angry agenda. The net result: At best, a much less sympathetic figure of Sheehan has emerged. At worst, a complete backfire of what was a very effective campaign.

MoveOn.org, Michael Moore, and other "brands" are just as unpopular with regular Americans as radical conservative groups. The difference is, the radical conservative groups hide behind a church steeple, which most people respect and utilize as part of their spiritual lives. MoveOn.org and Moore are not attached to people's daily spiritual endeavors, so these institutions don't have the same ability to gain sympathy or empathy from Americans.

It's time for tough-love with the LAGs. Treat them as they are: very important base-warming institutions. Feed them enough to keep the base warm, but do not overfeed them, because the Moderate Majority will reject their anger and venom (unless, of course, "W" screws things up even more, in which case we're likely to go back to 70's-style liberalism thriving in America).

Senator Biden is striking the right tone now on Iraq. Don't worry about presidential politics now -- focus on 2006, and go speak with him before speaking out. Get on his message, and take better advantage of the awful mess this administration has gotten itself into through blind faith and ideological hubris.

Rove to Democrats: It’s Time for Recess!

Schoolyard bully-cum-President George W. Bush always liked recess. In school, recess was the time to recover from the constant droning by teachers about liberal activist topics like biology, chemistry, and physics. It was also the time when he could put his real talents to good use: he could corral like-minded folk and bully the rest of the class by utilizing the time-tested tools of intimidation, fear, and tests of loyalty.

I'm sure you remember the schoolyard bully in grade school. Well, now he's President. And, in case it wasn't clear to everyone, he's still playing the schoolyard bully role in his current job. But instead of hiding behind teachers that turned the other cheek because his daddy was an Important Person, he now hides behind a gang of talk show and new media activists that provide him cover.

And here we are, once again, observing our Bully-in-Chief utilizing his favorite period: recess. By using congressional recess as a loophole strategy to appoint people to key positions in government -- positions designed to be approved by our democratically elected representatives -- he is once again playing schoolyard bully during recess.

Sure, most presidents use recess appointments strategically. To say that Bush is alone here is unfair. But what is very clear is that, as usual, Bush is taking an established precedent and blowing the doors off of it and magnifying his vision of consolidated executive power.

George W. Bush appointed John Bolton during recess because he could not get his pick past America's representatives in a high-profile set of hearings. So, in essence, "W." decided that Americans were wrong, and went around us to put the guy he wanted in the post anyway.

Is this "Democracy on the March?" No. It's the schoolyard bully during recess.

Rove to Democrats: Rick Santorum Needs to be Interviewed More Often

Democrats,

Oh, it was rich. More specifically, it was Rick. Senator Rick Santorum was on the Daily Show and needed to go unscripted for a few minutes.

Lesson #1: Invite dumb ideologues to the talk show circuit whenever possible.

Santorum was peddling his book ("It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good") on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, and tried to keep fresh'n'happy with Jon during the friendly debate on society.

During this friendly debate, Santorum said that while he feels that homosexuals can be virtuous people...

Lesson #2: Make sure to include Santorum's quote about gays being virtuous in independent advocacy ads during next year's PA Senate race. While I'm not so sure it will improve his gay voter turn-out, it certainly will dampen enthusiasm with cultural conservatives -- his base.

...he wants to legislate the "ideal family" which includes only a mother and father raising a child. He asserts that the very future of our society is in the balance, and that legislating the ideal family unit is the only way to keep our society healthy and successful. He went on to say that government needs to help parents get through problems in their relationships. He went as far as to say "we have to" when asked if government should legislate the ideal.

Lesson #3: Let dumb ideologues drown themselves in their idealistic rhetoric. There's nary a reason to even respond. Libertarian Republicans will wince when they find out that their dear party has been hijacked by "cultural socialists," and intelligent conservatives may decide that they don't want to vote for a mental midget to represent them.

It's all about slicing off small part of the United Republican Front that Bush assembled. In a 50/50 nation, you need to focus on promoting the alternative and at the same time, tear down the opposition. Rick has outed himself as a cultural socialist and voters need to know this so they can make an informed choice in 2006.

Democrats -- this may be your opportunity to link the moniker "cultural socialist" with the "movement conservatives." Any use of "socialist" is demeaning in today's America, thanks to the Republicans! So, in true Rovian style, utilize the work done by your opponents and use it against them. And then, tie it into an embarrassing event:

Rick Santorum - Pennsylvania's Cultural Socialist. He knows what's best for your family. Just like he knew what was best for Terri Schiavo.

Rove to Democrats: Roberts Nomination - Update on Strategy

Democrats,

After a few days, it's much easier to see the way things are turning out: George W. Bush has pulled a very strategic maneuver that has caught most people off-guard:

He nominated a Conservative that most everyone can like and respect.

This, by the way, is at once a gift (a good guy gets on the Supreme Court under Bush's watch) and a booby trap (Americans change their views of Republicans from Dick Cheney and Karl Rove to the "All-American" Roberts).

Now, if Roberts' persona would actually shift the focus of the Republican Party to one that resembled Roberts more than Rove, that would be one thing. More likely, the radical ideologues on the Right will effectively leverage this new lovable Republican Persona as a vehicle to draw more people in the party that they effectively hijacked 5 years ago.

As a result, any opposition move for or against Roberts is a tricky one, and this is exactly what Bush wants.

Here's the tough-love advice, Democrats: Make and portray the Democratic Party a party that someone like Roberts should belong to. Even though Roberts is a "Conservative," that does not mean that someone like Roberts (i.e., his persona) should not be a Democrat. The Democratic Party should be portrayed as a party that consists of "good people" with "good character" more than "people of a narrow set of liberal beliefs."

If you can embrace Roberts as a good guy who could possibly be a Democrat, you are strategically implying that Republicans are too radical and out-of-mainstream to keep him.

Does it matter what party Roberts is really a member of? No. Does it matter that Roberts might actually be too conservative to be a Democrat? No.

What matters is how you portray your party against Roberts' persona.

I've seen some liberal interest groups already beating up Roberts on cable talk shows. This is a dreadful mistake. This puts Democrats (sorry, but liberals = Democrats on talk shows) in a radical light, which is exactly where George W. Bush wants you to go.

If George W. Bush can make Liberals go nuts on Roberts, he has successfully made progress with his and Rove's "Permanent Republican Majority" initiative.

Democrats, you should embrace Roberts for his positive assets as a person, and as an American. You will upgrade the Democratic Party in Americans' minds, and simultaneously foil the Rove/Bush "Permanent Republican Majority" initiative.

Rove to Democrats: Don't Go to the Mat over Roberts Nomination

Democrats,

The John Roberts nomination for the Supreme Court is not the right battle on which to go to the mat. I know he does not represent many "mainstream" values, but his persona is very mainstream. And if we've learned anything in the last 5 years, it is that persona is just as (if not more) important as fact or policy in terms of national political messaging.

Be honest with your assessments based on your values, but do not demonize Roberts. It will backfire.

Focus on the strategic value of this opportunity: re-branding the Republican Party. Transform this nomination from Judge Roberts to Bush's "stamp" on a strange, new America that he is ushering in through his brand of Texan Conservatism.

Some talking points to help set the right tone:

"Judge Roberts is a conservative judge who does not represent my values, nor the majority of my constituents' values. I do not think Americans are really this conservative, but if this Republican President and this Republican Senate want to change the course of law in this country, it is clearly in their hands. It is up to the American people to change the make-up of the Senate if they do not want the rule of law to change from where it is today."

"Judge Roberts is a judge of character, yet his philosophy is clearly right-of-center. Unfortunately, I believe this means that the freedoms, liberties, and equalities that Americans currently enjoy will be altered in the future. But this should come as no surprise, as this is our President's philosophy as well. Nobody should be surprised about a right-wing President who pretends to be "compassionate" nominating a very conservative Supreme Court justice."

"Judge Roberts is the conservative 'stamp' on the Court that the Republican Right Wing has been waiting for. We will have to live with a more conservative court, and only then will the American people truly understand what a conservative court will mean to them. Once they find out, I predict we will see Democrats regain majorities throughout government. It's a case of 'be careful what you wish for, America. You might just get it.'"

"I no more want Roberts to be on the Supreme Court than I want George W. Bush as President, but the American people have put Democrats at a political disadvantage recently, and until we regain some majorities, I will do all that I am able to do to educate the American people on how Republicans are remaking America in their own image."

"When I think about the progress we've made as a society through a moderate, balanced Supreme Court, I think we can all take pride. I just hope that we've just ended the golden era in American's history as President Bush ushers in a new era."

"Let this be a lesson to the American voters: You do not just elect a President based on how tough he is on terrorism. You also elect someone who sets the legal tone for the next 20-40 years."

"The conservative-leaning Supreme Court already rules on eminent domain in favor of the State. I hope George W. Bush and the Republicans aren't stacking the deck against Americans even more with this conservative nominee."

Let the chips fall where they may with Roberts. Unless something heinous comes up, he'll be confirmed. Instead, use this no-win situation to begin chipping away at the Republican Brand. Get entrenched for the long-term struggle for ideas, and don't get distracted by fights you simply cannot win.

Rove to Democrats: Fight Rove with Rove

Democrats,

Recently, Karl Rove has been doing some campaigning for this "Permanent Republican Majority" project. We all know this is his project, because he plainly stated it in public.

What does this mean? It means that Karl is the brand manager for the Republican Party, and his job is to ensure that his brand is perceived as superior to that of the competition.

So, it should be of no surprise that he is smearing the Democratic "brand" with lots of rhetoric that paints his competitor as clearly inferior and not worthy of anyone's investment. As a side benefit, he gets the chorus of talk radio and cable news talking heads going bonkers and deflecting from the real serious issues at hand.

Nice move, Karl. I tip my hat to your skill.

However it looks as though Democrats were caught unprepared for these types of remarks. This is a real shame, because Dems should be doing "oppo research" proactively and coming up with these Rovian snipes ahead of time in their own think tanks. If they were doing this due diligence, then they'd already have stock responses to Karl's rantings.

Why Democrats don't see this as a brand management issue is beyond me, because that's exactly what this is. Karl is smearing the Democratic brand, and Democrats appear to have no brand manager to develop messaging strategies to counter.

Actually, they do, it's this site. But the Dems don't really pay enough mind to this advice column, do they?

OK, enough belly-aching about the problem. This site is about solutions, so here we go:

Instead of feining anger over Karl's assertions that Democrats are essentially pussies (sorry, but that's what he's saying), you need to defend your brand by using the coverage he has received for his over-the-top remarks as a messaging conveyor belt for your message you want to get out to the American people:

Talking Points:

Instead of fantasizing about what Democrats would do if in charge, Karl should focus on figuring out how to get Republicans out of the mess this administration has made of Iraq, and at home.

Democrats have a distinguished history in effectively managing wars. What's in question is this administration's ability to manage this war.

If Democrats were in charge, my guess is that we'd already have Bin Ladin. Instead, we have Saddam. Who are you more afraid of?

What you see here is the equivalent of somebody trying to save a sinking ship by blaming the water instead of trying to fix the hull.

(Ideally, Dems would have talking points segmented by "levels of legitimacy" -- where a more spicy talking point may go to Alan Colmes or Howard Dean, and the more statesman rhetoric be delivered by senators and governors. But this is very tactical stuff that I will not go into in this post.)

Notice how the first three talking points strategically insert Democrat brand identification in the response? This is the type of response that is required, because Americans need to begin believing that Democrats aren't just a bunch of sniffling Senator Durbins. They need to believe that Democrats can be trusted with America's difficult national security concerns. They need to believe that Democrats can lead. This means convincing Americans that the Democratic brand is powerful, trustworthy, and represents a vision of the future that Americans believe in.