What first struck me when I read this was an echo of one of my favorite parts of Dean’s early stump speech. He would bring up his decision to support civil unions, seriously risking his political career in the process. He would talk about how a strong majority of Vermonters opposed civil unions, and feelings were running hot, but,
Most politicians, when asked about some controversial position or action of theirs that might endanger their election prospects, are tempted to respond by explaining why it could help them rather than hurt them; or, by acknowledging that it may hurt, minimizing that, and shifting to other issues that make them a strong candidate and counterbalance the dangerous one. All of these responses have one thing in common, whatever their content: they reinforce the theme of judging controversial decision on their impact on a candidate’s electoral prospects. They support the question’s premise, and keep listeners/readers thinking about that question: will this act or position hurt this candidate at the polls?
What Dean was doing, and what Feingold is doing here, is the opposite: undermine the premise of the question. What they’re saying, a bit under the surface but entirely clear nonetheless, is that talking about the electoral implications of these sorts of decisions is simply the wrong way of looking at them. They’re not denying that these decisions may have an effect at the polls, nor are they predicting one way or the other what the effect will be (or what other factors counterbalance it), they’re simply saying, “that’s not what this is about!”.
That turns out to be a great way for a politician to win the support of people who hold opposing views on some important issues. I think it’s no coincidence that part of Dean’s political legend, and the emerging political legend of Feingold, have this as a central element: winning the support of people who hold some starkly opposing positions. (For Dean, this actually began with the fight over education funding reform, much earlier in his time as Governor)
Some obersvations about this “tactic”:
- It’s partly self-fulfilling, in both directions. How candidates talk about this relationship between controversial decisions and election prospects plays a large role in determining how voters see it, which feeds back into how politicians will handle it.
- It only works if it’s real. People have to believe that you’re really /not/ thinking of the effect at the polls, when making the decision in question. That’s certainly true for both Dean and Feingold, but it means there are an awful lot of politicians who would have trouble getting the benefits I described above. You can only win your opponents over if they trust you.
- Because they’re undermining the premise, the actual question doesn’t get answered, and it often hides or obscures the cases where presumed wisdom is wong. This is a prime example: the Patriot Act is actually very deeply unpopular with the people in almost every part of the country. Fighting to reform it is an electoral winner. I don’t think a lot of people realize that, but I think Feingold does. (That doesn’t undermine his credibility, because nobody will think he knew that back when he first voted against the Patriot Act in 2001. That was clear courage.)
- Dean wasn’t even answering questions about civil unions that others brought up, he was pre-empting those questions by bringing it up himself. Many other candidates would try to downplay the more controversial elements of their background. I suspect that Feingold, like Dean, will not be doing that.
Above all, when candidates answer in the first manner I described, and reinforce the premise, they also reinforce a general cynicism about politics. When candidates undermine that premise, they inspire people.
Can anyone name an elected pol with more principle than this guy? McCain doesn’t even come close, he is a straight shooter to be sure but he let’s political calculation rule as much as his principle does.
<
p>
Thanks for pointing this out Cos. One thing that does strike me as funny though is how in not making political calculations on big issues it seems as though there is political calculation. By that I mean that when Feingold chooses to throw polls and calculation to the wind he seems to gain political points which makes me wonder if he continues to be the principled guy because that is in fact at least some small degree of political calculation?
Anything an elected official does in their capacity as an elected official, can (and should) have electoral implications. Being principled has electoral implications. So you’re right, people do wonder, at least a little bit, whether an elected official thought about those implications when making even what seems to be a principled decision. That’s party of why it’s so hard to “fake” – even a genuine decision may not necessary be believable, if the politician in question doesn’t have a record to back it up. Feingold does, of course. He may know that fighting to reform the Patriot Act now, is actually a political winner for him (that is what I believe), but back when he voted against the Patriot Act in 2001, there was no way for him to feel confident that it wouldn’t be a career-killer. That’s also why I brought up Dean and the education funding reform battle in Vermont in the early 90s. The stand he took on it was one that he rightly expected could be a career-killer. By the time civil unions got thrust upon him almost a decade later, he already had a history of going out on political limbs on critical, controversial matters, for what he thought was right – and having the rest of the public eventually come around to support him, after he won the first battle. That’s the pattern I think Feingold’s record on the Patriot Act is going through now. That sort of record matters, because it makes believe believe the candidate is sincere and honest when they say they’ve made a decision without regard for its electoral implications.
Feingold would be a dream for progressives. But man that would be a tough battle.
<
p>
The next two years are going to be insane for presidential primary politics. It seems to me that every major political figure on both sides of the aisle are going to dip their toe into the waters. This is the first time since maybe Eisenhower, as far as I can remember, that there wasn’t either an incumbent or a presumptive party favorite moving up from the veep spot, running for office. In the last 50 years, I think this may be the most wide open race ever.
<
p>
For the Dems, it’s going to be awfully hard to stand out from a crowd that looks like it could include Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, Warner, Bayh, Richardson, Feingold, Biden, Rendell, … am I missing anybody? I have a serious fear that with a crowd that big, name recognition will be enough of a boost, where 20% could be a victory in Iowa and NH. Are we Democrats really going to allow our presidential nominee to be decided by less than a quarter of the eligible voters? Again?
Actually, the more strong candidates there are, the more GOTV has a potential to make a big difference, as compared to media. It makes things harder for everyone, but proportionally I think it makes it even harder for the bigger name candidates.
<
p>
We had a very wide and open field on the Democratic side in 2003/2004, at least in part because therewas an incumbent Republican who seemed really strong, which dissuaded some of the stronger candidates and created an opening for newcomers to make their name. And we had elevent candidates compete. Will we top that for 2008? Maybe, maybe not, but certainly not by much.
<
p>
Are we Democrats really going to allow our presidential nominee to be decided by less than a quarter of the eligible voters? Again?
<
p>
We need instant runoff voting – especially for primaries for open seats. Talk about it, work for it, campaign for it.
I’d add Richardson and Vilsack to the mix. Vilsack could nullify Iowa, a real problem for candidates with lower national profiles looking to build a bounce off a good performance. Then again, theres a gubenatorial in 2006 and if Vilsack can’t keep that office Democratic, it diminishes his stature.
<
p>
As for the problem of having 20% of the Iowa caucus choose the nominee … I think its a real issue. I was disappointed the DNC didn’t reform the process to involve more southern, western, and midwestern states (North Carolina, Michigan, and New Mexico have growing populations … it would have been a great opportunity to let some new voters decide). Personally, I don’t buy the “there’s something special about Iowa and NH argument” … and if we thought moving the primary would cost us the election, then thats just another example of kowtowing to a small minority in the party.
in the details of the caucuses and primaries but I have a problem with the entire primary system. I think it will be difficult, even if we manage to put other states’ primaries in the immediate vicinity of IA and NH, to have a representative schedule of the make up of the country. No matter how we place the different states, the reality is that a minority of states will decide the nominee. Again, I don’t have any strong personal views so I am thinking aloud in the hopes that others will chime in but what about a hybrid system? What about figuring out a way for the candidate who wins the most primaries to have a delegate advantage but still leaving the ultimate decision to the convention where all states are represented and the vote is more simultaneous? I fear the smoke filled back rooms but we must admit that the primary system isn’t the most democratic either.
smoke filled back rooms brought us FDR, Truman, JFK anbd LBJ. Not a bad line up. Not too mention they would have brought us RFK in 1968, as he had build the craziest coalition ever, mixing Ceasar Chavez and former George Wallace supporters …
<
p>
Another problem I have with the DNC proposal is that it seems, and I may be wrong here, that it frontloads our schedule even more. Strategically there are arguments either way, but if 2004 showed us anything its that having a candidate early isn’t necessarily the best thing ever, as the RNC attack machoine can aim all its prowess at one target for longer.
Cos, 2004 was a wide open Democratic race which was avoided my most of the Democratic heavyweights because nobody wanted to go up against a wartime incumbent. Please don’t try to persuade me that anybody EVER thought Mosley-Braun, Sharpton, Lieberman, or Kucinich were serious candidates. Even Gephardt was hard to view seriously, and he was only in it because of how close his state was to Iowa.
<
p>
The difference in 2008 won’t be the number of candidates. It will be the number of legitimate contenders. Every one of the names brought up (Vilsack and Richardson, good additions) have to be viewed as serious candidates with the right mix of money, momentum, and message (not necessarily in that order).
<
p>
My point was also that BOTH sides of the aisle are wide open. I can’t recall another election so open on both ends, with no presumptive nominee on either side.
<
p>
I believe for political junkies, this is what heaven is like.
It would be a long shot based on how past elections have played out. That doesn’t mean it would be insignificant if he did run in 2008. If Russ decides to run he would immediately raise the bar for all others wishing to oppose him. Get involved with the folks at http://www.russforpresident.com It’s time to restore respect to the political process.