All of the negatives that we try to attribute to the Republicans can just as easily be affixed to our own Party, which has had veto-proof control of the Legislature since 1992. In fact, since the budget has been set almost exclusively by the Legislature, a stronger and much more historically accurate case can be made that the Democrats are responsible for closing schools, cutting police, closing fire stations, etc.
Since 1992, the only time that a Republican has had exclusive control over the state’s finances was in the immediate aftermath of Mitt Romney’s election when the Legislature acquiesced its authority by granting Romney special powers to make politically unpopular cuts that they themselves were unwilling to make. Even in those instances, the Legislature can rightfully be held responsible. Giving Romney authority was their call.
The public is smart. They know who controls the purse strings. It’s not Mitt Romney and its not the Republicans. It is us: the Democrats. We are responsible for these things. I’m sorry, but this is the inconvenient truth, and we can either bury our collective heads in the sand and play make-believe or face reality.
If we stand any chance of winning in November – something that has eluded us for four successive elections and not by accident – then we not only need to face it, but we need to embrace it. We need to shape our message and our platform around it. “The Republicans have been bad for you” is a national message, but not a successful message for this campaign. (I’m not even sure it is a viable national message to be honest.) Our message must be more honest – with the public for sure, but mostly with ourselves.
Our message must be this “We haven’t done a very good job. We know that. You know that. But we are listening to you. We are learning from you. We will do a better job and we will earn your trust back by doing X, Y, and Z. And if we don’t, we deserve to lose your faith. This is our pledge to you.”
I have felt this way for a long time and, truthfully, that is why I have never felt comfortable in a room full of State Party or self-described Progressive Democrats. Too many of those conversations resemble the proposed General Election Advertisement above. They oversimplify the other party and they oversimplify ourselves. They lack a considerable degree of truth. It is that lack of honesty that is killing us with a general public far more perceptive than we are giving them credit for – to our own detriment.
On multiple occasions, I have been asked why a self-professed Maverick Democrat would support Tom Reilly. No doubt, some will still take umbrage with my moniker. I, of course, see no disconnect. I believe Tom Reilly has made the best effort yet to embrace my vision for the Democratic Party. For me, the aforementioned X, Y, and Z are restoring the income tax rate to 5.0%, standing up to the Legislature, and not pandering to our own special interest groups. I believe that this platform will help restore voter confidence with the notion of a Democratic Governor.
I also believe this message can win in November. Most of all, it is the message that makes me feel most comfortable in my own skin when talking with people – friends, family, whoever – most of whom have never heard of BMG and could care less about the “Democratic agenda.” They just want a good Governor, period.
Our message should be “We haven’t done a very good job”? Not too sure about that.
<
p>
Instead, what we need to do is just the opposite. In other words, actually go on the offensive instead of either 1) getting complacent or, even more importantly, 2) allowing Republicans to go on the offensive instead, through comments like “we haven’t done a very good job”.
<
p>
As I’ve stated elsewhere, one of the key reasons Democrats keep losing (nationally, at least) is because they don’t understand the rules of modern politics. Unfortuntely, things like “honesty” have taken a back seat to emotional, Swift-boat type takedowns.
<
p>
This doesn’t mean that we have to lie to win (exaggerate, sure — like building up Healey as just another right-wing Republican like Romney morphed into, and linking her to the national Republicans). It also means we need to get more aggressive with wedge-type issues like the Republicans always use against us (min. wage is a start, along with stem cell research, etc.).
<
p>
I appreciate the thought you put into this MavDem, and I enjoy your posts on BMG. But I really think you are off-base with this type of easily exploitable campaign strategy.
Thanks, Hoyapaul. I assume that all of the typical chest-puffing, resume-touting, and partisan-sniping will occur regardless. A campaign consists of multiple messages.
<
p>
However, I am suggesting – and perhaps this still won’t address your objections – that a successful Democratic campaign must include a large degree of the aforementioned honest and humility.
<
p>
We can’t pretend that all of these other message exist in a vaccum or some mythical land where only the Republicans are responsible for our problems.
<
p>
To beat the horse yet again: the Democrats are running against, and being judged against, the Legislature too.
<
p>
I believe this is a necessary complement to typical campaigning if we are going to break through with voters.
we just disagree on this campaign strategy of “humility”, though of course I think it’s valuable for you to put out there since you don’t hear it all that much in the blogosphere.
<
p>
I think the appearance of confidence and knowing what to do is one of the most valuable images to portray on the campaign trail. The concept of, in essence, apologizing for past lack of leadership or mistakes would be a disaster.
<
p>
Here’s what I think would happen with the strategy you suggest:
<
p>
Democrat: “We need to do better, because…”
<
p>
Republican/Healey: “Did you hear that? The Democrats admit that they haven’t done the job you elected them to do! They say they need to do better, but I can assure you that I will do better!”
<
p>
Democrat: “No, what we meant was to be honest with you and earn back your trust and…”
<
p>
R/H: [ignoring Democrat response] “Democrats need to do better — they admit it themselves! I wholehartedly agree!”
<
p>
Boston Papers: “Democrats Admit They Must Do Better”
<
p>
I think a better strategy is to take the initative instead of being on the defense, as Democrats seemingly always allow themselves to do:
<
p>
Democrat: “Healey has stood right by Romney as he lurched to appease the radical right of his party…” [compares Healey to national Republicans]
<
p>
R/H: “No, I stood by Romney because it was my job as LG and I’m really a moderate and…”
<
p>
Democrat: [ignoring R/H] “Did you hear that? She stood by Romney! That is what you will get with a Republican Governor!!”
<
p>
Boston Papers: “Healey Having Tough Time Shaking ‘Republican’ Image”
<
p>
Needless to say, scenario #2 is much more palatable and made possible through an aggressive strategy that does not apologize or make any admissions.
with post-debate press follow-up!
<
p>
But herein lies the rub: our Democratic candidates are saddled with the DEMOCRATIC Legislature’s record and low public standing. (It doesn’t matter that individual Democrats continue to be elected because: A.) the opposition is typically non-existent or pathetic; and B.) everybody likes their legislator, but most people dislike the Legislature.)
<
p>
So, as Democratic gubernatorial hopefuls gleefully march around the state saying, “We’ve done a bang-up job and we can do more,” the elephant in the room (the Legislature) is there to make voters think, “Like hell you have.”
<
p>
That is why the Democratic candidates need to treat the Legislature like their crazy cousin. Yes, they need to say that they can and will do a better job than Romney-Healey. Yes, they need to spell out how their leadership will be different. But they cannot simply expect that voters will sign-on (they haven’t in the last four races) because everybody will still be thinking, “Isn’t this guy from the same political family as Crazy Cousin Legislature?”
<
p>
So, how do you address that problem? You make a point of showing your independence from the Legislature (Ruane bill). You show were you deviate from the Legislature, ESPECIALLY on fiscal issues (the tax rollback). These are just a few examples of how a Democratic gubernatorial can say, “I get it too, folks. My party has screwed things up from time to time.”
<
p>
Otherwise, we try to sell them the mirage that the Republicans are responsible for everything, which they know is not true. Meanwhile, Kerry Healey will be telling them that the Democrats are responsible for everything, which is more true because we control everything except the bullypit of the corner office. Many voters will default to the Republican position because: A.) it’s a little more accurate; and B.) our crazy cousin is still in the room with us.
<
p>
I’m all for self-promotion, but it has to be reality-based. (BMG shoutout!)
<
p>
That’s what my messaging methodology is all about – we not only sum up what makes democrats better, but describe the systematic flaws of the Republican party.
<
p>
(Maverick, takes notes: here’s what my post was all about.)
<
p>
Republicans think we’re all alone to fend for ourselves, Democrats think we’re all in this together.
<
p>
Republicans like to talk about buzz issues to stir the masses, Democrats are interested in a government that makes things work – actually doing things.
<
p>
If people ask questions on our message, then we answer with specific details.
<
p>
“Mr. Patrick, why do Republicans think we’re all alone?”
<
p>
“Because they refuse to increase minimum wage, in which study after study has shown to have no detrimental effects to the economy – but will millions of Americans get out of poverty.”
<
p>
“Mr. Gabrieli, how do Republicans only talk about buzz issues, while Democrats make government run smooth?”
<
p>
“Just look at Mitt Romney. He’s perched on his soapbox why? To help solve issues facing Massachusetts citizens? No – to try to ban stem cell research. If I was elected Governor, I’d help fund stem cell research which could one day cure childhood diabetes, alztimer’s disease and paralysis. And, in the meantime, provides hundreds of jobs all over Massachusetts and will oneday likely fuel an entirely new industry which Massachusetts will lead.”
<
p>
As you can see, we aren’t going to be called on our catch phrases… because they’re in large part accurate. However, we will put the Republicans – all over the country – on the defensive, as we prove to the American people that the progressive worldview is the better one: we truly aren’t alone. We can create policies that benifit everyone.
Not all Democrats are equal, especially in Massachusetts. I think that is because some, maybe many politicians register as Democrats because except in a few areas, registering as a Republican is like touching the third rail.
<
p>
Is a “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” Democrat really a Democrat? I propose that they are not in many important ways, particularly because they use fiscal methods as an excuse to achieve Conservative ideals such as the “you’re on your own” philosophy. I think that kind of philosophy has more in common with Libertariens than Progressive Democratic philsophy of things like equal opportunities, fair rewards for fair work, progressive taxation, etc.
<
p>
I think that on economic issues, Tom Finneran had a lot in common with Mitt Romney. Social issues mean something, but economics is what motivates me to vote, because it doesn’t matter all that much if two male IV drug users want to marry if neither can find a job and the state won’t fund treatment because a $200 tax reduction is more important.
<
p>
In fact, I’m not even sure what “social liberal” means because how can you claim to support social issues if you don’t support them financially?
<
p>
I think this state needs a Democratic leader who will inspire us and move us past the downward spiral we have been experiencing trying to keep things the same as they have always been. The Democratic legislature has been coasting under Republican governors. It’s time for them to put up.
Voters aren’t too thrilled about either party. But why should Gabrieli, Reilly, or Patrick have to take ownership of the Legislature’s record? Aren’t we better off emphasizing the strengths of the individual who wins the nomination?Because matching personal records of achievement, I think all our candidates blow Healey away. And each in his own way seems like he’s coming from a place of action, very far from the Legislature’s machinations.
Sure, we can pretend that the nominee is independent and we can pretend that the Legislature is not controlled by our own Party, but there are two little problems.
<
p>
First, the public has already figured things out. (Democratic Governor + Democratic Legislature = All Democratic government. Wait is that good?)
<
p>
Second, Kerry Healey will be making the connection over and over again because it is her ENTIRE campaign strategy. (See: last four elections for favorable results.)
<
p>
The Democrat must position himself as “the people’s” Governor and that includes kicking ourselves in the ass a little (deservedly so, in my opinion).
<
p>
Otherwise, we play right into Healey’s hands.
Feel free to summarize the actual content. And provide a link to my actual article. Here for anyone who wants to read.
<
p>
What Democrats need to do is create a systemic message about why progressive politics is good – and compare that to why the conservative agenda is bad.
Read here for more, including a more in-depth look at the issue, but here are a few important quotes.
<
p>
“So the Four Pillars of Conservatism each imply their opposite: conservatives believe in small government, liberals believe in big government; conservatives believe in low taxes, liberals believe in high taxes; conservatives believe in a strong defense, liberals believe in a weak defense; conservatives believe in traditional values, liberals believe in moral relativism.
<
p>
Yet we on the left spend almost no time talking broadly about why conservatism is harmful and conservatives are not just wrong today on a particular issue, but inherently wrong in their entire worldview. If we begin doing that consistently, Democrats will realize that saying your opponents aren’t being conservative enough may win you a momentary debating point, but it loses the argument in the long run….
<
p>
While progressives believe were all in it together, conservatives believe were all on our own and were all out for ourselves…. the idea that were all in it together doesnt necessarily imply personal sacrifice for others sake that you have to give something up to benefit the common good. If I’m selling Americans altruistic instincts a little short in arguing that a more direct appeal to sacrifice has political limitations, so be it. But being all in it together speaks to finding solutions that benefit everyone, yourself included. It’s not about setting aside our interests, its about finding where our interests and our values converge.”
<
p>
Futhermore, Celluci was behind the tax cuts our state has seen over the years (and some want to increase) which is PRECISELY why our state had to make huge cuts in aid to towns… which is why town budgets were slashed, teachers were layed off and there aren’t enough cops on the streets of Boston and other cities, where violent crime is skyrocketing. So you’re wrong on that critique of my message.
<
p>
Furthermore, it’s idiotic to suggest Mitt Romney doesn’t have a say in the budget process. He plays a deep roll. The only vetoes that will be overriden are ones where Democrats are overwhelmingly in favor of it – in both houses – and there are lots of differences between the House and Senate. So, while Mitt Romney certainly doesn’t have the say that he could have (although, if he were here in Massachusetts stumping for his policies here instead of running for President, he just may) – he still has a big say. No matter what you think, the power of a Governor is stronger than you think. They’re the only one’s with a nightly soapbox who can truly stir public opinion. Mitt Romney’s just a lame-duck, whose abandoning Massachusetts, so he doesn’t have the credibility to have the sort of influence he’d otherwise have.
<
p>
The 5% rollback won’t be the issue that decides this race, especially if you have a candidate in the general election rallying around the property tax cause. People know it’s a broken system. This is just one more example of Democrats being the problem-solvers.
You did provide a link to my post, right up at the top. LOL
<
p>
That must have slipped my mind while reading your post =)
I was playing fair! Accurately summarized and fully cited! đŸ™‚
Perhaps this is the case. You cite national 4 Pillars. What are the local ones? I think a majority of voters (60%? 55%? 51%?) don’t like and don’t want progressive policies.
<
p>
Disprove this: broken system = Democratic legislature. It’s impossible! Without a republican governor to counterbalance the General Court, voters fear it’s “Legislators Gone Wild!”
<
p>
Can any progressive make a convincing agruement that a Democratic governor could or would be that counterbalance and not the engine for runaway spending?
<
p>
How can you argue that anyone (Celluci) slashed anything? Seems to me the budget has gone up every year since I moved to MA in 1981. Wasn’t the rollback referendum vote a signal the taxpayers have had enough?
<
p>
What progressive case can be made for winning the corner office? Spend more money? Return to spending more money? How does this square with a majority of voters wanting the rollbax they asked for?
<
p>
How can you possibly think a Dem candidate for governor will be elected if he pokes his finger in the voters’ eye by declaring it’s irresponsible to implement the rollback? That’s a Walter Mondale suicide statement.
<
p>
The whole city-and-town state funding thing, to Joe and Jane Taxpayer, is simply silly. It’s simply more state taxes and fees instead of property tax. It’s got to come from somewhere: the taxpayers’ pocket. You don’t think they know this? Isn’t this then a transparent arguement? “Restore funding to cities and towns” is code for “I’ll raise your taxes.” Voters understand this but progressives do not.
<
p>
Generally, I think BMG bloggers live in a progressive bubble and believe that their progressive ideas would be attractive to everyone if only you could “frame” or “market” the issue properly.
<
p>
It might be possible that a majority of voters don’t agree with your progressive vision, at least the economic ones, and don’t want or can’t pay anymore taxes, local or state.
<
p>
This is why the republican-governor-as-counterbalance strategy works so well.
<
p>
Why can’t you believe this?
Republicans have had 16 years at the helm of Massachusetts, only to use it as a staging ground for their bigger and better positions. As a democrat, I’ll stay here and work on creating jobs and stabilizing the population.
<
p>
Celluci pushed the voter income tax rollback. That was one of his legacies. When it passed, the state legislature did lower the state income tax (although not to 5%). So yes, Celluci caused the scenario which lead to skyrocketing property taxes from 2 1/2s and major cuts for towns that didn’t pass the overrides.
<
p>
Who said anything about spending money? Democrats have proven over the years to be the fiscally responsible ones, it’s Republicans who tax and spend. Say whatever you want about the Massachusetts legislature, but they’ve paid as they went for as long as I remember – and guys like Finneran were down-right economically conservative.
<
p>
“How can you possibly think a Dem candidate for governor will be elected if he pokes his finger in the voters’ eye by declaring it’s irresponsible to implement the rollback?”
<
p>
Voters are deeply concerned about property taxes and they’re effecting the poor, working and middles classes more than anyone else – the people who struggle to afford their mortgages. It’s not pointing their fingers in their noses, you’re just distorting the truth like a Rovian lapdog… but, luckily, these general principals work for the majority of voters. Just look how Deval has taken off. Just look at Jon Tester. Just look at Feingold, who wins despite opponents that outspend him by a factor of 2. It works.
<
p>
“Restore funding to cities and towns” is code for “I’ll raise your taxes.”
<
p>
Again, you distort the truth, like usual. NO IT ISN’T. Our state is currently working at a surplus, albiet a small one. Currently, we can afford to alleviate most the pressures on municipalities without raising taxes.
<
p>
NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT RAISING TAXES. NO ONE. So stop suggesting they are. Not a single democrat is suggesting it. So please, stop lying – because that’s what you’re doing.
<
p>
“Generally, I think BMG bloggers live in a progressive bubble and believe that their progressive ideas would be attractive to everyone if only you could “frame” or “market” the issue properly.”
<
p>
I breathe deeply and hope you’ll go away. However, in tolerating you, I’m going to suggest that a) why do you think Rove is so successful? Because people like voting against their best interests? and b) the vast majority of the population agrees with my positions, which is why Rove uses his language to get people to vote against their best interests. People overwhelmingly support fiscal sanity, pay-as-you-go government. People overwhelmingly support increased minimum wage. People overwhelmingly support improving education. People overwhelmingly support college access for all… this is the “progressive” vision you disdain. Sorry, but our people-powered movement is spreading like wild fire and you’ll soon see just how many people support us.
Sorry…still here.
<
p>
Look. I’m not claiming ANYONE has advocated raising taxes. I’m saying that Dems have yet to craft a credible campaign strategy to COUNTER those perceptions.
<
p>
I asked how a progressive would COUNTER Healey’s inevitable argument that a Dem in the corner office would indeed preside over “Dems go Wild!”
<
p>
Healey woill argue that saying “I’ll restore funding to cities and towns” is code for “I’ll raise your taxes” because AN ARGUMENT can be made that more revenue is needed to make this promise whole.
<
p>
Also, what would you say to a voter who is angry that they wanted — and were promised — the tax roll back to 5.0%, and Beacon Hill simply says “go jump”? You’ll lay out the argument in all it’s logic, but the voter still says, “yes, but it was promised, and then we voted on it too. Why won’t you roll the income tax back to 5.0%?”
<
p>
I’m not deating the merits of any policy. I’m putting forth a likely Republican campaign response, and I haven’t heard anything that sounds like credible comeback.
<
p>
Finally, you claim “the vast majority of the population agrees with my positions.” This is delusional. If it were true, then we’d all be living in a progressive world, which we’re not.
While I do agree that the Democratic candidate has to distinguish himself from Beacon Hill, he can do it by being authentic, charming, straightforward and humble — that is, as I’ve said in previous comments earlier today/yesterday — by not coming across as a hack, but as a straight shooter. If he can do it with eloquence and in plain English, then I think we’re all set, no matter what set of policies he’s advocating. I also agree that he needs to address the issues real people are feeling, and not just real Democrats, but real unenrolleds and even the occasional Republican as well. But you can do that as a progressive, if you talk about the problems that real people care about, but, here’s the rub, propose solutions that have an actual, tangible, effect on real peoples’ lives. So if you’re going to propose a solution to the property tax problem (see Sirota’s blog about that, his substitute had a great post on that today), propose a BIG solution, that will actually SOLVE the problem — don’t just tinker. Make it progressive, for example. Reduce the need for Cities and Towns to be so reliant on them for funding, by providing more state funding. Pay for it by eliminating (dare I say it) things like police details every time a utility has to open a manhole. [I won’t touch the rollback because I’m really conflicted about it]
<
p>
I don’t think a candidate can succeed by dropping into the same defensive crouch that the Beltway Dems have been in for the past six years by sort of apologizing for being a Democrat. I understand that’s not what MaverickDem is advocating, but I think that would be the optics. Sure there’s an elephant in the room, but just like Romney can escape being tied to Bush by force of his personality, a truly strong candidate who’s manifestly his own man can do the same thing with respect to the hackery.
Maybe it shouldn’t, but so-called character is a powerful deciding factor.
<
p>
These polls showing that voters care about taxes or “balancing” the legislature with a Republican are all taken absent the focus on the actual nominees who are appearing on an actual ballot.
<
p>
I am not saying that people don’t care about taxes or balance, but the question is, how much?
<
p>
Character and personality can potentially trump the issues, even change the issues. That is called political leadership when it happens, and it can change the whole public debate.
<
p>
Will that happen? I don’t know, but our chances are not good unless our guy can do this.
MaverickDem, I find that others have gotten a lot farther with your strategy ideas than I probably would have, but I have one additional suggestion for you, regarding your being uncomfortable in rooms with State Dems or (there’s that vague term again) progressives. (Where do you keep finding all these rooms full of State Dems and progressives, anyways?)
<
p>
Sorry … the suggestion was … try connecting your brain to your mouth as readily as you do to your keyboard … and speaking up and voicing your opinion in those rooms. Believe me, this comes from someone who knows it’s difficult … but in my limited experience with speaking my mind in opposition to groupthink, I’ve found it uncanny how often you will turn out to be saying what a majority of others were thinking. And all of them, including you, will be happy you said it.
<
p>
Plus, then you wouldn’t have to hold it all back and then unload on us hapless progressives and state dems here at BMG đŸ™‚