Realizing the Political Advantage to An Aggressive Response

Democrats have spent the past two decades responding to an image created by Republicans that has so encased our political debate that even some Democrats (cough, Matheson's Blue Dogs) have adopted emulating conservatives as a "Democratic" strategy for election.

At some point, many of us have stopped asking if this image truly reflects what we know to be true about what it means to be a Democrat, and many elections have been lost to Republicans running with little more than talking points (cough, Chris Cannon).

It's long overdue time that Democrats played a hand in defining their own image, carving out a reputation built on Democratic ideals that we already know appeal to a majority of Americans.

The areas that pose the greatest challenge, where Republicans have most co-opted the message are issue of national security and foreign policy. But evidenced in the public support for Democrats' stand against the President on warrant-less wiretapping and retro-active immunity for Telco's, a tidal shift is under way that Democrats only need to capitalize on with aggressive positioning.

Shorter version: A little less John Kerry, a little more Biden and Dodd, and 2008 is in the bag for a Democratic Majority.

TAP:

It's possible to build a compelling national security message by tying traditional progressive themes into the ideas of Soft Power: promoting a foreign policy that reflects our values and traditions; reestablishing our moral authority in the world; using all of our tools to tackle complex problems. All of these messages reflect the thinking behind Soft Power but do not connote weakness.

Even more important than the specific wording is the manner in which the message is delivered. Poll after poll has found that when Democrats respond aggressively to claims that they are not equipped to defend America they are able to offset Republican advantages. In the run up to the 2006 mid-term elections when Republicans began accusing Democrats of being soft on terrorism because of their opposition to warrantless wiretapping, a Democracy Corps study found that the best response was to take the argument head on. What mattered was less the substance of the argument than the fact that Democrats were unafraid to defend their ideas. Similarly, when Democrats stood up to the president in March 2007 and passed legislation to end the Iraq War, their poll numbers on security improved -- not because they were taking the traditionally "hard" position but because they were asserting themselves.

Perhaps the best lesson that Democrats can draw is from Barack Obama's forceful response to President Bush's claim that having a dialogue with Iran is the equivalent of appeasement. Obama did not try to prove his toughness with hawkish saber rattling about war. Instead, he couched his progressive, smart argument that there is a value to communicating with those we have strong disagreements with in the most assertive terms possible: "If George Bush and John McCain want to have a debate about protecting the United States of America that is a debate I am happy to have any time, any place."

Crushing the Republican mythology that has seeped into our culture and been accepted as truth by all too many voters is not an easy task (it took the Republicans a decade to put it in place to begin with), but there is no reason to delay the process further. No more evidence will exist for the breaking the Neo-Con hold on our country than the Occupation of Iraq, and the filleting of our Constitution under the rule of today's Republican Party.

For more information, read Paul Rosenberg's ongoing series via Open Left: Constructing a Liberal Identity; Values and Narrative for a Political Realignment.

Sphere: Related Content