Wordcruncher

Message To Democrats: Obstruction, Not Compromise

It seems quite odd to me all the post-election “Why We Lost” analysis misses a very obvious point.

While much has been said from our side about the honorable campaign Sen. Kerry waged against dishonorable people, it overlooks the old Leo Durocher wisdom that we will be ill-served to ignore: Nice guys finish last.

Recall in August, when Karl Rove and his minions launched the Swift Boat attacks against Kerry’s character in an attempt to demolish his war record and, by proxy, his national security credentials. Rumor hit the streets that Kerry was incensed and wished to fight back hard. Bob Shrum, Kerry’s political advisor (and many of us have wondered why he had this position from the outset), supposedly told Kerry not to fight back because poll numbers showed Americans were sick of negative campaign tactics.

Well, sure they are. Every American asked will always tell a pollster they disapprove of personal mudslinging, especially in presidential campaigns. But guess what, Bob? Sadly, negative campaign tactics work.

Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan were able to win the presidency without basing their entire campaigns on such attacks. But Reagan and Clinton are exceptions that prove the rule. To the endless frustration of the opposing side, their charismatic personalities could withstand any kind of negative attack; people just liked them. But these were rare politicians, the likes of which do not appear to be on the horizon for ’08 (Obama Barack will prove the exception with his rock-star potential, but not in ’08).

Until then, Democrats will need to get mean. No reconciliation with Mr. Bush, who trashed such attempts in the first two years of his first term in office. And don’t buy into the claptrap the press says about compromising our values. Nicholas Kristoff provides such terrible advice to the Democrats in the Saturday New York Times:

Hold your nose and work with President Bush as much as you can because it's lethal to be portrayed as obstructionists.

No it isn’t. Republicans played obstructionism to the institutionalized Democratic machine successfully throughout the 80’s and early 90’s, culminating with the ’94 Newt Gingrich-led win. Taking this kind of advice perpetuates the “nice guy” image the party needs to demolish. We need fighters, not compromisers. We need Harry Trumans and Paul Wellstones, not Tom Daschles.

Compromise in this manner will always appear weak to Americans (and where are you now, Sen. Daschle?). The lesson should be that standing strong – or at least, appearing to – on principles earns respect. We know this is a big reason 51% of Americans voted Bush. If Democrats do give in and compromise away their values, on what will we run in ’08? That we were the party that meekly worked to advance the conservative agenda? Where is strength and leadership in that? Fact is, the conservative agenda will advance with or without Democrats.

Remember the old cries of “gridlock”? The first two years of Mr. Bush’s first term saw a nearly unprecedented (in recent times) level of bipartisan compromise on issues such as No Child Left Behind, the PATRIOT act, the war on terror, support for the authority to use war against Iraq and tax cuts – to the tremendous advantage of the president’s agenda.

None of this benefited Democrats one iota; rather, it now appears that this level of historical compromise was merely a cudgel to use against the Democrats in ’02 and last week. Has Mr. Kristoff ever examined the nature of the “flip-flopper” charges? Sen. Kerry worked with the president, paving the way to his own destruction. Principled obstructionism is a better value than compromise, which is easily portrayed as political opportunism.

Now that we are in the minority for the next two, four or six years with absolutely nothing to lose, it is time to build an identity as principled leaders standing firmly on a distinctive agenda. Even if it doesn’t win us anything, it’s better than the alternative – and much better for the party’s soul.