Confronting vs. Feeding the "Elitist" Meme

In this diary I want to make several points more clearly than I appear to have done on several other occasions. I have however, one overarching theme: the path to Democratic Victory does not lie in feeding the meme that Democrats lose elections for being "elitist" or "out of touch." Rather, the path to Democratic Victory lies in confronting and dispelling the meme, and redefining the vital center of American politics. I have issues with both Obama and Clinton, but on balance, I believe Obama is our best hope for achieving this end.

First, let's define the meme. So that I will not be misunderstood let me make it clear that I am describing a meme that has been pushed by numerous Republican candidates and even Independent conservatives such as George Wallace. I am not, I stress, advocating this position. Below, I will critique it. But first, we have to understand it. It goes something like this:

Democrats, starting with Adlai Stevenson, lose elections because they are perceived as being elitist, out of touch liberals. Their elitism is evident in their values orientation. They tend to be secular, focused on foreign policy and domestic issues, intellectual and as a rule, uncomfortable talking publicly about religion. Particularly on foreign policy they are defined as "soft on communism","anti-American", "blaming America first" and now "Anti-Israel" and "soft on terrorism (read radical Islamicism)". On social issues, they are perceived as "out of touch" given their defense of affirmative action and abortion rights and their opposition to forced prayer in schools. They appeal primarily to affluent, intellectual elites on issues such as foreign policy and the environment. It is this "elitism" that explains the defeat of Michael Dukakis, Al Gore and John Kerry.

While I disagree with this meme, it has become a very powerful, potent force in American politics. Its wide usage in the hands of pseudo-populists such as George Bush may possibly have made a difference in the last two elections. Certainly, the constant harping by the media on liberal being equivalent to "elite, effete" and "out of touch" has helped to turn a myth, into a partial social reality. The perception of elitism does now hurt liberals, though by how much is hard to say as the evidence to support it is mostly anecdotal and not empirically rigorous.

If we buy this meme (and I don't) then the only chance Democrats have of winning is to adopt the tactics and themes of the opposing side. This is, in effect, the position that Clinton seems to have taken. What this means in practice for a hypothetical Clinton administration is anyone's guess. Will she now appoint "strict constructionist" judges? Will she really adopt a first strike policy towards the ME? Or is her Neo-Con rhetoric, mere words? With the Clintons, one never really knows.

But Clinton's buying into the  meme and using it to attack Barack Obama as an elitist carries with it serious risks. It legitimizes the cultural ethos and contributes to the continuing erosion of serious discourse in public politics. And it opens Clinton up to a sustained right wing attack in the general election that will make the recent attack on Obama look like a friendly game of slow pitch. In the end, a Clinton GE campaign, premised on "being tough" and pitching to cultural conservatives will mean that she is saying these things are actually good-and that means voters might as well take the real thing: i.e. John McCain.

Now, what's wrong with this meme. Let's take a look at Gore's campaign. There were many factors in Gore's "defeat" (leaving Florida completely aside). The biggest problem Gore confronted was the image of Democrats as dishonest that was reinforced by Bill Clinton's conduct in office and the numerous gaffes (real and invented) by the Gore campaign that fed it. The second biggest problem was a horribly won campaign. The third, was a campaign from the birkenstock wearin, prius drivin, latte sippin' left led by Ralph Nader.

Yet whatever one thinks of Florida, Gore did win the popular vote and when you combine his total with Nader's (splitting 2-1), Gore does even better. How could Gore have avoided the problem of Nader or at least neutralized him? By speaking passionately as he has done since on global warming and not by pandering to pro-life voters. As an aside I will say that I think the Democratic support for gun control should be dropped as it is a pointless, loser issue. I am not a gun owner but gun owners don't scare me.

Kerry also did not lose because he was an "elitist." He lost because he ran a lousy campaign and waited to respond to the Swift Boat attacks. He lost because George Bush then was a popular war time President and people were scared of change. He lost because curiously, just when the story about missing weapons broke out and gained traction, Osama Bin Laden appeared on cue on national TV.

And finally, we have to emphasize: he in fact came very, very close to winning. An "elitist, liberal" "out of touch" Democrat won approximately 48% of the vote and was strongly competitive in Ohio.

In this coming election, the fundamentals are on our side and this is not the time to run away from what makes us Democrats. Its time to communicate those beliefs passionately and effectively, yet without disparaging groups of people who differ with us on "values." But let's be clear that we have values too-like economic justice, personal freedom and the right of a woman to control her body.

What kind of campaign will win or can win? First, any Democratic campaign is going to have confront the smear campaign that will seek to tag us as "elitist" and "out of touch." Of course, we won't win elections through careless gaffes or by insulting people. But we won't win them by belting back shots in bars or by hunting or by bowling.

Then how: we win by running hard, passionately and consistently on the issues: turning the economy around, confronting deindustrialization, health care and yes even by defending personal freedoms and the right to choose. We will sometimes have to be as mean back to Republicans as they are to us. But we have to turn the tag around.

What is more elitist than John McCain's life of serial divorce,trophy wife, support for the war, personal financial situation. And the neo-cons, it should be pointed out, define the very meaning of the term elitist.

And finally we have to recognize that we cannot win 100% of the vote. We can and should engage on religion but we have to face the fact-people who are passionately pro-life are not going to vote for a pro-choice Democrat. People who believe the world is 8000 years old and that Armageddon is coming to the mideast will not vote for a Democrat. And these people are often themselves part of the economic elite. There are as many (unfortunately) rich "Values Voters" as there are poor values voters.