They didn't boo Duke Cunningham; they didn't hiss at Tom DeLay. They didn't even jeer at Jack Abramoff, a literal villain in a black hat. David Weigel explains why voters gave a big yawn to the Democrats' "culture of corruption" PR campaign.
New at Reason
Comments to "New at Reason":
When Democrats call workaday political corruption that surprises no one and reads outside the Beltway like little more than government-sized expense-account fudging a "vast conspiracy" more serious than their boy's hiding a fridge full of frozen payoffs--crazy, too-stupid-for-TV shit nobody can analogize to their daily lives--people think Democrats are dangerously deluded fucks who need to lose.
Andrew | September 20, 2006, 4:26am | #
Hell...in the first election in the post-9/11 world the Democrats had the relatively fresh Enron scandal to run on - and they did - with the result that they lost the Senate, bringing on the current one-party regime.Democrats have run on coruuption and competance issues in every cycle since, and seen their plurality sink. Except for maybe the comparatively popular tax cuts - and the comparatively worthy attempt to explore Social Security reform - they haven't, in the majority (much less in a consensus) opposed any major Administration proposal.
Why would I vote for these guys? Why would I think they wouldn't have made all these mistakes? why would I think they aren't sleasy? Their partisans proudly sport bumper-stickers saying "Nobody Died When Clinton Lied"
They seem to believe they have some cyclical "right" to replace the Republicans - that it MUST work sooner or later - and that's a party working on becoming irrelevant and useless.
Joseph Majsterski | September 20, 2006, 4:45am | #
I can't stand self-righteous Republicans in power, but I can't stand smug Democrats in power either. Damn it!Andy | September 20, 2006, 9:07am | #
Wow. Washington (and the NY Times) disconnected from what the rest of the country thinks and cares about?Whodathunkit.
joe | September 20, 2006, 9:31am | #
I don't think Weigel gets how the Republican corruption scandals worked in destroying the GOP's chances in this election. It is true that Democrats haven't been able to run on clean politics per se - to make the K Street Project and its ilk the center of a nastional campaign - but the scandals most certainly have created a more-friendly atmosphere for Democrats.Put simply, the corruption scandals made it easier for Democrats to get a fair hearing on other issues. In 2002 and 2004, whenever a Democrat staked out a position in opposition to the Republicans, the response was easy: Who are you going to listen to, a Democrat or someone in the President's party? There was a systemic leg up for Republicans just because they were Republicans.
That's all gone now. Rather than simply saying, "We're with Team A, they're with Team B," and reaping the benefits, the corruption scandals have made it unpopular to be with Team A. So now we see what happens when the two parties fight over issues and visions on a level playing field.
Remember the 50/50 nation? 9/11 turned it into a 52/48 nation, in Andrew Sullivan's famous phrase, and three things have turned it back into the 50/50 nation (at most): Iraq, Katrina, and the Culture of Corruption.
And, of course, that's just at the national level. In different campaigns (such as Ohio, Tom Delay's district, Montana, and I'll even include the expensive near-distaster the Republicans faced in Duke Cunningham's old district - that is, places that had a particular connection to one or more of the scandals), they have taken a heavy toll on the Republicans.
jf | September 20, 2006, 9:40am | #
joe,I think I agree with you on all points except for Ohio, and that's just because I know this state too well. I'm not really sure where you think the Dems are going to gain here. The governor's mansion is pretty much meaningless on the national front, there are no big-time weak incumbent representatives (that I know of), and while Mike DeWine deserves to get kicked out of the Senate, Sherrod Brown is still an unknown to most of this state, and the more people learn about Brown, the more a lot of people will probably choose to stick with DeWine.
Grummun | September 20, 2006, 9:52am | #
I'm surprised only half the people polled think congress is corrupt.The GOP's problems in Ohio probably have more to do with Bob Taft than Jack Abramoff.
joe | September 20, 2006, 10:05am | #
Grummun,If the Democrats had made the Abramoff/Delay/K Street scandal itself into a forefront campaign issue, then the distinction you mention would be important.
But since it is just background and scene-setting, the two sets of scandals are pretty much interchangeable.
jf, I think you're wrong about Dewine and Brown, and I expect Congressional gains for Democrats in Ohio. We'll see. But more important, the days of the Republican dominance of that state's politics are done for, from the state legislature to Congressional races, and this will have huge implications in the future, including in presidential contests, in which Ohio plays a prominent role.
joe | September 20, 2006, 10:05am | #
Grummun,If the Democrats had made the Abramoff/Delay/K Street scandal itself into a forefront campaign issue, then the distinction you mention would be important.
But since it is just background and scene-setting, the two sets of scandals are pretty much interchangeable.
jf, I think you're wrong about Dewine and Brown, and I expect Congressional gains for Democrats in Ohio. We'll see. But more important, the days of the Republican dominance of that state's politics are done for, from the state legislature to Congressional races, and this will have huge implications in the future, including in presidential contests, in which Ohio plays a prominent role.
joe | September 20, 2006, 10:05am | #
Grummun,If the Democrats had made the Abramoff/Delay/K Street scandal itself into a forefront campaign issue, then the distinction you mention would be important.
But since it is just background and scene-setting, the two sets of scandals are pretty much interchangeable.
jf, I think you're wrong about Dewine and Brown, and I expect Congressional gains for Democrats in Ohio. We'll see. But more important, the days of the Republican dominance of that state's politics are done for, from the state legislature to Congressional races, and this will have huge implications in the future, including in presidential contests, in which Ohio plays a prominent role.
it's fall (and election time) here in Ohio and that means all those little white crosses that symbolize anti-abortion will be dusted off and brought out of storage to be placed on the church's front lawn. It's not that the church is participating in politics....(snicker, snicker)
aspendougy | September 20, 2006, 12:32pm | #
I think the general sense of nearly all voters is that corruption and lying in Washington are so pervasive, that they cut across party lines. So Weigel has it right, people just yawn when one party or the other tries to focus on a particular scandal.Isaac Bartram | September 20, 2006, 1:07pm | #
Republicans and Democrats...same shit, different piles.But when you mix the piles together you get bipartisanSHIT and that's the stuff that really stinks.
Democrats have some really crazy ideas and Republicans have some really crazy ideas but if you want something really screwy watch what happens when they agree. As in The War on Drugs.
Creech | September 20, 2006, 2:31pm | #
Only 28 days until Rove hauls Bin Laden out of an undisclosed location and tears out the Democrats'hearts.
Wow, Creech, that's scary. I've been waiting for that to happen for a couple of months now.
John | September 20, 2006, 3:14pm | #
You could title this the "Joe's Wishful Thinking Thread". You have to have ideas and alternative to knock off the incumbent. It is kind of like boxing; the challenger has to beat the champ to take the belt. If Bush derangement syndrome sold, the Dems would have won in 2002 and 2004. It doesn't, so the Dems didn't win. Honestly, what would the Democrats really do besides try to impeach Bush and raise taxes if they were elected? Since most voters don't want another impeachment drama and don't want to raise taxes, that doesn't sell very well. Their certainly are issues they could club the Republicans with, but to do so they would have to take a stand now as a minority to show voters they meant what they said. The Dems do take stands in Congress but it always inside baseball stuff to please the nutroots base. Most of America could give a shit less who gets on the Supreme Court, who is the U.N. Ambassador, and would pretty much expect and support the government to torture terror suspects. How is it that the Dems think they are going to get back into power by focusing on these issues?Most Americans are damned appalled by the pork barrel spending in Congress. The Dems, if they would make the commitment and stop taking ear marks themselves and filibuster bills that have ear marks could really make the Republicans look bad.
They could also run to the right of the Republicans on defense. Focus on readiness issues and lack of funding and the need for new equipment. Yeah, that is not the whole story, but who cares its politics. Outbid the Republican leadership on defense spending and then point to the pork and ask, why is it we have the money for bridges to nowhere but not the money for bullets and tanks? Put together a single bill defunding every bullshit pork barrel project currently in the budget and earmarking it for the war on terror. When the Republicans killed it, go after them for putting pork above security. Combine this with running to the right on security. Give up bitching the NSA and instead go after Bush for not doing enough and for the bumbling incompetence of the CIA and homeland security.
In short stop whining and debating the past and come up with a plan for the present. The CIA is a good example. You could rake Bush over the coals for the CIA’s incompetence. But, to do that you have to give up on the argument that Bush pressured and ignored the infallible CIA regarding Iraq. You could get a lot more mileage with people if the Dems would instead say the whole intelligence apparatus under Bush in incompetent and they could do better. The Republicans are very fortunate in their enemies.
joe | September 20, 2006, 4:36pm | #
Oh, no! The guy who keeps telling us what a good idea it was to invade Iraq thinks my analysis is off!"Honestly, what would the Democrats really do besides try to impeach Bush and raise taxes if they were elected?"
Establishing withdrawal from Iraq as national policy. That get you the majority right there.
Shelby | September 20, 2006, 10:00pm | #
Dave,One of your best pieces to date, IMO. Any thoughts on what your fall-back position is if Democrats do end up getting a sweep on Nov. 7?
I would think that the worst scenario if the democrats gained a majority would be that the Bush administration would essentially grind to a halt......oh, wait...that would be the best scenario