Squishy Money - Glenda Holste
Squishy Money - Glenda Holste starts her latest PiPress editorial with a Ivins-y snark:
"Say what? The Republican National Committee asked Howard Dean to direct organizations dedicated to defeating President Bush to abide by the old soft-money limit of $2,000 a person.
Scared of competition from these new money shops, I suppose.
Really rich folks (like George Soros) apparently aren't supposed to write big checks in presidential politics unless the rich guys donate to the Republican candidate."
Glenda: This differs from what Democrats were braying about back when "Rich" and "Republican" were synonyms precisely how?
No doubt they're worried, of course; as we saw during last year's Senatorial election here in Minnesota, the bulk of the GOP's donors seem to be smaller parties, while the DFL gets its money from bigger donors and institutional groups like the Teachers' Union.
But that's not Holste's main point. It's about the turnout, you see:
Regardless of which Democrat wins the nomination, what lies ahead is probably the greatest turnout election contest in U.S. history, made possible by the greatest money machines ever assembled in American politics. In an electorate composed of about one-third Republicans, one-third Democrats and one-third swing voters, the temptation has been to believe the victory primarily lies with courting those swing voters. But 2000 told us that turnout from party bases — and in which states — could be as important in deciding the 2004 election.
And if you're a Republican, you can only hope she's right. While the GOP base has traditionally outstripped the Dems in terms of turnout per capita, recent polls show that we now
outpace the Democrats for the first time in raw numbers.
Holste continues, noting that Minnesota and Wisconsin are now...:
...two states are among 17 that smart money calls "battlegrounds" — for lack of a term that is not bellicose. We can dread what's ahead in the "air war.'' That much money will mean record numbers of TV campaign ads. Negative ads are designed largely to suppress turnout for what used to be called a "worthy opponent."
Says who?
Or, perhaps more accurately, so what? If Candidate A wants to win, she can do it two ways: Get more people to vote for her, or get fewer people to vote for Candidate B. And if B has a personal record that Candidate A believes the voters would find noxious, why not publicize it?
Seriously. Professional sanctimoniacs decry negative advertising, as if politics is supposed to be a a Socratic debate attended by dispassionate solons. It's not. It's the intellectual equivalent of the coups and civil wars that most lesser nations fight to settle who shall lead them; on the battlefield the key issues of liberty or slavery, prosperity or poverty and countless in between are all settled - and in our country, they're settled peacefully, unlike most of the world. But to deny the fractiousness of human relations - and more importantly, to deny that factionsness an outlet through wonky tinkering like Speech Rationing - is to invite its return in more cancerous form.
Ask yourself this: Since campaign finance "reforms" first went into effect, has campaigning gotten more "civil"?
Back to Holste:
But if this presidential contest does end up with focus on turning out the bases, as is an expert specialty of Bush's political direction, Karl Rove, then we who reside in the bull's-eye states are also going to see different appeals. An important part of that difference is coming from the very places that are a bitter cup for the dazzling Republican re-election effort: Rich, seasoned progressives who are developing operations like America Coming Together. This shop (www.americacomingtogether.org), which intends to put $75 million into mobilizing for the Democratic candidate in the 17 key battleground states, is funded and organized by some of the most accomplished people in progressive politics. It is not yet candidate focused, except to challenge Bush's re-election.
Holste acts as if this is going to be a Good Thing for Democrats.
But a year before the election, the Democrats are still not campaigning for anything - just against Bush. It's a truism in politics - one never wins by campaigning against anything - you have to be for something.
And all the money in the world won't be able to overturn the simultaneous realizations that:
- The Democrats have no message other than "Anyone But Bush"
- They - or, to be accurate, their dominant left wing (gotcha, Flash) have completely missed the boat on the most important issue of our day - defeating terror, most notably Islamofascist terror (shut up, Montana Freemen).
There are other messagest that matter to Americans, of course. But with the economy improving and the war going well, the Dems are going to have to work hard to find one that helps rather than hinders them.
And all the money in the world can't buttress a bad message. Just ask Michael Huffington.
Posted by Mitch at
November 20, 2003 07:31 AM
