January 6, 2015
A friend once advised me that if I wanted Syncopated
Politics to be a success, I had to do more than just write well, or
insightfully. Rather, he said, content was good, but catchy headlines were
better. Something to grab attention, something to cheer, or uplift, or even
titillate. A little Mad Man-like without
the booze and the sex.
There is absolutely no question I have failed on the catchy
headline front, no matter how gripping my recounting of some obscure tome or
article or conference might be. And, since
every New Year requires a New Year’s Resolution, I am throwing caution to the
wind, and coming out with some big. We
will try fear. 2016 will be a very scary
year.
I have to admit, this wasn’t entirely original. Rather, it was inspired by a brilliant
observation by Mitch McConnell, “I don’t want the American people to think that
if they add a Republican president to a Republican Congress, that’s going to be
a scary outcome."
Ok, so who is scarier?
Democrats first, since they have the White House. First, what do the Democrats stand for? Beats me, and I’m a Democrat. I know what policies I would support, but
they don't seem to intersect very well with the mush I think I am hearing from
the Donkey side of the aisle.
And, the candidate? Well,
even though he’s not on the ballot, we need to talk about Mr. Obama. He isn’t going to be transported up to
Valhalla, bathed in gentle tears shed by a grateful nation. His approval ratings are presently in the mid
40’s, and, while he might nudge them into the low 50’s, there is just not a lot
of upward elasticity in that number. No matter what he actually accomplishes in
the next two years, there is absolutely nothing he can do to move the needle
with most Republicans. They never
accepted either of his elections in the first place, and they aren’t going to now.
So, to put it in Mitt Romney terms, the
Democrats start with a handicap. 47% of the country may not be willing to give
them another chance.
And yet, if you asked me about scary, I would tell you that Hillary
Clinton is a bigger problem for the Democrats than Barack Obama is. That is not intended to be a swipe at her
intelligence, her experience, her competence or even her electability. She
might very well find some votes in that 47% that Obama could never reach. Rather, it’s a reflection of a basic law of
political physics. A Clinton (even a
Rodham Clinton) sucks all the air (and most of the fundraising) out of the
room. That vacuum will be filled by her Republican
opponents—and the discussion in 2016 will be not about ideas, but about
Hillary’s age, her health, Benghazi, her speechmaking, whether Bill will go off
the reservation, Benghazi, her considerable personal wealth, Benghazi, Bill,
and whatever investigations the Republicans think they need to keep going for
the next two years. Need proof of
that? Just today, the GOP is floating a
new rumor about Bill’s “appetites.”
Fair? Yes, ugly, but fair. In politics, everything is public,
and few have lived their lives in a more explicitly public way than the
Clintons. But, all that focus on Hillary
means that she will either win, and the Democrats will develop no bench, and
neither think anew nor act anew, or she will lose, and the Democrats will
develop no bench, and neither think anew nor act anew. As long as Hillary is in, she fills the whole
screen as both crutch, and narcotic. The
Democrats will be like a fly frozen in amber.
A mushy fly in amber.
Now, we can turn to the Republicans. They, too, are damaged, and they, too, have a
couple of major problems. McConnell had
it right. Thinking of an all-Republican
government is like going for a dental cleaning and exam at a new office. You
don’t know who is putting the mask on, which penitentiary they did their
training in and what they will find once they start scraping with the probe.
But what you have noticed is there are an awful lot of them. On the GOP bench, we have ambitious governors
like Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal and Scott Walker and ambitious ex- Governors
like Rick Perry, Jeb Bush and Mike Huckabee.
Then, there are ambitious Senators like Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Rand
Paul. Ambitious personalities like John Bolton and Ben Carson. Even ambitious has-beens like George Pataki and
Rick Santorum. There’s also Rudy, for
whom the word ambition is inadequate. And Mitt, although he says no, and John
Kasich of Ohio, and maybe Rick Snyder of Michigan.
Some of these folks are actually talented, thoughtful, and
sane. And that tees up another real
issue for the GOP—just as the Democrats have too few people sucking up the air,
the Republicans have too many. Talented,
thoughtful and sane may not win hearts and minds in the primary. What the GOP
establishment wants is for unity behind one candidate and one
conservative-but-don’t-worry-we-aren’t-crazy message. The problem is, they don't know how to get
there. The loss in 2012 is still fresh
in their minds. They kicked away a winnable election, not just because Mitt was
a flawed candidate (all candidates are flawed) but also because 20-odd debates
aired a lot of dirty laundry, a lot of personal animus, and some scary ideas. That
is why they have taken steps to reduce the number of debates and select
friendly moderators. Less exposure, less
of a possibility for scary gaffes. But,
in a wild-west modern media world where there are literally dozens of friendly
places where, just among friends, a fringier candidate could say fringier
things, and an angry host could rip into one of those talented, thoughtful and
sane types, that creates an unwelcome volatility.
What could change this dynamic?
For Republicans, the 2016 election is theirs for the taking,
but they have a dual challenge. They
need to first listen to Mitch and look like they can send to the President
conservative, but rational legislation that has broad-based appeal. That won’t be easy, as the base clamors for
both the spoils, and revenge. Then, they
need to shepherd through one of those conservative but talented, thoughtful and
sane types through the funhouse of the primaries.
For the Democrats, they need some skill, some luck, and some
courage. First, Mr. Obama has to be
credible, picking his battles, standing on principle when he needs to,
graciously giving ground when he doesn't, all while the world doesn’t collapse
around him. That’s the skill and luck
part. The courage part might be
harder. They need to challenge Hillary
Clinton, from both the right and the left.
Maybe that’s Jim Webb and Elizabeth Warren, maybe it's some other
combination, but the Democrats absolutely must have a conversation that leads
to a coherent and credible set of policy proposals that reflects the desires of
both wings of the party and addresses the bleeding away of support from some of
their traditional allies. Hillary may not like it, but it will broaden the
base, and, if she gets the nomination anyway, will make her a far stronger
candidate leading a far more interesting party.
Of course, none of the above could happen. We may be asking
for more than these people are either intellectually or emotionally capable of.
But, if you think it through, no matter what your
ideological preferences, that really is scary.
Michael Liss (Moderate Moderator)
Join us on Twitter.
