Why Democrats Lose

Here is a wonderful article from TomPaine.com on the communication dynamics of recent campaigns. It is excerpted by Robert Parry, who “broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek,” from his recent book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq. A noteworthy phrase: “the consultariat’s cold hand of failure.”
http://www.tompaine.com/print/why_democrats_lose.php

June 09, 2006
At dinner a few weeks ago , a well-placed Republican political operative was oozing confidence about GOP prospects in the November elections, not because the voters were enamored of George W. Bush but because the Democrats and liberals had done so little to improve their ability to reach the public with their message. By contrast, he described to me a highly sophisticated Republican system for pouncing on Democratic “bad votes” and verbal gaffes and distributing the information instantaneously to a network of pro-Republican media outlets that now operates down to the state, district and local levels.

This huge conservative media advantage contributed to dooming Democratic hopes for snaring the vulnerable suburban San Diego seat of imprisoned Republican congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham. . . . Republicans reported a last-minute surge of support for GOP lobbyist Brian Bilbray after conservative media outlets trumpeted a verbal blunder by Democratic challenger Francine Busby. Near the end of a lackluster campaign in which Busby followed the advice of national Democratic consultants to avoid controversial positions, the candidate blurted out to a mostly Latino audience that “you don’t need papers for voting.” She quickly clarified her meaning, saying, “you don’t need to be a registered voter to help.” But conservative . . . talk show hosts across southern California seized on Busby’s verbal slip and began accusing her of urging illegal immigrants to vote. . . .

[I]t is this conservative messaging capability—in coordination with the Republican national political operation—that has proved decisive in election after election. Given the clout and cruelty of the conservative news media—and the me-too conformity of the mainstream press—many Democratic officeholders feel that to be “taken seriously,” they must hedge or “triangulate” their views. . . . That’s how they get onto the Sunday talk shows and are treated with “respect.” On the other hand, Republicans . . . seem to relish taking the fight to even mildly skeptical mainstream talk show hosts, who, in turn, must fear for their careers if they are targeted as “liberal” by angry and well-organized conservatives. . . .

Liberals and progressives simply cannot count on the mainstream news media to act as a counterweight . . . . That is not in the job description of mainstream journalists, who understand that their careers will be better served if they tilt right and avoid getting stuck with the “liberal” label.

Since 2004, the left has benefited somewhat from the creation of Air America Radio and the emergence of progressive talk stations around the country. But those cash-strapped start-ups never had the strong backing of wealthy liberals and thus have been forced to skimp . . . .

Another problem was that wealthy liberals were listening to the same Democratic consultant class that had led the party to lose control of the entire U.S. government—from the White House to Congress to the courts. Like political candidates, wealthy liberals felt safer giving money to operations run by “credentialed” Democratic operatives. This “consultariat” mostly disparaged investments in media and directed money instead to “think tanks” where the consultants and many of their friends were kept in high-paying jobs. . . .

So, instead of investing in promising Internet sites or improving the progressive content on radio and TV, liberal money flowed overwhelmingly into the hands of the same ol’ Democratic consultant class. Perhaps the Busby defeat finally will serve as a wake-up call to the Democratic Party to throw off the consultariat’s cold hand of failure and turn to candidates who are not afraid to address the pressing issues of war and democracy now confronting the United States. . . .