No, the Democrats’ problem isn’t their messaging

Why ‘correcting the record’ won’t save the Democrats
Leaked documents from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee warn that Republican attacks have proved “alarmingly potent” in battleground districts. The memo warns that voters see Democrats as “preachy,” “judgmental” and “focused on culture wars.”

Politico reports that the document is used by the DCCC to encourage incumbents not to ignore or deflect from what it calls GOP “culture war” attacks but to respond more directly. On a range of subjects from critical race theory to defunding the police, operatives argue that candidates should “correct the record” because “changing the…

Why ‘correcting the record’ won’t save the Democrats

Leaked documents from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee warn that Republican attacks have proved “alarmingly potent” in battleground districts. The memo warns that voters see Democrats as “preachy,” “judgmental” and “focused on culture wars.”

Politico reports that the document is used by the DCCC to encourage incumbents not to ignore or deflect from what it calls GOP “culture war” attacks but to respond more directly. On a range of subjects from critical race theory to defunding the police, operatives argue that candidates should “correct the record” because “changing the subject risked confirming suspicions.” Backing up the argument is ominous polling from late January which shows Republicans leading by four points on a generic ballot of swing districts. If Democrats fail to respond to Republican attacks, that lead jumps to fourteen points.

The strategy, spearheaded by DCCC chair Patrick Maloney, seems straightforward and commonsensical enough. But its prosecution will be less straightforward than it seems. The tone of the DCCC document, with its emphasis on “correcting the record,” sees the Democrats’ problems first and foremost as a question of Republican spin.

For example, what does it mean to correct the record in the case of the question of antiracist pedagogy in schools? In last year’s Virginia gubernatorial race, Democratic candidate Terry McAuliffe was explicit in his belief that teachers, not parents, should be in charge of what is taught in the classroom and dismissed Republican claims about Critical Race Theory as unfounded. That, to many Democrats, looks an awful lot like pushing back more forcefully and correcting the record. And the results were disastrous.

The Democrats’ basic problem is not one of messaging. The “culture war” issues that have resonated are real: they are the result of the imposition of an uncompromising, scolding ideology on everyday life — whether it’s in the classroom (in the case of CRT and mask mandates) or on the streets of America’s cities (in the case of defund the police and restrictive lockdowns).

Elsewhere, the party pushes for multi-trillion dollar spending even as inflation gathers pace. On immigration, the most basic tenets of border security are a third rail for many elected Democrats. And everywhere you look, senior Democrats must tiptoe around absurd, ever-shifting speech codes to avoid offending the sensibilities of an out-of-touch activist class from which the party draws its manpower.

The DCCC seems to think that the Democrats have nothing to hide, that the goal is simply to not look too shifty, not be too defensive, and fight Republican fire with fire. They seem to think an honest and open accounting of what their party stands for will end well for them. I wish them luck.

*** Sign up to receive the DC Diary in your inbox on weekdays ***

A warning for Democrats from San Francisco

Democrats don’t need long-winded DCCC memos to understand the risks they face in November. Instead they could just look to San Francisco.

The hyper-progressive city on the bay is a far cry from the swing districts where control of the House will be decided later this year, but even there a school board recall race ended in heavy defeat for the incumbents, who faced a backlash after they kept classrooms closed for much of the pandemic but devoted ample time and resources to debating renaming a third of the city’s high schools. The schools in question were named after all manner of toxic figures like, er, Abraham Lincoln.

I present, without comment, this detail from the San Francisco Chronicle’s on-the-ground report as the results came in:

“This is what happens when you try to rename the schools in the middle of a pandemic!” exclaimed David Thompson a.k.a “Gaybraham” Lincoln, an SFUSD parent dressed in head-to-toe rainbow drag and towering platform shoes, who described his persona as a form of protest. “We wanted to show the diversity of the community behind this recall. I knew they were going to say, ‘Oh isn’t it just a bunch of Republicans?’ and I’m like, do I look like a Republican?”

P.J. O’Rourke, RIP

America lost one of its funniest and most incisive writers yesterday. P.J. O’Rourke died from complications relating to lung cancer at seventy-four.

Whether he was writing about a car or a war, O’Rourke was incapable of dullness and always worth reading. While he could be cutting and unsparing, O’Rourke was generous-spirited and humane, the definition of a happy warrior. But one hardly needs to make the case for such self-evidently brilliant work. Instead I’ll just point you in the right direction: Modern Manners, Republican Party Reptile, Holidays in Hell. These are good places to start. As is the piece O’Rourke wrote for our launch edition in 2019.

Do also read Teresa Mull’s fond tribute on the site. She gets to the essence of O’Rourke’s greatness here:

The charms of O’Rourke’s writing are many and obvious to anyone who’s ever read him. What I think really set him apart, though, was his masterful ability to tease everyone — himself included. Even while depicting himself as a sort of aging fuddy-duddy who didn’t relate to “the kids,” it’s clear he understood people — all people — how they work and what they want. He cared for everyone, foibles and all. He cared for the world, and America especially, in such a way that his criticisms, though purposeful, were gentle, coming in the form of pleasant teasing rather than the contempt typical of so many other commentators and satirists.