Sista Souljah?!

Disclaimer one: I think the ad was dumb. Just dumb.

Disclaimer two: I'd be viscerally unhappy to see the Democrats begin behaving like Republicans broadly, but in some cases I think this will happen inevitably.

That said, though, I think it would be tactical suicide for Democrats to look to Sista Souljah as a template. The template they need here is (sadly) Ann Coulter. When Ann Coulter called John Edwards a faggot, Republicans didn't scramble to dissociate themselves from her in any meaningful sense. They by and large said something trite about hateful language, something hand wavy about allowing people to speak freely, and then walked away from the incident. They did that because, deep down, they knew that, as despicable as that sort of pandering is to, say, liberal bloggers, in a more significant sense it plays well with their base. That was the key insight! Liberal bloggers aren't part of their base! Their base was in the audience, hooting and hollering along. Appease that 30 percent, the thinking went, and the 10-20 remaining percent of the country that self-identifies as Republican (folks who don't particularly approve of that sort of baiting) will look past it. And voila! The only people who care about the Ann Coulter-faggot incident at this point are members the Democratic base. (And good for John Edwards for exploiting that.)

Right now the Democratic base is perfectly happy to see stuff like the Betray-us ad. They don't much care for the false fealty their elected officials are racing to heap upon the man, and some of them probably feel genuinely betrayed by his performance yesterday. Some self-identified Democrats probably found the ad distatesteful, but they'll ultimately look past it. The Republicans, on the other hand, will use it, predictably, to rile their base. And that could well be the end of that...but only if Democrats realize that the political situation here is completely backward from Sista Souljah and keep their mouths shut. Back in the early 90s, Democrats were widely tarred as the party of squishy identity politics and calling out Sista Souljah was a shrewd way for Bill Clinton to distance the party and himself from that meme. Today, Democrats finally enjoy a moment when they are perceived to be the better party on the war than Republicans. Which means, in short, that they have nothing to run away from. But if they cave--if they shake their heads in disappointment at MoveOn and talk about what a hero David Petraeus is instead of shrugging it off and walking away--they'll lock in a memorable double whammy, further alienating their base and stripping their chief organizing arm of its much-delayed credibility. It goes without saying that they... shouldn't do this.

Comments

Except that there continues to be a widespread perception that the Dems are uncomfortable with or even hostile to the military. That's a problem that even the Clinton Administration had. Dems should walk away from this, but not run.

Posted by: SomeCallMeTim on September 11, 2007 09:15 AM

I blogged this earlier (see link). I think you are looking at the issue too narrowly.

First the objective for MoveOn is to make a divisive partisan point. Either you are for or against the war. They don't want to have the Republicans and Democrats meet in the middle.

Second as Kevin Drum points out the Republicans took the bait and repeated the Betray-Us talking point. It now occurs to me that this might not have been a goof on their point. They might have been doing so deliberately to give themselves an alibi when they need it at the next election. Then they can rail that they were indeed betrayed.

Third the GOP has put about the notion of Patraeus as a 2012 candidate. Sliming him as General Betray-US has almost certainly put paid to that idea.

Posted by: PHB on September 11, 2007 09:26 AM

Post A Comment