Blog For Arizona

DLC objectively pro-Bush?

Use of negative campaigning is known to have two effects, rallying voters who are already committed around their chosen candidate who is being attacked (the source of 'Teflon'), and suppressing turnout among both partisan and independent voters leaning toward the party of the candidate attacked.

Studies by Iengar and Ansolabehere identify suppression of turn-out to be the strongest effect of negative campaign messages. This is the main reasons why "attack" ads and negative messages are effective; not because they persuade voters to switch sides, but because they disgust voters, make them apathetic about the political process, and measurably less likely to vote.

So one has to wonder, what is the DLC actually trying to do with its incessant attacks on Dean? The main effect of their actions is to discourage new voters from entering the party, and to keep some of the newly energized voters backing Dean from voting in the primaries. The DLC are certainly sophisticated enough to realize the effect their efforts will have. One can understand, even if one finds it reprehensible and counter-productive, why Dean's rivals would attempt to use negative campaigning to improve their own chances, but what is the motive of an organization which supposedly not endorse candidates, nor even attempt to influence elections, to use negative political messages against Howard Dean? Given that political professionals assuredly know that the result will be reduced Democratic turnout, it reasonable to assume that either they don't care about this effect, or it is their goal to suppress Democratic participation.

The suppression of turnout caused by negative campaign messages is efficacious through the entire election cycle, not just the Primaries. People who decide not to participate in the Primaries are very likely not to participate in the General election, either. So why, given that the GOP already has, and doubtless will continue to use negative campaigning to suppress Democratic turnout, would the DLC endanger the Democratic Party's General election chances by further suppressing turnout?

Could the true aim of the DLC's attacks on Dean not primarily be to affect the primary results, but to increase the likelihood that the Democratic nominee, no matter who it is, will lose to Bush in 2004? It serves the Clinton's purposes to engineer a General election loss for the Dems in 2004. Other have pointed out that a loss in 2004 perpetuates Bill Clinton's de facto control of the Party for another 4 years. It also allows Hillary Clinton to benefit from that control to become the presumptive nominee for 2008, facing a non-incumbent GOP nominee who will likely have to endure a bruising primary campaign.

If a Democratic loss in 2004 is the likely effect of the DLC's actions, it is fair to impute that this is their purpose, or at least that they don't care if the Democratic nominee loses in 2004. What does it say about the DLC that they seem to be working against their own Party's interest? Can the DLC any longer be trusted to put the Democratic party's, and Democratic voter's, interests first? In fact, doesn't their behavior make the DLC objectively pro-Bush?

If you don't like what the DLC is doing, and you want the Democratic nominee to win in 2004, take action against the DLC. Turn off the DLC's taps and starve the organization of any resources: no donations to the New Democrat Network. Democrats should also express their displeasure with the DLC's actions by repudiating the DLC and resigning if a member. Seek resolutions denouncing the DLC's inappropriate electioneering at the local, county, and state party levels. Write to your elected officials who are members of the DLC demanding that they pressure the DLC leadership to stay out of the Democratic primary and cease acting to suppress Democratic turnout, and suggest they resign. A complete membership list of elected officials is available at New Democrats Online.

posted by Michael Bryan @ 12/20/2003 02:16:00 AM