The Rorschach Revolution: Fish Sticks, Spin, and The Fight For the
Democratic Soul

By RJ Eskow
Created Nov 8 2006 - 4:03pm

When I was making the circuit of mid-Atlantic country/western dives and dude
ranches in the 70's, my pedal steel player took great amusement in a TV ad
for "Mrs. Paul's Fish Sticks." He'd repeat the tag line endlessly: "They're
great, Mom - and they don't have that fishy taste."

The power-for-power's-sake wing of the Democratic Party is busy today making
sure that America understands that its Democratic victory won't have that
Democratic taste.

America is being battered by a barrage of soundbites from Rahm, Hillary,
Schumer, and a mainstream media eager to resist genuine change whenever
possible.

Yesterday's election was the Rorschach Revolution. Observers are free to
read any meaning into it they choose. Look and listen to them if you like,
but beware: As with any Rorschach test, what they claim to see tells you
more about them than it does about reality.

The battle for the Democratic soul is being played out hour-by-hour in the
media. The next few days of spin could well shape the Party for years to
come. It's important to get the truth out before it gets buried in the new
Democratic/reactionary noise machine. If the cynics win, this victory could
carry the seeds of destruction for the Democratic Party in 2008.

Hillary, Center Staged

As always, Hillary Clinton led the charge for the win-at-any-cost wing of
the party. Yesterday's victory speech kicked off her Presidential campaign
with these words: "The message couldn't be clearer that it is time for a new
course, beyond all the partisan, ideological division, back to the vital,
dynamic center."

She went on to say: "The vice president said regardless of the outcome the
administration would go full speed ahead in the same direction. Well, the
American people have said not so fast."

That's the manifesto of reactionary Democratism in a nutshell. After six
years of a radical shift to the right, she's staking her claim on a mythical
"dynamic center" (an oxymoron for the ages), and has pledged "not to go as
fast" in that rightward direction.

She and her allies are taking word-parsing to new heights in the misplaced
belief that equivocation, not leadership, is the wave of the future. That's
a much riskier course than they realize. Undecided voters are unlikely to be
swayed by wishy-washy leaders, and "undecided" is not synomymous with
"centrist." At the same time, a bruised and battered party base may well
desert the Democrats in droves if they don't articulate clear positions in
2008.

As several observers noted, Hillary also advocated "a new course in Iraq" -
but declined to suggest one.

Re-Pression

The press rode the myth of Republican dominance straight into oblivion. Now
they're jumping on the bandwagon of the reactionary Dems. Howard Fineman [1]
is a prime example of the breed. He wrote:

"Rahm" is a one-word Washington synonym for action; "Schume," as the
tabloid headline writers sometimes call him, for shrewd authority.

"Preparation is everything," adds Fineman, "in their view."

That's certainly true of the way they worked the refs. Fineman wrote these
words before the election. It's deja vu all over again: the press, ever
ready to accept predigested spin, had already decided what this election
"means" before it even took place.

So how correct is the spin? Let's take a look.

Howard's End?

Howard Dean isn't getting much press today, but Rahm is already hard at work
undercutting Nancy Pelosi [2], Howard, and the rest of the party. He's
claiming full credit for this victory - and, by extension, for his strategy
of packing the Democratic Party with right-leaning candidates.

His theory is that only right-wingers (or, in the new parlance, "centrists")
can win in swing districts. It sounds plausible - but it's only a theory,
and there's data to suggest it's wrong. Liberal-leaning Tim Kaine did better
in downstate Virginia that right-leaning Jim Webb, for example.

Emanuel's strategy of concentrating resources on "winnable" seats had some
merit to it - but so did Dean's 50-state strategy. In retrospect, it's
Dean - not Emanuel - who looks like a visionary. The true story of the '06
election lies in all those seats the Emanuelites told us were unwinnable:
McNerney over Pombo, Shea-Porter over Braley, Bradley over Whalen.

So why isn't Howard getting the guru treatment from the media? Because, when
it comes to ruthless jockeying for power and attention, the reactionary wing
of the party has got game.

Neutralizing the Netroots

Were the netroots and progressives irrelevant to this victory, as the
reactionaries are claiming? Chris Bowers [3] effectively puts that
misconception to rest - although, as always in American politics, perception
is everything. Yesterday's House victory was a massive triumph for the
progressive cause, but that message is getting lost in the reactionary/Dem
spin.

I'll take my Rorschach test right now: This vote was a referendum on Iraq,
economic fairness, electoral integrity, and corruption.

Right-wingers in all three parties (Democratic, Republican, and Media)
disagree. They're trumpeting Lieberman's victory as the ultimate repudiation
of progressivism and the netroots. So what about that?

Waking Ned Lamont

Don't get me wrong. Ned Lamont is a great guy, and he did a good and noble
thing by running. But he was not a natural politician, and once he got into
the three-way race he lost his way. He didn't dance with the ones that
brought him, but with mainstream Democratic politicians and consultants.

To paraphrase Harry Truman: In a race between a Republican, a Republican,
and a Republican, one of the Republicans wins every time.

The very "centrists" who are using his loss as a repudiation of the netroots
are the same Democrats whose advice cost him the election. A strong and
effective DSCC campaign could have swung this election the other way.
Speaking of which ...

Pride of Chucky

Why is Chuck Schumer out there seeking garlands? If his party wins the
Senate, it will have been a cliffhanger. His indecisiveness and
ineffectiveness in Connecticut leaves his power base at risk even if he
squeaks through to a thin majority, since Lieberman's vulnerable to
defection or a Cabinet appointment.

Then there's Virginia. Why didn't they properly vet their candidate there?
Jim Webb's a good man, but an effective DSCC would have known about his
vulnerabilities (the books and the issue of women in the military) and would
have had an effective set of countermeasures ready.

And they let the Republican voter-suppression calls go on for days without
demanding an immediate stop. That oversight alone may cost them control of
the Senate. (Emanuel was more aggressive than Schumer on the general topic
of robo-calls, to his credit.)

The Next Battle

The next battle has already begun. The fight for control of the Democratic
Party is now playing out in the media, in backrooms, and in the flickering
mirage of public perception. If the reactionary Dems win this battle,
yesterday's triumph could turn into Pyrrhic victory.

There is every reason to believe that we'll still be at war in 2008, that
the American middle-class will still be losing ground to the wealthy, and
that health care for all children will still be an unfulfilled promise. A
struggling and war-weary nation will not be moved if, as it calls out for
leadership, it gets only calculation and posturing in return.

The Democratic Party should reach out to moderates, undecideds, and
reasonable Republicans. The Hillary/Rahm/Schumer Democrats are right about
that. They're just going about it the wrong way. And their spin - which is
quickly going to harden into "conventional wisdom" if we don't counter it -
is simply wrong.

(next: Chicken Soup for the Democratic Soul - it's better than fishsticks!)

--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107

"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson