"This is a classic case of how the Democratic consultariat class loses an election," said Brent Budowsky, a political analyst and a former aide to Democratic Sen. Lloyd Bentsen and Rep. Bill Alexander.
Budowsky said the Busby race again revealed the national Democrats' failure to match up with the Republicans across the board, from their campaign spending to "their aggressive commitment to every aspect of the election machinery and a convincing message necessary to win."
"I hope this creates an uprising of Democrats all over the country demanding a party that will take a courageous case to the country and will fight the fight worthy of the crisis that America faces," Budowsky said. [For more on Budowsky's thinking, see
"Vote
2006: For Whom the Bell Tolls."]
Sometimes, when I talk to or e-mail with Americans around the country, they are perplexed as to why Democratic candidates always seem to turn to the same national consultants who lead the party to defeat time and again.
The answer, I think, is that it makes the candidates, especially novices, feel less susceptible to ridicule when they put themselves in the hands of a big-name Democratic consultant. The thinking seems to be that these guys must know best and at least the chance of a total fiasco will be minimized.
In other words, the Democratic candidates end up competing less to win than to avoid being embarrassed.
But after the Democrats have done all their careful polling and tested how to "frame" issues with focus groups, the overall impression left behind by their consultant-managed candidates is that these people don't really believe in much of anything and inevitably they still get beaten up. By election day, the Democratic base is usually demoralized and the Republicans are energized.
A similar pattern applies to the dwindling number of Democrats who manage to win and go to Washington. 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 even between elections. That's how they get onto the Sunday talk shows and are treated with "respect."
On the other hand, Republicans harbor no similar fears and indeed 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.
Yet, as the Busby defeat has again demonstrated, the national Democrats don't seem to have any clue how to break this cycle.
The conservatives keep building up their media infrastructure; the Republicans exploit this advantage with an instantaneous message machine that keeps them plugged into their backers and the broader electorate; the GOP then puts into play a powerful wedge issue in the weeks before the election; the missteps of the Democrats - no matter how minor - are blared out to voters.
Conversely, the liberals/progressives continue to shun any major funding for media content and outlets; the Democratic consultants spend the bulk of available money on devising strategies to finesse the conservative dominance, mostly by filtering campaign "themes" through focus groups; Democrats then deploy ads that leave even their core supporters uninspired; and the candidates usually stumble to defeat.
Breaking the Cycle
Another question I'm often asked is how can Americans, who are alarmed by the drift of their country, change this dynamic. Not surprisingly, my answer is usually about the need to build an honest media infrastructure that will engage the American people with well-reported information on issues that are vital to the country.
But given the current media imbalance to the Right, there is also a desperate need to level the playing field by having more media outlets that present views more from the Left side of the political spectrum.
Liberals and progressives simply cannot count on the mainstream news media to act as a counterweight to conservative news outlets. 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.
Budowsky said the Busby race again revealed the national Democrats' failure to match up with the Republicans across the board, from their campaign spending to "their aggressive commitment to every aspect of the election machinery and a convincing message necessary to win."
"I hope this creates an uprising of Democrats all over the country demanding a party that will take a courageous case to the country and will fight the fight worthy of the crisis that America faces," Budowsky said. [For more on Budowsky's thinking, see
"Vote
2006: For Whom the Bell Tolls."]
Question Why
The answer, I think, is that it makes the candidates, especially novices, feel less susceptible to ridicule when they put themselves in the hands of a big-name Democratic consultant. The thinking seems to be that these guys must know best and at least the chance of a total fiasco will be minimized.
In other words, the Democratic candidates end up competing less to win than to avoid being embarrassed.
But after the Democrats have done all their careful polling and tested how to "frame" issues with focus groups, the overall impression left behind by their consultant-managed candidates is that these people don't really believe in much of anything and inevitably they still get beaten up. By election day, the Democratic base is usually demoralized and the Republicans are energized.
A similar pattern applies to the dwindling number of Democrats who manage to win and go to Washington. 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 even between elections. That's how they get onto the Sunday talk shows and are treated with "respect."
On the other hand, Republicans harbor no similar fears and indeed 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.
Yet, as the Busby defeat has again demonstrated, the national Democrats don't seem to have any clue how to break this cycle.
The conservatives keep building up their media infrastructure; the Republicans exploit this advantage with an instantaneous message machine that keeps them plugged into their backers and the broader electorate; the GOP then puts into play a powerful wedge issue in the weeks before the election; the missteps of the Democrats - no matter how minor - are blared out to voters.
Conversely, the liberals/progressives continue to shun any major funding for media content and outlets; the Democratic consultants spend the bulk of available money on devising strategies to finesse the conservative dominance, mostly by filtering campaign "themes" through focus groups; Democrats then deploy ads that leave even their core supporters uninspired; and the candidates usually stumble to defeat.
Breaking the Cycle
Another question I'm often asked is how can Americans, who are alarmed by the drift of their country, change this dynamic. Not surprisingly, my answer is usually about the need to build an honest media infrastructure that will engage the American people with well-reported information on issues that are vital to the country.
But given the current media imbalance to the Right, there is also a desperate need to level the playing field by having more media outlets that present views more from the Left side of the political spectrum.
Liberals and progressives simply cannot count on the mainstream news media to act as a counterweight to conservative news outlets. 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.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
