It’s official: Democrats in D.C. are taking their hands off the steering wheel for the midterm elections. But while the strategy may help them win the House this fall, it could fuel a fracas in the 116th Congress.
The 1994 midterms are remembered as the “Contract with America” cycle, where Republicans took over the House in a massive wave, touting a precise list of objectives and promises in each race. By contrast, Democrats in 2018 are basically telling their candidates nationwide, “You do you.”
Yes, Democrats have formally titled their plan for 2018, “For the People.” But they’re allowing local candidates to mostly dictate their own message and platform as needed on a district-by-district basis. That makes enough sense. But while it may help them win the House, it could also accelerate a loss of the party’s identity and political bearings should Democrats assume control of the lower chamber.
As the New York Times reported last week, “House Democrats, looking to wrest control of the chamber from Republicans in November, are discarding the lessons of successful midterms past and pressing only a bare-bones national agenda, leaving it to candidates to tailor their own messages to their districts.” From a messaging perspective, this makes total sense. D.C. is unpopular (and grass is green), and voters are acutely and intensely aware of the negatives and political baggage of the president— but also House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. In a sense, both of these figures cast a shadow over the national conversation, so the more daylight candidates in certain districts can create between themselves and these icons in general elections, the better off they are.
So as Democrats see a victory in their sights— the much ballyhooed “blue wave”— national party leaders are trying to make sure they free their candidates from as much connective tissue to D.C. and Pelosi as possible.
It’s actually not at all different from the communications strategy deployed by my former colleague Ward Baker in 2016, when he ran the National Republican Senatorial Committee. I still remember being in meetings with him on Capitol Hill when he discussed his plan to do an end run around the nasty 2016 presidential race and nearly impossible Senate re-election map by telling the Senate candidates to run as if they were conducting hyper-local “sheriff’s races.” By ignoring the national news agenda and the negative spiral of the “Lyin’ Ted” and “Low Energy Jeb” schoolyard insults atop the ballot, candidates were advised to differentiate themselves with a focus on state-specific concerns.
It was Dewey Defeats Truman. It was Douglas KO’s Tyson. And it was all because of the Tip O’Neill truism, all politics is local.
So the strategy Democrats are utilizing is a smart, and historically sound way of allowing candidates some leeway, rather than giving them a laundry list of national party objectives. And it gives middle-ground candidates like Rep. Conor Lamb, D-Penn., or M.J. Hegar in Texas the requisite freedom to regionalize their message and not be expected to read from the same playbook as Democratic Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in New York City.
But the downside here is that a party elected without a list of defined principles or objectives is a party without a policy agenda— and without any deep loyalty to the power structure as it currently exists on Capitol Hill.
When you have 435 candidates touting dozens of variations of the “For the People” message— and the potential for more than 218 of those candidates to win— that’s an unwieldy group to bring together under the Democratic tent in the next Congress. What sort of ideological disarray would such a broad caucus bring?
Drilling down a level deeper, if a Democratic candidate controls his or her own message and narrative in their home district and wins, they will have less deference to the leaders of their own party when they get to Washington. What does this mean for the masterful tactician, Nancy Pelosi? According to CNN, “Pelosi has faced dissension in the Democratic Party this cycle, as a growing number of candidates and some incumbents have expressed ambivalence towards her potential bid for speaker, including rising Democratic star Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who told CNN it was ‘far too early’ to back a candidate for speaker following her surprise primary win in June, and Massachusetts Rep. Seth Moulton, who called for ‘a new generation of leadership,’ in a July interview with CNN.”
At the end of the day, Democrats face a dilemma. The same sound campaign strategy that could improve their odds this fall could also spell the end of the influence and leadership status of the members who would be most effective at driving an agenda through the chamber. This would also be a formula for a less savvy Democratic House to put points on the board for their constituents and start truly building momentum towards the 2020 presidential race.
Winning by way of a constellation of principles that allows for wiggle room and interpretation on the part of the voter is enough in the 2018 attention economy. But the conversation about how these principles evolve swiftly into a set of policy outcomes— and dictate the individuals who should best navigate the party— is a conversation that won’t happen until Nov. 7.
Matthew Felling (@matthewfelling) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. He is a former print/TV/radio journalist, media critic, and U.S. Senate communications director, now serving as a public affairs and crisis consultant with Burson-Marsteller in Washington.
