“So this is how you campaign on moral values!” That’s what Democrats must be thinking as they coast their way to a potential victory on Nov. 7.
For years, the party bemoaned Republicans’ electoral success exploiting wedge issues such as abortion, gun control and gay marriage. Democrats’ implicit argument was that the GOP used these social issues to dupe Americans into voting for Republicans who offered them few policy proposals.
Now, however, after more than a decade of complaints, Democrats’ have changed their minds. Many of the same party loyalists who described l’affaire Lewinsky as a political persecution have decided that the most important issue facing the country is former Congressman Mark Foley’s interest in teenagers. Desperate for victory, the party has decided to avoid principled stands on substantive topics — such as President Bush’s abhorrent torture bill — and have its candidates campaign on a bogus “scandal.”
This about-face is most striking because Democrats made attacks on the GOP’s values tactics a centerpiece of their last national campaign.
Howard Dean hammered away at the issue from the very start. “I think it’s time in this country that we stop talking about guns, God and gays, and start talking about health care and education and balancing the budget,” he said even before declaring his candidacy.
And as recently as this summer, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi was claiming that Republicans won in 2004 only by scaring voters with claims that Democrats were going to take their “gun away, take their Bibles away.”
As for 2006, she declared, “We think economic issues can trump values issues when there’s a message.”
But that was in July. When it came down to the final stretch of the campaign, Democrats decided they were so frustrated by Republicans’ domination of Washington that they would embrace the tactic they claimed to despise — avoiding the real issues facing America.
Significantly, this began before the Foley scandal (which allowed Democrats to go even further and copy the Republican playbook exactly by running on values).
In September, the party decided to duck one of the most important issues considered by the do-nothing 109th Congress — Bush’s bill on the interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists. Senate Democrats refused to oppose the president’s legislation, which permits torturous questioning by redefining the Geneva Conventions and eviscerates due process by blocking the 900-year-old right of habeas corpus. The party’s leaders relied on Republicans to stand up to Bush, and when they (predictably) folded, Democrats did nothing.
Exactly what Democrats did plan to campaign on before the Foley revelations emerged remains unclear. Their general strategy seems to have been remaining mum and relying on public frustration with the president’s party. This was the tactic suggested by one of the GOP’s most successful political minds, Newt Gingrich. His unsolicited advice for Democrats was that they should “say nothing except ‘Had enough?’ ”
Of course, Foley’s lurid e-mails and instant messages to former House pages did emerge, and suddenly the Democrats had something to talk about in place of the issues they were avoiding. The party pounced on the opportunity.
Running for Congress in Minnesota, Patty Wetterling was the first to air an attack ad.
“Congressional leaders have admitted covering up the predatory behavior of a congressman who used the Internet to molest children,” her TV spot charged.
Others quickly followed suit.
In Ohio, House candidate Mary Jo Kilroy unveiled an ad linking her opponent to the scandal.
“Deborah Pryce’s friend Mark Foley is caught using his position to take advantage of 16-year-old pages,” the radio commercial declared.
And in Indiana, former Rep. Baron Hill began broadcasting an ad that attacks the man who took his seat, Rep. Mike Sodrel, for taking money from House leaders “who knew about but did nothing to stop sexual predator Congressman Foley.”
Certainly, Democrats would like to claim that these commercials — and the party’s broader efforts to capitalize on the Foley scandal — are not about an insubstantial values issue. Democratic candidates assert they are raising serious questions about a coverup in the House leadership. However, try as they might to drag out the old Watergate questions — “who knew what and when?” — Democrats cannot conceal that the Foley case is about a gay congressman sending lewd messages to horny teenagers.
Some of the party’s most ardent supporters cynically concede as much. As one poster on the lefty blog Daily Kos wrote: “What we need to do is create a story which will resonate with the value voters.”
Democrats may well be succeeding at that — and perhaps as a result, will take control of one of the houses of Congress. But if the party does so, its leaders should remember that governing is different from campaigning.
While tactics they once abhorred may bring Democrats power, they have an obligation to use it wisely.
