Ignoring D.C.'s Fixed Permanent Election Losers

Conservative activist Grover Norquist once said about Democrats that "Any farmer will tell you that certain animals run around and are unpleasant. But when they've been 'fixed,' then they are happy and sedate. They are contented and cheerful." Sadly, if you read what some insulated, election-losing pundits who likely have little experience actually winning campaigns, you realize that Norquist has gotten his wish, and utterly neutered many who purport to speak for the Democratic Party and progressive movement.

Case in point is commentary by Mark Schmitt and Matt Yglesias. Neither's writing is surprising, especially not Yglesias's - for every decently well-supported argument he makes, he makes about five that have no basis in reality and that basically display both a fundamental lack of winning campaigns, and a fundamental disregard for ordinary people's economic concerns. Again, we shouldn't be surprised about this - he likely hasn't worked on a winning campaign, and from the confines of a cushy job in Washington, likely never has to experience the severe economic challenges ordinary Americans face on a daily basis.

Schmitt and Yglesias's criticism today is that progressives should reject any lessons about movement building that someone like Norquist has taught. They are both especially distressed about Democrats starting to use the trade issue to their advantage. That's not surprising - the free trade consensus in Washington spans elitists in both parties, again because they never have to actually deal with the real-world realities of trade deals that sell out America.

As I have written before, polling data shows that Americans want a party to stand up against corporate control of our government, and they want a party that re-evaluates America's sellout trade policy. But beyond the trade debate, the entire idea that Democrats should reject any lessons from Norquist and his party discipline efforts is really laugh-out-loud funny.

Why? It's simple: last I checked, Grover Norquist helped build one of the most powerful, disciplined, unified and politically potent movements in American history, helping Republicans seize power and emasculating his opposition. Yet there are still people on our side who say we should just ignore what he may be teaching us about the primacy of movement politics over the same tired split-the-difference shenanigans the Democrats use.

Schmitt and Yglesias seem to utterly reject lessons from Norquist and are clearly threatened by anyone who might try to get Democrats to embrace a principled ideology, and show, like Norquist to Republicans, there are consequences to undermining the Democratic Party.Still the question lingers: how many elections do we have to lose before even comfortable-in-the-minority elites like this realize its time to actually learn some tactical lessons from the other side?

It's not a shock, of course, that some Democrats in Washington, D.C. subscribe to Schmitt and Yglesias's argument. The fact is, these two writers are part of a Democratic circle in Washington, D.C. that has become all-too-comfortable losing elections. Loss after loss after loss piles up, and these people say, nope, we should keep doing the same thing, keep letting a handful of Democrats undermine their party, leading to more losses. Why? Because it doesn't really matter to Democratic elites like Schmitt and Yglesias whether Democrats win or lose or whether Americans keep getting economically stepped on - they get to stay comfortably employed, and offer pot shots from their insulated perches.

Here are thus two novel ideas: First, let's take this advice from one TPM Cafe reader and not listen to people who purport to be experts about what Democrats should and shouldn't do unless they've actually gone out and won some campaigns. Second, let's try to take some tactical lessons from people like Norquist - a person who has built a serious movement, and who has also exploited the fact that Democrats continue listen to bad ideas from self-purported experts that have never had to go out and actually make their ideas an electoral reality. Maybe then we'll start actually winning.