 |
Defeating Rove: How Universal Internet Access Ensures Democratic Electoral Victory |
 |
Much has been said about the Republican’s 20 year effort to build its “base,” a core group of highly loyal Republican voters who helped George W. Bush capture the Presidency in 2000 and 2004. Karl Rove, the “architect” of this political strategy, used astute polling practices to ferret out the policy issues that divided America. Using those issues he was able to construct a Republican policy platform that appealed to a wide swath of centrist and right-wing voters. The “compassionate conservative” was born. Wayne Slater, author of Bush’s Brain, explains the basic strategy Rove outlined in 1994:
[Rove's memo] talked about how you as a candidate can appeal to people in ways that are not direct. You might appeal to teachers, for example, by talking about pay raise for teachers, but that’s to rally your audience; your audience are suburban mothers of students. You may appeal to minorities and women by showing what you do in your support for them and your appointments. But your appeal, as Karl lays out, is not so much for feminists and the leaders of minority groups as it is for others, those who are moderates and independents, to show that you’re no longer a mean-spirited party, that you’re not a party with sharp elbows, but a party that really commiserates. You see the beginnings of the “compassionate conservative” message. You see a party that will attack, attack, attack an opponent.
At one point the memo explains that attacks against the opponent are more important than positive messages about yourself. Now, clearly a campaign is a balance of both, but Karl was very, very aggressive in understanding that in order to build this party, it had to be a combination of attacks on an opponent in a very strategic way, but also an appeal that your candidate is “one of them,” something the Republican Party had not been particularly successful in doing.
Through attacks and centrist politics, Republicans were able to win big in 2000, 2002, and 2004, not only claiming the Presidency but both houses of Congress. Clearly, Rove had a winning strategy.
But not so fast. If you read closely, you’ll realize that Rove’s tactics require tight control over a politician’s message and a tight framing of the debate. This means control over information. In fact, Slater talks about this himself:
One of the key things that Rove understood — and you really see this again and again with George W. Bush, in part because it appeals to Bush’s nature and Karl understands his psychological nature, but also because it’s very effective politics — is that you don’t talk about 10 things; [you] talk about a couple.
To get a political campaign to boil down to a couple issues, you really need to control the media. With the rise of Fox News, conservative talk radio, and the expansion of media consolidation, this has been easier than ever. With so few mainstream outlets hogging the airwaves, once you have one or two in your political corner you are able to effectively drown out the smaller voices calling for debate on other, less politically fruitful issues.
Do you see the problem with Rove’s strategy yet? With the rise of the political Internet and netroots, it has become increasingly hard for candidates to control the debate. There is a huge amount of activity online, especially on the Democratic side of the aisle. Sites like Daily Kos, MyDD and Think Progress draw hundreds of thousands of voters every day and these sites are teeming with freewheeling, unrestricted political discussion. On top of that, bloggers have been increasingly effective at grabbing mainstream attention for the issues that they care about. Media Matters broke the Imus scandal. Bloggers have been instrumental in digging up dirt having to do with the evolving US Attorney General scandal. Blogs like FireDogLake have increased the coverage the mainstream media (free registration required) has given to other Republican scandals, such as the trial of Scooter Libby that put FDL on the map.
With all these citizen journalists running around you can no longer control the message. Consequently, Karl Rove’s hold on his “base” has been weakening, and the Republicans lost control over both houses of Congress in the 2006 elections (and by all accounts will lose control of the Presidency in 2008). But I wouldn’t call it a victory for the Democrats just yet. There are huge swaths of the population that are not online yet. Even more importantly, those that are not online are much more likely to vote Democratic than vote Republican. If the Democrats really want to put the last nail in the coffin of the Republican’s “unstoppable base” they should focus on wiring the rest of America. This should be the Democrat’s top policy priority.
The numbers (pdf) are pretty telling. No matter how you break it down, the demographics that are not online are the ones more likely to vote Democratic.
- Only 25 - 32% of households with income under $20,000 are connected to the Internet, while 36% of the same demographic identify as Democrats (compared with 15% identifying as Republicans).
- Blacks and Latinos are less likely to have Internet access, and both of those minority groups are much more likely to identify as Democrats.
- The greatest digital gap is present within America’s age groups. Those age 65 and over are more than three times less likely to have Internet access, and this age group is overwhelmingly Democratic by a margin of over 30%!
If the Democrats were able to connect these populations and bring them into the digital world they would reap untold benefits. Fundraising online has accounted for substantial portions of Democratic money in the last couple elections, and with new Democratically leaning people getting into the game those numbers can only grow. On top of that, the newly empowered can lend their voices to the online debate, framing the discussion to focus on issues that are truly important to the people. Media consolidation and the spread of conservative voices on the airwaves can effectively be countered by the proliferation of liberal voices online. With the entire Democratic voting population online, Rove will have no chance in promoting the “compassionate conservatives.” The citizen journalists will be there, ready to point out the lies, break open the scandals, and talk about the issues Rove doesn’t want discussed.
With all that can be gained, why aren’t national Democratic politicians and state legislatures advocating more heavily for universal Internet access, increased computer ownership, and improved media literacy? With one issue the Democrats can energize and connect to their voters and put them well ahead of Republicans for years to come. As a party priority, this one seems like a perfect idea to get behind. Do you think the Democrats should focus more on universal Internet access? What is the best way to make this issue a priority with national leaders?
