As previously
noted, the blowout loss of his sister Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu to Republican
Rep. Bill Cassidy
to retain her present Senate seat has
been understood poorly by many on the political left. Some wish to ignore
its root causes and plan to sail on without learning its lessons: when leftist
candidates are seen for what they truly are, which will be the case going
forward in Louisiana, they cannot win statewide nor legislative majorities in
Louisiana. The trick to recovery, then, is for Democrats to preach less in the
way of the extreme liberalism that emanates out of today’s White House and (in
a month) the minority parties in Congress, not to double down on it.
An objection
to this argument declares that a moderating strategy that became more like
a less far-reaching version of conservatism than like liberalism ultimately
would fail because Democrats would end up echoing Republicans and voters torn between
the two would still side with the real thing. Instead, this view holds out hope
that traditional modern liberalism can appeal on economic issues to win back
enough voters to make the party competitive, if not able to win majorities.
Of course, this notion fails to
recognize the inherent contradictions within liberalism that place a handicap
on the fortunes of any candidate articulating its ideas – it basis on wealth
redistribution by fiat rather than on the interactions of individuals in voluntary
exchanges that apportion resources on the basis of proportional benefit to
society. Too many liberals seem dumbfounded that the American middle class has
abandoned Democrats on economic issues even as liberalism has proven so hostile
to it: transfer payment and taxation policies that encourage more to jump on
the wagon while fewer pull it, a job-killing minimum wage, overregulation that
retards wealth creation and politicized regulation to induce more command and
control over people’s lives, and overspending that confiscates more of what
people earn. Given its privileged existence, the wealthy
liberal elite that drives Democrat policy-making that seems confused on how
liberalism robs the middle class of chances to succeed has no conception how
its policies in essence pull up the ladder on the middle class, which is why
that substantial section of voters has been the Republicans’ now for 35 years.
When you have an electorate such as
Louisiana’s that, in the main, increasingly through in-migration, increasing
cognitive ability through improvements in its educational system, and through
hard-bitten experience in dealing with a past pandering populist state
government that has delivered poorly in a state poorer than average, develops a
thirst for opportunity and for looking to self rather than state to achieve for
oneself, modern liberalism’s economic prescriptions never will convince a
majority. If the state’s political culture had produced in past elections an
electorate which viewed candidates as if wearing non-prescription dark glasses,
unable to discern well the difference between liberals and conservatives and
the glasses are now off, were Louisiana Democrats to double down on liberalism not
only do the glasses stay off, but they are made with prescription lenses that
makes their candidates’ warts even more obvious.
That is, for federal and statewide
elections, and was what sent Landrieu to her electoral just deserts. She was a
hangover from the political culture in the state as it was and survived longer
than she should have because of that lag (and of some good luck in terms of
pervious candidates and timing of elections nationally). As far as Mitch
Landrieu goes, he’s now in the same position in New Orleans, where after he
finishes this term he has no future there. Like it or not, New Orleans, in the
perspicacious words of Prisoner
#32751-034, is a “chocolate city,” and the unusual conditions of famous
last name, post-hurricane disaster environment, and the former mayor’s bungling
will not come together any time soon allow for Landrieu or any other white
candidate to win the mayor’s office, at least not until after liberal policy
dominance for perhaps another generation in time turns it into the next
Detroit and a conservative alternative would emerge for a population with
minds now open to consider it.
Mitch Landrieu’s political
prospects beyond his current spot rest on the fact he has had the experience of
winning statewide campaigns yet not having to make any substantive ideological decisions
in that office, and that at the local level distinguishing ideological dimensions
to decisions becomes more difficult, tending at this level to a greater number
of apparent matters without ideological content, such as how to fill as many potholes
as possible. Thus, he may have a better chance to avoid being associated with
unpopular liberalism, that his sister by her actions, could not avoid, to an
electorate more able than ever to accomplish this.
But conceptual confusion still undermines
the analysis if the recent Senate contest, and thus by extension down the electoral
line, is perceived as one where “ideology
trumps bread-and-butter issues.” This misunderstands that what are “bread-and-butter”
issues are themselves ideological when they are not matters of competence. To
use the pothole analogy, it has a competence dimension in that municipal tax
dollars get translated into filling these comprehensively and in a timely
fashion, yet it also has an ideological dimension in that politics drives which
potholes and in what order do they get filled. This resonates with many seemingly
mundane decisions such as plowing
snow and deploying
policing resources.
So it will not be enough for
Landrieu, if he aspires to higher office, to chant that he has proven himself
to be a competent
manager, because in whatever executive position he would seek – almost certainly
the governor’s office – other candidates will be able to make the same claims
and all voters really want is to elect somebody who does not appear to be an
incompetent manager. It’s the ideology that from now on makes the difference in
Louisiana for these kinds of offices – and obviously the ones that don’t have a
managerial component such as Congress – and so here Landrieu would have to
choose how to approach that.
His Democrat label already puts him
behind the eight ball for it has become convenient shorthand for Washington
liberal to a large portion of Louisiana’s electorate. And the monetary and
experiential resources he could bring to bear unlikely would be enough to
distance himself from its implications if faced off against a solid
conservative Republican candidate.
Two things could improve his
relative position, one being the timing of an election. For example, running
for governor next year should produce relatively reduced Republican excitement that
swamped his sister this year, boosting his chances. Yet there’s no reason to
believe, even with this electorate, that his semi-blank issue slate/asserted managerial
competence personage would resonate successfully enough when voters in 2007 and
2011 handed easy wins to Republican Gov. Bobby
Jindal and cleared the decks of statewide offices of Democrats by the
latter contest. The same applies to running for the Senate in 2016, either because
it will be held by a placeholder if Sen. David Vitter wins his quest
to be governor, or the Republican fails in 2015 (assuming Landrieu doesn’t run
and improbably wins instead) and runs for reelection or opts out in 2016.
That’s because statewide right now,
the Landrieu label is mustard gas to voters, they having realized how very
liberal Mary Landrieu was by her votes and supportive actions of Pres. Barack Obama.
This only would get transferred to Mitch Landrieu in the short term. However,
the other things is that time heals all wounds. The thinking is that if
Landrieu serves out his term-limited time in office, adding four more years to
a record hoping things go well, by 2019 he could challenge for governor, or
take on in 2020 Cassidy, by which time memories will have faded about the
branding implied by his last name.
However, the problem here is that a
successful governor elected in 2015 will leave no room for his candidacy to
win, and while Cassidy could go well against historical type and put himself in
position to lose after just one term (no elected U.S. Senator from Louisiana
ever has lost a reelection attempt running after the first term), chances are
not much of an opening would be here as well. And even if gambling that things
fall into place to give him an opening, the more time that passes, just as the
damage from the name association dissipates within the electorate, so do any
memories of his perceived strengths and relevance.
Some Democrats may see him as the
great white hope to lead a resurgence of their fortunes. The actual dynamics of
the political environment suggest otherwise. Only by distancing themselves from
the liberal patina that covers them through change from within will they
achieve any significant electoral success for the foreseeable future, and he
doesn’t seem to be the guy who can do that credibly.
No comments:
Post a Comment