Skip to main content.

Wednesday, March 30, 2005

Bill Bradley writes a very thoughtful Op-Ed piece in the NYT this morning. Describing the successful Republican Party strategy, he says
Big individual donors and large foundations - the Scaife family and Olin foundations, for instance - form the base of the pyramid. They finance conservative research centers like the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute and the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, entities that make up the second level of the pyramid.

The ideas these organizations develop are then pushed up to the third level of the pyramid - the political level. There, strategists like Karl Rove or Ralph Reed or Ken Mehlman take these new ideas and, through polling, focus groups and careful attention to Democratic attacks, convert them into language that will appeal to the broadest electorate. That language is sometimes in the form of an assault on Democrats and at other times in the form of advocacy for a new policy position. The development process can take years. And then there's the fourth level of the pyramid: the partisan news media. Conservative commentators and networks spread these finely honed ideas.

At the very top of the pyramid you'll find the president. Because the pyramid is stable, all you have to do is put a different top on it and it works fine. [...]

To understand how the Democratic Party works, invert the pyramid. Imagine a pyramid balancing precariously on its point, which is the presidential candidate.

Democrats who run for president have to build their own pyramids all by themselves. There is no coherent, larger structure that they can rely on. Unlike Republicans, they don't simply have to assemble a campaign apparatus - they have to formulate ideas and a vision, too. Many Democratic fundraisers join a campaign only after assessing how well it has done in assembling its pyramid of political, media and idea people.

There is no clearly identifiable funding base for Democratic policy organizations, and in the frantic campaign rush there is no time for patient, long-term development of new ideas or of new ways to sell old ideas. [...]
I like Bradley's description of the differences between the party structures. He overlooks, I fear, the reasons why the Republicans have found it so easy to build pyramids on a large financial base with concentrated ideological support and why Democrats find themselves looking for charisma. Two reasons come to mind: (1) the pro-business economic agenda readily attracts big money for Republicans, and (2) the simple-minded conservative social values make their "brand" easy to articulate and sell. If you're interested in serving the less furtunate members of society and you appreciate the complexity of the social problems that confront us, then pyramids will present a challenge. Still, Bradley's observations are important; Democrats should take the challenge very seriously.

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Contributor: A Party Inverted

Comments

No comments yet

Add Comment

This item is closed, it's not possible to add new comments to it or to vote on it

TrackBack