Just Do It

If you’re going to foul…foul
What we learned 16 years ago
By Mark Sump

My son is 16, six foot four and plays varsity basketball at his high school. I attend all of his games. A couple weeks ago his team was playing one of the top teams in the conference. It was close. The other team stole the ball, drove the floor and went in for the lay up. There was one player between him and the basket. They both went up. Our player was trying not to foul, but there was no chance he wouldn’t. He tried to block the ball, but it was out of reach. The ball went in and the foul was called. I thought to myself, if you’re going to foul…foul. Don’t let the shot go in.

Sixteen years ago we tried to pass health care reform. We failed. That year the Republicans took the House. First time in decades. They patted themselves on the back and told the country it was because they succeeded in pushing back against change, against finally bringing true reform to our health care system.

In 1992, Bill Clinton won an electoral landslide. The campaign was built on hope and change. The cornerstone issue was health care reform. He had a mandate. He really did. Then he ran into a Democratic Congress who played not to lose. The more change that was proposed, the dimmer the outlook was for Democrats in Congress. They hesitated. They blinked. They were afraid to lose. Guess what? They lost anyway.

The reality is that Democrats were destined to lose the moment they took the change mantel. As much as America likes the sound of change, we fear it even more. We are easily convinced change will ruin our economy, take our jobs, take our freedom, dictate our lives. Republicans get this. They drove that fear into the spine of Congress, and Democrats let them dunk the ball and take the penalty shot. Republicans would probably have won just as many seats in 1994 had we passed comprehensive health reform.

If we had passed health reform in 1993, for years the narrative would have been that we went too far, but we would have passed legislation that would have altered the course of history. We would have saved lives. We would have saved sick Americans from bankruptcy. We would have prevented illness. We would have brought real change to a very broken system.

So, here we are sixteen years later. We’re playing defense. The Republicans are going up for the dunk. Democrats have a decision to make. Do we stop them from scoring and take the penalty, or do we try not to foul.

We can learn from the past. We can know that sixteen years ago as many people were discouraged by our lack of ability to bring real change as were afraid of what that change might bring. Democrats can stand up today, knowing they will lose in November but knowing they did the right thing. Sixteen years ago we blinked and we know the results. History shows we’re going to lose seats in Congress if we do nothing.

So, do the right thing. Pass health care reform. Pass a public option. Pass a Medicare buy-in. Do it by any means possible. Pass a real reform by reconciliation.

If you’re going to foul…foul.

Sense and Sensibility

Sense and Sensibility
When people are talking to people sensibility prevails
By Mark Sump

This week’s election results in Oregon tell a story that the media has missed, but it’s not the first time. The fact that Oregon voters turned out in huge numbers to pass two “tax hike” propositions belies the narrative among Republicans and swallowed hook-line-and-sinker by the media. This was a campaign that engaged thousands of supporters across the state who in turn engaged hundreds of thousands of voters by explaining the facts of Measures 66 and 67. Yes for Oregon adopted the new paradigm in effective campaigns; that volunteers are back and they’re winning campaigns

The media is of course singularly focused on recent Democratic Party failures in Virginia, New Jersey and, of course, Massachusetts. They were colossal failures, and each of them was a reflection of the old paradigm in political campaigns. It is no longer true that the successful campaign is the one that has the most and best television advertisements. It is no longer true that campaigns can be won without engaging the public.

Coakley is the definition of this old paradigm. The fact that she was up by 30 points after her primary is not the relevant issue. The fact that she did not see the need to run a campaign after the primary is relevant. The fact that she did not see the need to engage the public and rally her supporters is relevant. Relying on a blitz of paid media at the end of the campaign no longer wins campaigns for Democrats even in the most liberal of states. Coakley is proof of that.

The new paradigm in winning elections is that public opinion is important, but paid media no longer carries the sway to change public opinion it once did. The new paradigm is that you have to earn public opinion through direct interaction with the public.

While the media is focused on in a few high profile campaigns, there is a quiet undercurrent that has so far gone unnoticed. The latest is Oregon, but just last month, the city of Houston…not known for its liberalism…elected Annise Parker the first big city mayor who happens to be a lesbian. A month before that, the state of Washington rejected proposition 71 ensuring the most sweeping gay rights legislation ever up for a public vote in the nation’s history.

Each of these campaigns had two things in common. Each of them embraced this paradigm shift toward engaging an army of volunteers, and each of them won.

This year, the smart campaigns will begin building and training their army of volunteers months in advance so that on Election Day they are not left to the whims of a media who is more interested in the “gotcha” than the truth.