Does a constant stream of entirely negative criticism, loud and passionate in its expression, produce a useable outcome? We’ve been thinking about this question a lot in recent weeks while observing the words and actions of several Senators during the confirmation process for the President’s new cabinet members. There are plenty of examples of this damning criticism (for every single nominee as a matter of fact), but one that sticks out is the “advice” of Senator Warren on the nominee for Attorney General. Senator Warren brought heavy-weight passion and invective to the debate, so much that a rarely used senate rule was invoked to have her silenced in the chamber for denouncing a fellow senator(1). She then immediately took her spirited negativity outside the Senate chamber and continued it via a live video feed on Facebook. She attracted a large online audience who shared her emotions. Over 100 people actually got permanent tattoos on their bodies spelling out the Senate Majority leader’s statement, “…nevertheless, she persisted…”, after Warren was silenced.
Only a few hours after this episode, the Senate voted and Senator Sessions was confirmed as everyone on both sides expected he would be. For the President, the outcome of all this was in evidence – his Attorney General was confirmed. But it was clear that Senator Warren’s supporters believed they achieved an outcome as well. Their own passions, excitement and protestations were validated and reflected in the performance of Senator Warren. Her public display projected the feelings of her supporters into the limelight. While there is a certain satisfaction in this which mimics having realized a goal, can passionate expression alone be an action plan without a real world outcome that will actually affect the way America is governed? Isn’t that the goal, or is the goal just to make a big noise?
Fervent eloquence, well-crafted with hard hitting “taboo” words and eye-popping visuals, can strike at a target’s core and easily give the impression that it flows from a much larger group than is actually the case. This faux magnitude can, in turn, force elected leaders to respond, lest they be seen as ignoring their “base”. When the leaders then use their platform to voice the same passion at similar or greater decibels, their constituents feel validated and have a sense of accomplishment in having had their passions heard and repeated at a higher level, encouraging them to do more. This phenomenon exists on both sides of the political spectrum and if used strategically can forward each side’s agenda.
There is a big difference in the way each party harnessed their constituent energy during the last year. On the Democrat side, sustained loud and boisterous expression, repeated by the national party leadership, by itself appeared to define a successful outcome for the participants and leadership. The Republican participants were just as loud and animated, but the leadership was able to disperse their passion more strategically throughout the country to optimize its effect in the electoral process. Election-time passion has to translate into electoral votes, otherwise it is just “venting”. The Democrats successfully aroused strong passion and unity around topics such as diversity and equality, but ignored the fact that the bulk of that enthusiasm was concentrated in relatively few vote-getting areas (primarily California and New York). The Republicans deliberately aroused focused constituent passion in numerous strategic places around the country, maximizing their electoral vote total. Their passion was still loud and often obnoxious, but it was much better planned and orchestrated and used as a tool to create a real world outcome, not just allowed to spill out without strategic direction.
One would think this sobering lesson of encouraging passion without a good tactical strategy for its use would have been learned by the defeated party after the election. Instead, a doubling-down has occurred. An even greater explosion of unfocused condemnation without articulating any alternative vision is now the modus operandi for the Democrat party and many of its supporters. Foul comments from singers and actors in addition to “Pussy hats” were the most compelling words and images from the Woman’s March, drowning out any meaningful message that may have been originally intended. Senator Warren’s exposition followed right in step. With the complicit media plastering this kind of behavior all over the headlines, it’s no wonder it has taken hold. The more outlandish and nasty the rhetoric the better. Never mind that the words don’t make any forward progress toward a consolidating strategy for a grievously wounded party – just scream your displeasure indiscriminately across the info-sphere.
What’s next? To be fair, a minority party has limited options. But can majority status ever be regained simply by yowling piercingly at ever increasing volume without any method to the madness? Across the country, Democrats currently hold the fewest elected seats at the local, state and national levels (combined) since 1920. The Party’s mulish denial of this reality is palpable. Is this the final death cry of the traditional Democrat Party?
(1) The actual rule Senator Warren broke, Rule XIX, states that a senator cannot ascribe “to another senator or to other senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a senator.”