« Oscars 2005 VII | Main | Galactica Blogging: Tigh Me Up, Tigh Me Down »

March 03, 2005

Perception is Reality

In the great movie Bull Durham, the Durham Bulls launch on a huge winning streak immediately after their star prospect Nuke LaLoosh (Tim Robbins) stops having sex with his girlfriend Annie Savoy (Susan Sarandon). Convinced that the streak is connected to the lack of sex, Nuke vows not to have sex with Annie until the streak comes to an end.

Annie, needless to say, is not at all pleased with this vow. She attempts to seduce Nuke, but he rebuffs her, telling her that his catcher Crash (Kevin Costner) has warned him that if he has sex with her the team might start losing. Annie goes to Crash's house to confront him regarding his meddling in her love life.

Crash Davis: I never told him to stay out of your bed.
Annie Savoy: You most certainly did.
Crash Davis: I never told him to stay out of your bed.
Annie Savoy: Yes you did.
Crash Davis: I told him that a player on a streak has to respect the streak.
Annie Savoy: Oh fine.
Crash Davis: You know why? Because they don't---they don't happen very often.
Annie Savoy: Right.
Crash Davis: If you believe you're playing well because you're getting laid, or because you're not getting laid, or because you wear women's underwear, then you ARE! And you should know that!

I couldn't help but think of that scene as I review Matt Yglesias's latest (Quixotic?) attempt to get his party to redefine itself on national security. I took on this topic a few weeks back, but most of the responses were more along the line of indignant Democrats upset because they're convinced their national security policies are just fine and they have no need to change. While they may be half-right, that attitude is tailor-made to keep the Democrats in the minority for the foreseeable future.

Just as with Nuke's winning streak, it doesn't really matter whether or not the Democrats really are good or bad on national security. All that matters is how they're perceived. (I can sympathize with the frustration Democrats feel over this, but reality is a tremendously frustrating thing.) And the fact is that Democrats are not seen as being strong on national security. And as long as national security is a major issue in American politics, that means the Democrats are going to be at a significant disadvantage. I'm not as convinced as Matt that the Democrats have that great an advantage on other issues, but the fact they've managed to hold roughly 50% of the electorate despite their perceived weakness on national security suggests that he may be on to something. But those strengths are unlikely to be enough to put Democrats over the top without a better national security portfolio.

It's important to note that the Democrats don't necessarily have to change their beliefs a great deal on national security. Since the issue is as much one of perception as reality, rhetorical changes can make a significant difference. Take a look at what President Bush was able to do with 'compassionate conservatism' for an example. A similar change in tactics by the Democrats could have a marked effect on their electoral success.

But they can only succeed if they recognize the problem and decide to do something about it. It's often easier to ignore the problem and to argue that, since the Democrats sincerely believe their positions, it's the electorate that is wrong not to vote for them. That is a principled position, but it's not one that will help them in the polls. And the Democrats don't have to accept that their ideas are necessarily wrong as much as simply accepting that the electorate doesn't have faith in them to handle national security issues. A small change in rhetoric and emphasis could go a long ways towards addressing the problem, but only if the Democrats are willing to concede that the problem exists. Guys like Matt are taking an important step down that road.