I've always believed that the greatest compliment you can give a political operative is, “This is the person I want to be in the trenches with.” Someone who not only has your back, but everyone else's as well. Someone who can command both strategy and tactics. As Kipling said, he is the one who keeps you sane when everyone else is going insane.
For example, Rahm Emanuel.
The Democratic Party is in a predicament. We don't lose our heads, but we damage them to the point of scar tissue. Critics are like the white fog on a battlefield, overwhelming us with confusing and contradictory information, analysis, and data. Do we march to the left or to the right? Is our message democracy or economy? Populism or a 10-point policy plan?
Meanwhile, Donald Trump is running around Washington, with a few exceptions (Waltz, Stefanik, Rubio), characters from The Manchurian Candidate, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, and Veep. He formed a cabinet that seemed to be a mixture of the following. (my favorite reaction In response to the nomination of Matt Gaetz as Attorney General, Utah Republican Rep. Mike Simpson asked, “Are you making fun of me?''
Experts are currently focusing on who the Democratic Party should choose as the next chairman of the Democratic National Committee. The name is competent and worthy. But I have a soft spot for the man who actually went deep into the battle-scarred trenches and led the escape.
I served with Mr. Emanuel in Congress and worked closely with him when he served as chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee from 2004 to 2006. The parallels between then and now make a compelling case for his leadership.
In fact, in many ways, it takes us back to 2004.
Nate Silver reminded me of the similarities between certain works. recent substack essays. “It's hard not to see similarities between President Bush's victory in 2004 and President Donald Trump's victory last week,” he wrote. “Like Bush, Trump won thanks to a surge in votes from Latino and Asian American voters. Like Bush, he will win the popular vote — every vote counts. If it tallies up, we'll probably win by about 1.4 percentage points.”
In 2004, Republicans not only retained the White House, but also expanded their majorities in both the House and Senate. Republicans seemed invincible.
Nancy Pelosi, then House Minority Leader, was not one to jump into the trenches and appointed Emanuel as DCCC chair. At the time, it was like asking Leonidas' Spartans to fight against the Persians. (It didn't end well for the Spartans).
I got to see him up close when he invited me into the trenches to help recruit candidates. He knew that history would favor us in the medium term and that there would be another parallel with today. Still, Emanuel was reluctant and impatient to wait for the political winds to blow, so he developed a strategy early on to fan the political winds.
Sensing growing voter fatigue from the Iraq war, Emanuel's first order was to target veterans (Tim Walz, Patrick Murphy, former Navy Adm. Joe Sestak) and law enforcement (Indiana Sheriff Brad Ellsworth) to concentrate candidate recruitment. He boosted Democratic Party credibility and attacked Republican weaknesses on national security issues.
This strategy was implemented in the war room environment of the DCCC conference room. Once a week, we met at 8 a.m. to systematically review recruitment efforts and campaigns to motivate people to exercise. Spouses of legislators were placed in place to allay the fears of spouses of potential candidates. Members were sent to far-flung locations to sweet-talk or harsh-talk potential recruits. (One of my most memorable lunches was on an ill-fated recruiting trip to a place called Breaux Bridge, Louisiana, which had a population of about 8,000 at the time. There was no kosher deli in sight.)
Emanuel wasn't sure he could win a majority in one cycle. The plan was to get within field goal range and take it in 2008. But he and Pelosi retained the strategic and tactical ability to maneuver in both timelines. It's not easy. Historian John Lewis Gaddis reminds us of the difference between the two. fox and hedgehog In his book “On Grand Strategy,'' he writes: Emanuel embodied both.
We won both the House and Senate in 2006. President Bush called it “shocking.” It wasn't just that. It was a sequential layering of recruiting and messaging (Pelosi's words were easy to understand). “Six Four '06”) and money. Proactive, methodical, and active.
The current environment is perfect for Emmanuel. He's good at fighting from behind. He is a modern-day stoic warrior who sees opportunity in obstacles, sometimes forcefully breaking through, sometimes evading, but always calculating how to move forward. Play chess and dodgeball at the same time.
Is he perfect? no. I mean, he once sent dead fish to pollsters. He is perpetually profane. President Obama said that when Rahm lost part of his middle finger in an accident as a child, “it left him mute for a while.” He has sharp elbows with bare fists. But so is Trump, and my guess is that Trump is worried about Emanuel's leadership at the DNC. Bullies hate people who are stronger than others.
The Democratic Party rose from the woes of 2004 to win the midterm elections and then the presidency. This pattern was repeated from 2016 to 2020. But history and fate don't win elections; proven leadership wins.
It worked fine that time. It might work again. With similar leadership, he was focused on one goal: making the Democratic Party a winner again.
steve israel He served eight terms in the New York State House of Representatives and served as chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee from 2011 to 2015.
