Book Review

Over the weekend I finished Foxes in the Henhouse by Steve Jarding and Dave "Mudcat" Saunders. I don't have the book in front of me right now, so this review will have to be off of memory--sorry if there are no quotations at the ready.

FITH clocks in at right around 350 pages, making it an entirely manageable length, and the writing style is straightforward and easy to understand. It's a more or less typical, moderate Democrat screed against the Bush administration and the Republican control of Congress for the past few years previous to the elections of 2006. It is not a scholarly work, though Jarding is a sometimes lecturer at Harvard University.

The critisim that is both easiest to make and most cutting is that the book has all the faults you would expect from something written by a moderate Democrat. The authors are perfectly willing to lambast the Republican party all day (for good reason, of course) but any criticism of Democrats is muted and strictly limited to strategy. To Jarding and Saunders, the Democrats stand for all that is good and holy. In reality, though the Democrats have not held political power for a few years, they certainly deserve their share of the credit and blame for the state of affairs in our country. To steal a quote from Chomsky, Democrats are the less reactionary of the two business parties.

Don't expect this kind of commentary to come up. Instead, what you will find is a blueprint for a way the authors believe the Democrats can be competitive in traditionally "conservative" states. The book relies heavily on the experience of Jarding and Saunders running Mark Warner's successful gubernatorial campaign in Virginia and tries to extend the straties employed there to all states. I'd suggest there are two main points the book tries to stress: first, Democrats must not write off large parts of the country (like the South) from the get-go. Second, Democrats can compete in these areas provided they speak in economic terms and are respectful of the local culture, even if they are not actively members of that culture.

To the first point: I agree and disagree. Howard Dean's 50 state stategy is good politics, and there should be an effort to have some form of an active party in every area. It is a part of long term planning that is necessary and long overdue. But I don't think it's something that is going to be paying dividends for a while yet. In the short term, especially in presidential politics, I tend to agree more with Tom Schall's Whistling Past Dixie. Schall suggests that it does not make sense to actively campaign in the South at this time for Democrats. The South is a region of the US that is least likely to vote for Democrats; in the long term ideological struggle, the South is likely to be the last region to come around. It makes much more sense to try to win in the Southwest states like New Mexico, Arizona, and Colorado. Gore won New Mexico in 2000, and Kerry was in striking distance in 2004. Resources should go to those states first. That does not mean, though, that Democratic candiates for offices more down-ballot cannot run vibrant and successful campaigns in Southern states, too. But the low hanging fruit should be the first fruit the party goes after.

As to the second point: of course. But it's easy to say that candidates should speak to the people where they live, and a lot harder to do it. I think all candidates naturally do this, some better than others. If you campaign in a state that has a lot of hunters, your candidate will try not to offend hunters. That's not exactly a revelation. And then there's the old canard about how Democrats need to focus on economic issues to draw attention away from social issues. Democratic strategists have been saying this for a thousand years and candidates have been trying it. Sometimes it works and sometimes not--and there are a lot of variables involved. But it's definately not a cure-all. There are plenty of red-staters who will vote against gay marriage and abortion and live with lower wages and reduced government services, even though to outside observers it seems irrational and there is simply nothing to be done about it.

So I guess I wouldn't go so far as to recommend the book. It doesn't really tell the full truth about modern politics, and the tactical advice is more or less old hat. There are some good statistics (the abortion rate has gone up 25% during the Bush presidency? Whoa!) and the authors are occasionally funny, but on the whole the parts don't really add up to much. A note of personal interest: Jarding is originally from South Dakota and touches on the 2004 Daschle race several times, an area of personal interest for me.