Rahm Emanuel versus Chris Van Hollen: How Democratic Icons Get Minted by the Press

by Matt Stoller [courtesy of Open Left - Front Page]

From 2005-2006, we were treated to story after story after story on Rahm Emanuel, the tough talking cursing Chair of the DCCC who had taken on the impossible task of bringing the Democrats into the majority.  Democrats ended up picking up more than 30 seats, and Emanuel got huge amounts of credit.  These stories had lines in them like:

To those who expected a bragging pol, [Emanuel] was quite the subdued victor. He seemed peaceful -- as peaceful as a slow-moving shark.

For all Van Hollen's hard work this year, he still labors in the shadow of Emanuel. Many credit the Illinois congressman with leaving Van Hollen a well-oiled machine.

"It's not a stretch to say that there's an Emanuel encore named Van Hollen," said David Wasserman, House editor for the Cook Political Report. He credits the Maryland congressman with doing "a good job, not a particularly original job."

Van Hollen, a diplomat's son, patiently lists the ways this campaign is distinct. For instance, the DCCC has 50 percent more money on hand than it did in 2006, and Democrats consider 75 races to be in play, compared with 43 two years ago.

It's probable that both DCCC Chairs took advantage of favorable events.  It's not as if Rahm Emanuel's brilliant move of having Mark Foley's scandal break in October of 2006 has been countered by Van Hollen's amazing prescience in timing the financial crisis for mid-September of 2008.  Emanuel is getting more credit because Democrats took the majority, because it wasn't a Presidential year, but also by dint of a PR strategy designed to undermine progressives and partisanship.

When Lamont was fighting with Lieberman in the general, Emanuel asked sarcastically: "Explain to me how two Democrats running is bad."  Lieberman is of course a key surrogate for McCain.

Emanuel co-authored a book using quotes from that maverick John McCain.

Ironically, conservatives made government bigger, not smaller. In Senator John McCain's phrase, Washington Republicans spent like drunken sailors--a conservative administration leading the biggest domestic spending spree since Lyndon Johnson.

Emanuel went after bloggers.

Do I think the [bloggers] and Al Sharpton alone are the future of the Democratic Party? No! Welcome in, contribute, but it's about winning in November and moving the country forward, not about a firing squad in a circle.

He and his co-author undermined Democrats right off the bat.

We're both dyed-in-the-wool, lifelong Democrats, but we can't help but notice that in recent years, both parties in Washington lost their way.

He blamed Democrats and Republicans equally to blame for a polarized Washington.

Americans scratch their heads in wonder that Republicans and Democrats can't find common purpose.

He conceded that Democrats stand for nothing.

But the challenge is deeper: Each party needs to be clearer in its own purpose.

He validated conservative ideology as a good doctrine, failed by Republicans.

How could conservatism--which even with its many shortcomings was once a rigorous doctrine--have come to such a small-minded, unsatisfying demise? Republicans who rode to power on conservative ideals turned them into a hollow faith. Conservatism became a strategy for winning elections, not leading a nation--for staying in power, not respecting its limits. Conservative leaders forgot what made them conservatives in the first place: a recognition that rigid ideology has always been the God That Failed, and that no idea is good if it doesn't work.

He argued Democrats have no ideas.

With Republicans confused and corrupted by being in power, Democrats became so desperate to stop the damage that we often forgot to show where we'd like to lead the country instead.

He called Democrats that criticized Bush from 2002-2006 whiners.

In the 1990s, Democrats began to define a new mission for the country and the party, with impressive results. But in recent years, our anger and frustration with the other side steered us away from our real strength: America hires Democrats to help solve problems, not to listen to us whine about them.

He picked fights with Moveon, Howard Dean, and George Soros, and began leaking stories during the 2006 election about how progressives would be at fault if Democrats didn't win for causing a 'rift'.  Of course, right-wing bloggers quickly lept to his defense.  And when he won, he was quick to argue against progressive governance and for bipartisan elitism.

[Emanuel] said only that America prefers governing from the center "and not polarization," and that candidates would do well to keep that in mind...

"We have an obligation to work in a bipartisan fashion," he said. "We won't have those slogans -- 'Mission Accomplished,' 'Cut and Run.' None of that's working."

As a key leader in Congress from 2007-2008, Rahm's strategy has led to a Congress that is almost as unpopular as George w. Bush.

Van Hollen, by contrast, has operated a DCCC that works well with pretty much everyone, without nasty ideological sniping (it's worth noting he didn't endorse in the Donna Edwards primary despite being a popular incumbent right next door).  His DCCC is raising tons of cash, blowing away the NRCC, and putting over 70 seats in play.  There are no hugely public tussles with big donors or attacks on Moveon.  Van Hollen is a low key leader with a progressive bent, and he's just quietly doing his work, with consistently excellent blog coordination, no big masculine bromides about sending dead fish to pollsters or lectures about the toughness of Chicago politics, and no arguments about governing from the center.

It's nice to see him running this operation, and hopefully it will lead to his ascension into the House leadership ranks.  We need more progressives not just in Congress but in leadership positions.  Since Van Hollen isn't going to take advantage of the establishment press's desire to quote Democratic politicians who bash Democrats or melodrama in which helpless centrist are beset by childish yet menacing progressives, some of that PR should be done by people out here in the blogs.

So three cheers for Chris Van Hollen, an excellent steward of the DCCC and someone who should go far in Congress.