In a recent Talbot Spy commentary, I wrote that in the 2022 Congressional elections, pro-choice advocates who were angry over the U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade, channeled their anger into get-out-the-vote (GOTV) initiatives.

I also wrote a key element of those GOTV initiatives was messaging repeated early and often by Democratic congressional candidates: many Republicans oppose abortions anywhere and at any stage of a pregnancy. The goal was to energize and mobilize pro-choice voters, especially, but not limited to independents and women, to vote for Democratic candidates.

This messaging strategy worked well in the election cycle 2022.

It may work again in the 2024 election cycle based on recent “off year” election results in two red states — Ohio and Kentucky and in one purple state – Virginia.

In a statewide referendum in Ohio, more than 56% of voters approved a grassroots initiated measure to add the right to abortions into the state constitution. 

In Virginia, Democrats won back full control of the state legislature after Republicans led by Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin campaigned on the promise of a “sensible limit” that would ban most abortions past 15 weeks of pregnancy, a measure Democratic candidates said was an extremist “agenda”.

In Kentucky, voters reelected a Democratic governor over an anti-abortion Republican opponent who had won statewide previously as a candidate for Attorney General.

Democratic messaging strategy on abortion rights may not work again in 2024 based on the results of a special election last week in Utah to fill a vacated congressional seat.

In that election, the Democratic candidate (a moderate state senator) said her Republican opponent’s position on abortion rights was “too extreme.” The Republican candidate responded to her opponent’s comment by not responding to it. In fact, she completely ignored it. She explained her decision to a local media outlet thusly: “I’ve avoided a lot of the social issues and red meat issues that people get wound up about.” 

Instead, the Republican candidate focused on issues that she believed would resonate with a majority of voters in the congressional district. Those issues included securing America’s borders, addressing deficit spending at the federal level, and taming inflation. She also focused on three other issues she believed were of particular importance to voters in the district: less federal control over private land use, less federal control over natural resources, and keeping a local military base open. 

The Republican candidate’s unconventional and risky messaging strategy worked.

Despite a pre-election poll forecasting a close outcome in this special election, the Republican candidate got 57% of the votes cast, the Democratic candidate got 34% of the votes cast and 9% of votes cast went to third party or independent unaffiliated candidates. 

Going forward a “silence is golden” messaging strategy used by this Republican candidate on abortion rights should be of great interest to both Democratic and Republican campaign strategists. 

Both need to heed the timeless advice of Eric Hoffer, who once said “In a world of change, the learners shall inherit the future, while the learned shall find themselves perfectly suited for a world that no longer exists.” 

David Reel is a public affairs/public relations consultant who serves as a trusted advisor on strategy, advocacy, and media matters who lives in Easton.

 

In his article Communicate Frequently — Adam Grant writes: “Repeating yourself is vital to effective communication. It’s better to over communicate and be seen as redundant than to under communicate and miss the mark.”

Grant’s observation has been affirmed by election results since the U.S. Supreme Court’s abortion rights decision on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a decision overturning the Court’s 1973 decision on Roe v. Wade.

In the 2022 Congressional elections, pro-choice advocates channeled their anger over the Dobbs decision into get out the vote initiatives. A key element of those initiatives was the following core message repeated early and often by Democratic candidates – Many Republicans oppose abortions anywhere and at any stage of a pregnancy. The goal was to energize and mobilize pro-choice voters, especially, but not limited to independents and women, to vote for Democratic candidates.

It worked. 

In an election cycle where a red wave was widely expected that wave turned out to be a trickle. While Republicans did gain a majority in the U.S House, it was only by a very narrow margin. They failed to gain a majority in the U. S. Senate. 

In 2023 state level elections, Democratic campaign strategists have had more measurable electoral success communicating their core message early and often. 

Most notable were elections in Virginia, a purple state that elected Republican Glenn Youngkin as governor just two years ago. This year wins by Democratic candidates in Virginia Senate elections added another seat to their pre-election majority. In the Virginia House of Delegates, wins by Democratic candidates added at least five seats to their caucus and flipped from being in the minority to being in the majority. Democratic House of Delegates member Don Scott told NPR the Democratic effort had the message, the candidates, and the momentum to put a stop to the “extreme” Republicans agenda. Democratic wins occurred despite Governor Youngkin’s message that the Republican agenda on abortion was what he considered to be a “middle of the road” approach calling for an abortion ban after 15 weeks of pregnancy, and exceptions for rape, incest, and risks to the life of the mother.

In the Virginia general assembly election results, it is clear the Democratic early and often message on abortion rights resonated with a majority of voters. The Republican message did not.

Recently, pro-choice advocates also had success on abortion rights referendum elections in Kansas, Montanna, and Ohio (all red states).

For the Republicans, it is time to engage in dialogue, deliberation, and decisions on another approach to election messaging. That approach is development and delivery of messages early and often focused on what public policy positions voters say they support and what they do not.

A perfect model for this approach is an updated Contract with America (CWA). The CWA was a plan of action proposed by Republicans during the 1994 congressional election cycle. The CWA detailed specific actions the Republicans promised to take if they became the majority party in the U.S House of Representatives. A critical feature of the CWA resulted from a decision to only include positions on “60% issues”, i.e., positions that polling showed at least 60% support of voters. As a result, the Contract with America did NOT include positions on abortion rights, a very divisive issue then and an even more divisive issue now.

In an important public display of unity, the CWA was signed by all but two of the incumbent Republican House members and by all non-incumbent Republican congressional candidates.

The CWA messaging in 1994 resulted in Republicans gaining 54 U.S House seats and 8 U.S. Senate seats, flipping both chambers from Democratic control.

If Republicans are serious about winning elections going forward, they need to do three things. First, develop an updated Contract with America with public policy positions that are in sync with the views of a majority of American voters. Second, launch a communications initiative to deliver messages early and often that Republicans listened to them, respect their views, and support their views. Third, develop and aggressively execute get out the vote campaigns that energize and mobilize voters to support Republican candidates who support a new Republican Contract with America.

David Reel is a public affairs/public relations consultant who serves as a trusted advisor on strategy, advocacy, and media matters who lives in Easton.

Veterans Day is Saturday of this week. 

For many, it will be just another fall Saturday to watch college football, deal with weekend chores, or relax. In this commentary, I want to share two stories that I hope will help reinforce why we observe this holiday.

In his book The Greatest Generation, Tom Brokaw writes about Americans who grew up during the Great Depression and went on to serve America during World War II. Brokaw wrote “It is, I believe, the greatest generation any society has ever produced.” He based that on his conclusion that ordinary Americans served not expecting fame and recognition, but because it was the “right thing to do.” 

The stories I share are about two military veterans with different World War II experiences, but who meet Brokaw’s criteria for recognition as members of the greatest generation. Both veterans are now deceased, but they remind us there was a time in America when doing the right thing was a given and not a rarity.

The first story is from a friend’s experience while attending a funeral for a World War II veteran, long after that veteran had served. At the funeral, the spouse of the deceased approached my friend and asked if he could explain an item in her hand. He looked at it and immediately said “This is a Silver Star. It is the United States military’s third-highest decoration for valor and gallantry in combat.” His widow stood quietly for a minute and then said “We were married for 62 years. Until his last day, we talked about everything. Except for this. He never told me about it. I found it in his dresser. I had no idea what it is or where it came from.” Like so many others in Brokaw’s book, her husband served in the military, not expecting fame and recognition, but because it was the “right thing to do.” 

My second story is closer to home. 

During World War II, my father left his parents, his four sisters and his job to serve as a co – pilot of a B-24 Liberator. My father only talked to me once about his experiences. It happened after I asked him about a small piece of metal (not a medal) on his dresser. He told me it was a piece of his plane that he saved after a crash landing in France. When I asked for more details, he said simply, “It wasn’t a big deal. He went on to say, “We ran out of fuel flying back to England from a mission over Germany, probably because the ground crew did not fill our fuel tanks before we took off.” Only after he died did one of his crewmates tell me the full story. Their plane ran out of fuel because they were desperately taking evasive action to avoid being shot down by ground based anti-aircraft guns. 

After his passing, I read his handwritten mission diary. What he and his crew did was a very big deal. They flew twenty-five combat missions. In every mission, they endured long flights and coped with the constant stress over the possibility of being wounded, killed, or captured and held as a prisoner of war. 

After the war ended, he returned home to resume his civilian career in banking, get married, and start a family. He too, served America not expecting fame and recognition, but because it was the “right thing to do.” 

Sharing these stories about two veterans of a long-ago war is not meant to minimize my gratitude, admiration, and respect for all who served in the military post-World War II. On every Veterans Day we need to say thank you to every American military veteran, regardless of when, where, and how they served.

That said, we especially need to give a special thank you to the World War II veterans who are still with us. Estimates are that of the sixteen million veterans who served during World War II less than 120,000 are still alive; and that number is dwindling rapidly. While their service should never be forgotten we still need to do all we can to express our gratitude before they are gone forever. 

David Reel is a public affairs/public relations consultant who serves as a trusted advisor on strategy, advocacy, and media matters who lives in Easton.

 

In previous Presidential election years, there has often been at least one “October Surprise.” They are known by that term for two reasons. One is, they occur in the closing days leading up to a November general election when significant numbers of voters, finalize their voting choices. Secondly, the nature and time of an October Surprise is widely unexpected, either because it was deliberately planned and launched late, or it happened spontaneously without preplanning. Either way, an October Surprise is broadly covered by the media and can play a huge role in changing election outcomes especially in close elections.

The Republican party and the Democratic party are already experiencing widespread and significant media news coverage of October Surprise-like events. 

Three attorneys to date have pled guilty and are cooperating with Georgia prosecutors on determining the level of involvement of Donald Trump in alleged illegal actions after the 2020 presidential election. This news will help Trump’s opponents for the GOP presidential nomination and the eventual Democratic presidential nominee to make a case that Trump is unfit to serve again.

Democratic Party strategist James Carville recently said publicly that President Biden’s reelection numbers are “not good”. Carville has also said on the record that when he tells Democratic leaders that Biden is in trouble, they don’t disagree with him, they just tell him to keep it to himself.” Nobody is saying, ‘James, you’re wrong,” he said. “They’re saying, ‘James, you can’t say that.’”

In deep blue New York City, Democratic Mayor Eric Adams recently said this about an influx of migrants into New York City — “I’m gonna tell you something, New Yorkers, never in my life have I had a problem that I didn’t see an ending to. I don’t see an ending to this. This issue will destroy New York City.” Adams also had this to say about Biden’s response (or perceived lack of) to requests for federal financial assistance for his city   – “We’re getting no support on this national crisis.” 

 Commenting on a recent statewide survey conducted by the Seneca College Research Institute (SCRI) in deep blue New York state, SCRI pollster Steven Greenberg noted “While other issues in Washington and abroad have largely driven the news cycle over the last few weeks, the influx of migrants to New York remains top of mind for voters. Seldom do we see an issue where at least 79% of Democrats, Republicans, independents, men, women, upstaters, downstaters, Blacks, whites, Latinos, Catholics, Jews, and Protestants all agree – that the migrant influx is a serious problem.”

The SCRI survey also reports Biden’s worst-ever New York favorability and job approval ratings. Less than half (48%) of poll respondents had a favorable opinion of Biden, down from 50% in September. Less than half (46%) had a favorable opinion of his job performance, down from 47% last month. 

This news will help Biden’s primary opponents for the Democratic presidential nomination and the eventual Republican presidential nominee make a case that Biden is not competent to continue serving as president. 

Further complicating matters for Biden is the New Hampshire Democratic Party refusing to accept the Democratic National Committee revoking of New Hampshire’s long-term position as holder of the nation’s first presidential primary. The Biden campaign has decided they will not place Biden’s name on the New Hampshire Democratic primary ballot. Instead, they will mount a write-in campaign for a slate of Biden surrogates.

This strategy could go off the rails based on the rules of engagement in New Hampshire. The primary election there is semi-open. Unaffiliated voters  (those registered to vote without any party affiliation) may vote in either party’s primary. Democratic and unaffiliated voters could cast enough write in votes for Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Cornell West, Minnesota Democratic Congressman Dean Phillips, Marianne Williamson and perhaps others that would deny Biden’s stand in slate of supporters a majority of the Democratic primary votes. If that occurs, the result could be Biden doing what incumbent Democratic President Lyndon Johnson did in 1968 when he failed to get a majority of votes in the New Hampshire Democratic primary and subsequently abandoned his bid for a second term.

Now more than ever presidential campaigns are a muti-year marathon rather than a several month sprint prior to a November election. Accordingly, multiple October Surprise-like events are highly likely to occur early and often between now and the November 2024 presidential election.

David Reel is a public affairs/public relations consultant who serves as a trusted advisor on strategy, advocacy, and media matters who lives in Easton.

 

Republicans in Maryland have had little to celebrate in recent years.

In 2020, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden easily carried the state over former President Donald Trump.

In 2022, Republican gubernatorial candidate Dan Cox was trounced by Governor Wes Moore, thus ending eight years of a Republican serving as governor.

In 2022, Democratic candidates for U.S. Senate, State Comptroller, and State Attorney General won handily.

Last, but not least in 2022, the Democratic Party increased their super majorities in the State Senate and the State House of Delegates.

While an incumbent Republican was re-elected to the U.S. House in 2022, he remains the only Republican in the state Congressional delegation.

Currently only three of Maryland’s nine county executives are Republicans. Historically incumbent county executives serve as a “bench” of viable candidates for higher state and national offices.

In fairness to Maryland Republicans, there are two major hurdles to future electoral success. Both are both well beyond their control. One major hurdle is redrawn and gerrymandered congressional and state legislative districts that favor Democratic candidates. The second major hurdle is an observation by Louis Jacobson in the recently released 2024 edition of The Almanac of American Politics. Jacobson writes “For many years, Maryland was a marginal state in national politics; But demographic and geographic shifts have made it solidly Democratic.”

All this doom and gloom was put aside recently when the Maryland Republican Party hosted a dinner to celebrate the 20th anniversary of Bob Erlich’s election in 2002 as Governor of Maryland, the first Republican to do so since 1966.

More than four hundred individuals from across Maryland attended this event. They were there to honor the wide range accomplishments that occurred while Bob Ehrlich served as governor. Those accomplishments include the following:

Record investments in public schools
A charter school law
Doubling of funding for need-based college scholarships
$800 million for Maryland’s four Historically Black Colleges and Universities
A Chesapeake Bay Restoration law that The Chesapeake Bay Foundation called “the most important environmental achievement in 20 years”
Preservation of 80,000 acres of Maryland’s open space
Launching construction on 123 statewide transportation projects including the long delayed Intercounty Connector (ICC)
Toughened penalties for sex offenders, drunk driving, and witness intimidation
Establishment of Maryland’s first Office of Homeland Security
Establishment of a cabinet-level Department of Disabilities
Enhanced services for military veterans

In addition to remarks by event speakers on these accomplishments, there were countless unscripted and spontaneous recollections amongst event attendees before and after the dinner. All were positive about the man behind the record.

In his closing remarks, Ehrlich did something unexpected and seldom seen in today’s world where politics is often viewed as the art of taking credit. Bob Ehrlich simply said … Thank You. Thank you to all who supported me and worked with me during my time as Governor.

His action further confirmed what everyone familiar with Bob Ehrlich’s character and reputation already knew — he is a man and a true public servant with an unwavering commitment to always do the right thing the right way.

While Bob is no longer serving in or running for public office at any level, he will never be forgotten.

David Reel is a public affairs/public relations consultant who serves as a trusted advisor on strategy, advocacy, and media matters who lives in Easton.

When the Maryland General Assembly convenes for a 90-day session in January 2024, there may be at least three proposals that, if approved, could have a significant impact on politics and elections on the Eastern Shore.

The first proposal would change the current process used to fill vacancies in the General Assembly that result from death, resignation, removal, or other unexpected reason. 

Under current law, local Republican party central committees and local Democratic party central committees have a key role in the replacement process. The central committees are charged with screening and recommending potential successors who are affiliated with the same party of the departing or departed legislator. Once central committee members reach agreement on recommendations for a successor, they are sent to the Governor who makes the final decision on an appointment to fill the vacancy until the next election.

In previous General Assembly sessions, legislation has been introduced regularly to require special elections to fill general assembly vacancies that occur within the first two years of the four-year legislative term. None have been seriously considered. That may be changing sooner rather than later. 

Maryland Senate President Bill Ferguson recently opined that he is uncomfortable with the power that local party central committees possess in filling general assembly vacancies. In response to a direct question asking if he was “fine” with the current system, Ferguson replied bluntly, “I do not think it is fine the way it is.” Ferguson also said the 2024 legislative session is a good time to consider change legislation, because any proposed revisions to the process to filling legislative vacancies could then be placed before voters in a statewide referendum.

That said, obstacles to change remain. The most formidable is strong historical resistance from the State Board of Elections on using special elections to fill legislative vacancies. Their opposition is based on the Board’s concern about the expense and an extra administrative burden on the state and local election boards in conducting such elections.

The second proposal would change how vacancies are filled when a seat on the Talbot County Board of Education is vacated due to death, resignation, removal, or other unexpected reason. Under current law these vacancies are filled by the Governor. The Talbot County Council has been and is discussing requesting our local General Assembly delegation to introduce legislation authorizing the County Council and the Board of Education to name a replacement to fill a vacancy on the school board. Those discussions are ongoing.

The third proposal that could have a significant impact on politics and elections on the Eastern Shore is adoption of ranked-choice voting. This by far is the most far-reaching proposal in terms of change and complexity. It also the least likely to get meaningful traction in the upcoming General Assembly session. 

A ranked-choice voting system (RCV) is an electoral system in which voters rank candidates by preference on their ballots. If a candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, he or she is declared the winner. If no candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, the candidate with the fewest first-preference votes is eliminated. First-preference votes cast for the failed candidate are eliminated, lifting the second-preference choices indicated on those ballots. A new tally is conducted to determine whether any candidate has won a majority of the adjusted votes. The process is repeated until one a candidate wins an outright majority.

Approval of this concept is not likely in the upcoming General Assembly session. On this change, Senate President Ferguson recently said, “I am almost entirely certain that ranked-choice voting is the way to go, but do not believe the concept will be approved in the General Assembly anytime soon”. 

He said his current prediction is due to the amount of suspicions some voters have about election integrity (his observation, not mine). Ferguson has further said “When there are so many questions about elections in general, I am reluctant now to move [ranked-choice voting] forward. I think more education is needed. But I do think it’s something that will happen eventually.” Again, his words, not mine. 

David Reel is a public affairs/public relations consultant who serves as a trusted advisor on strategy, advocacy, and media matters who lives in Easton.

 

While Kevin McCarthy’s ouster as the Speaker of the House in the U.S. House of Representatives was unprecedented, it was not totally unexpected.

Following McCarthy’s election as Speaker after a contentious and chaotic fifteen round of votes in the House in January of this year, the only questions were how soon his speakership would end and how it would end. The end was very soon, as McCarthy only served for 269 days. The how it would end was predictable, based on McCarthy’s desperation-driven move in his bid to be the Speaker, to secure votes from a group of very conservative Republican House members.

To secure those votes, Mc Carthy agreed to changes in the House internal operating rules. One of the changes allows any House member to make a motion at any time for a roll call vote to remove the Speaker.

This rule change set up a scenario comparable to a hunter waiting patiently for just the right opportunity to ambush a prey. In this case, the prey was Kevin McCarthy, and the hunter was fellow Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz.

Gaetz has had a long-term antagonistic relationship with McCarthy and never wanted McCarthy as Speaker. He argued that McCarthy was untrustworthy. He also argued McCarthy was not a true conservative, but one who overpromised and underdelivered on his support for conservative public policy positions, especially on federal budget and government spending matters.

In Gaetz’s view, two McCarthy actions after being elected Speaker affirmed his negative perceptions about McCarthy. The first was McCarthy negotiating and reaching agreement with the Democratic controlled Senate and Democratic President Biden on a compromise to increase the federal debt ceiling limit. The second was McCarthy’s decision to bring forth a continuing budget resolution to avoid a government shutdown. This stopgap measure ultimately passed in the House but only with bipartisan support from Democratic House members.

After his decision to move forward on a continuing budget resolution motion, McCarthy responded to criticism of his actions in a succinct tweet, “Bring it on.” Gaetz replied, “I just did.”

Gaetz did so using one of the rule changes that McCarthy had agreed to previously. Gaetz introduced a motion in late September to remove McCarthy as the Speaker. A small bloc of very conservative Republican House members, along with all the Democratic House members present and voting, supported Gaetz’s motion. The result was McCarthy narrowly losing in his attempt to remain as Speaker.

Kevin McCarthy is not the only loser in this exercise of political musical chairs. The entire House of Representatives is a loser, as is the American public. Relatively few Americans understand the often complicated and always highly political internal affairs in Congress. Even fewer care about them. Polling consistently reports that huge numbers of Americans already view Congress as being dysfunctional and ineffective on addressing a wide range of critical domestic policy and foreign policy issues.

That said, there is one immediate way Congress can demonstrate they are willing and able to conduct their internal affairs with a higher level of stability and continuity.

Before elections are held for McCarthy’s successor and for future Speakers, leaders of the House Republican Caucus and leaders of the House Democratic Caucus must make it a top priority to change the rule on how to remove a speaker. The change must make it more difficult (but not impossible) to accomplish that outcome when absolutely necessary.

This rule change is not a Republican issue or a Democratic issue. It is a commonsense change for whichever party has a House majority. Without this rule change, no Speaker will be able to be effective with the constant threat of one House member launching and orchestrating a future McCarthy-like coup.

David Reel is a public affairs/public relations consultant who serves as a trusted advisor on strategy, advocacy, and media matters.

Last week I experienced firsthand an increasingly rare, but extraordinarily positive event in the ever-changing political arena. The event was the 46th annual Tawes Crab & Clam Bake in Crisfield Somerset County. Sponsored by the Crisfield Chamber of Commerce, Tawes is part great food, part great networking and part great schmoozing. 

One long – standing tradition at Tawes is welcoming attendance by individuals with a wide range of political party affiliations, ideologies, public policy issue positions race, age, sexual orientation, income levels and all the unique identities that some use to divide us on a regular, often daily basis. 

Another long-standing tradition at Tawes is a commitment by every attendee to engage in respectful and civil dialogue. 

Last, but not least another long- standing tradition at Tawes is elected officials and candidates meeting face to face with voters to learn more about voter opinions and concerns.

Accordingly, Tawes attracts a substantial number of elected and appointed government officials and political candidates. 

This year, elected officials attending included: Governor Wes Moore, Lt. Governor Aruna Miller, State Comptroller Brooke Lierman, State Senator Johnny Mautz, State Senator Steve Hershey, State Senator Mary Beth Carozza, State Delegate Chris Adams, and elected and appointed officials from local governments too numerous to list here. 

This year (an off-year election year) candidate guests included: Prince George’s County Executive Angela Alsobrooks and Montgomery County Council Member Will Jawando, both of whom are running in a primary to be the Democratic candidate to represent Maryland in the U.S. Senate. Candidate guests this year also included Chris Bruneau who is running in a primary to be the Republican candidate to represent Maryland’s 1st Congressional District in the U.S House of Representatives. 

The entire Tawes experience stands in striking contrast to what is now the new normal in politics. This new normal is characterized by intense and often uncivil conflicts over deeply held differences of opinion on a wide range of public policy issues. That is especially the case in Washington DC on such issues as immigration, climate change, debt ceiling limits, budget deficits, government shutdowns, and impeachment inquiries.

Maryland is not immune to this new normal in politics. Battle lines are already being drawn for the upcoming 2024 General Assembly session on state funding mandates on local school districts, tax increases, and a possible new tax on vehicle miles driven despite recent boosts of the state gas tax from 42.7 cents per gallon to 47 cents per gallon and the state diesel fuel tax from 43.5 cents per gallon to 47.5 cents per gallon. 

Tawes has been and continues to serve as a great model for politics the way it should be by advancing the following principles. Welcoming and mutual respect for all with diverse backgrounds and perspectives, listen first to understand, then speak to be understood, and an unwavering commitment to the concept that we can agree to disagree without being disagreeable. 

David Reel is a public affairs/public relations consultant who serves as a trusted advisor on strategy, advocacy, and media matters who resides in Easton.

As American voters start to pay greater attention to what is expected to be a very close presidential election in 2024, both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party need to read a recent posting by Ruy Teixeira on The Liberal Patriot. The headline is of his post is: 

It’s Official! The Democrats Have a Nonwhite Voter Problem

What makes this post especially noteworthy is that Teixeira is the coauthor of “The Emerging Democratic Majority” a book that suggested that demography was destiny for the Democratic Party. It suggested that by extrapolating demographic trends, the total number of nonwhite voters in America would eventually make up nearly a quarter of the electorate. It further suggested if these voters voted solidly Democratic, they would provide a formidable advantage for Democratic candidates, especially, but not limited to Democratic presidential candidates. As a result, it predicted the Democratic Party could dominate American politics for the foreseeable future. 

The key words are: if these voters voted solidly Democratic. 

Recently polling of nonwhite voters suggests they are not likely to vote solidly Democratic in the 2024 presidential election and perhaps beyond. 

A recent survey conducted by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago and the American Enterprise Institute’s Survey Center on American Life reports the following:  57% of nonwhite voters say President Biden has accomplished little or nothing during his time in office. Close to 50% consider the Democratic Party too extreme, think it bases decisions more on politics than common sense and supports policies that interfere too much in people’s lives. Over two-fifths do not see the Democrats as sharing their values. And over a third think Democrats look down on people like them, do not value hard work and aren’t patriotic.

In The Liberal Patriot’s recent survey of American voters conducted by YouGov, most nonwhite voters believe the Democratic Party has moved too far left on both economic and cultural/social issues. On economic issues, 57% of these voters say Democrats have moved too far left. On cultural and social issues, 56% say the same.

All these numbers lead one to ask what is next?

It all depends on if or how the Republican Party and the Democratic Party adjust their election strategies going forward. 

Democrats could win back support from disgruntled nonwhite and select disgruntled white voters with two strategies. The first is addressing a growing perception by nonwhite voters that their longtime and solid support of Democratic candidates has been and is taken for granted. The second is embracing more moderate positions and actions on a wide range of economic and social issues. 

Republicans could recruit and retain support from disgruntled nonwhite voters with two strategies. The first strategy is addressing a perception that the GOP is an exclusive club that does not understand or care about nonwhite voters. The second is working more effectively on engaging, energizing, and mobilizing nonwhite voters whose views are in sync with Republican positions and actions on public policy issues to vote Republican. 

For both parties, pursuing these strategies have significant risks. Democrats risk alienating younger progressives who by nature are resistant to compromise and who are a steadily growing number of voters within the Democratic Party. 

Republicans risk alienating older conservatives who by nature are resistant to change like expanded voter outreach and get out the vote efforts with nonwhite voters.

Between now and November 2024 it will be interesting to see if or how each party (assuming no third parties are viable) may maximize their opportunities and minimize their risks to accomplish the two goals of every political party – win elections and then govern in such a way to avoid the consequences of “buyer’s remorse” in subsequent elections.  

David Reel is a public affairs/public relations consultant who serves as a trusted advisor on strategy, advocacy, and media matters who resides in Easton.

 

With great shock and even greater sadness I read media accounts of protestors disrupting a recent presentation at Washington College in Chestertown.

The presentation featured Dr. Robert George, the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University. While Professor George has deeply held conservative beliefs which he does not shy away from expressing, he is also a frequent conversation partner with Cornel West, a progressive professor and political activist. They have appeared together at colleges and universities around the country, arguing for civil dialogue and a broad conception of campus freedom of speech as essential to the truth-seeking mission of academic institutions. Of his longtime friend West has said — “Robby and I struggle over many issues, but at the deepest human level, it’s hard to find anyone with his kind of integrity and genuine concern for others.” 

Progressive Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan has said this about Professor George — “He is one of the nation’s most respected legal theorists and the respect he has gained is due to his sheer brilliance, the analytic power of his arguments, the range of his knowledge, a deeply principled conviction, and a profound and enduring integrity.”

No stranger to threats of bodily harm, Professor George was once targeted with death threats for views on abortion.

So how was Professor George treated during his presentation at Washington College? Extremely poorly is an understatement.

The protesters at his presentation did not quietly carry signs and engage in civil dialogue with Professor George following his remarks. Instead, media at the event reported the following: “The protesters marched in, with campus security allowing them passage. Shouting from the protesters started right away, breaking up the professor’s talk.” The media also reported the protesters waved flags, waved signs, blew whistles, played music, and danced. They did not stand down until Professor George’s presentation ended prematurely and he [George] was escorted from the room.

 After this shameful treatment Professor George observed that in all his years visiting numerous colleges and universities including Berkeley, Yale, and Harvard (hardly bastions of conservatism), he never had this happen before. After this event, he observed that “When intimidation works, they’ll continue to do it,”

 Indeed, they will. Intimidation at this event did work and there is no reason to believe the protestors will not do it again with anyone who does not embrace their views or asks them to consider other views.

 That being the case the following questions need to be addressed by the leadership of Washington College.

What has been or will be the college’s response to the protestors willful disregard for the following Washington College core values? “We share these values of our founding patron, George Washington: integrity, determination, curiosity, civility, leadership, and moral courage. We develop in our students’ habits of analytic thought and clear communication, aesthetic insight, ethical sensitivity, and civic responsibility.

What has been or will be the college’s response to the following comment by one protestor at the event after an email was sent to all students reminding them that it would be a violation of the Student Honor Code to disrupt a speaker? “Are you going to tell me that WAC (Washington College) can expel every single one of us? Absolutely (expletive) not!”.

Why did campus security decide not to intervene with timely and appropriate steps to deal with the protesters well before their disruptive behavior resulted in a premature end of the event?

Post event a college spokesperson said, “the protesters took issue with homophobic and transphobic statements that Professor George has made in the past.” Is the spokesperson implying that Washington College agrees with the protester’s interpretations of and opinions on statements made by Professor George in the past?

How committed is Washington College to free speech, civil discourse, and ensuring students are exposed to a wide range of views that may challenge how they think and what they think?

One can hope that going forward Washington College will walk their talk on their core principles and student honor code to help ensure this recent tyranny of the loud will never happen again.

David Reel is a public affairs/public relations consultant who serves as a trusted advisor on strategy, advocacy, and media matters who resides in Easton.