Democrats are the political equivalent of trial lawyers.
Here's a WSJ article the Republicans should read every night before retiring.
We should take especial notice of Rule 2.
THREE RULES
How Democrats Wage Political War
Controlling the government is imperative to the party's survival.
BY CLETA MITCHELL
Monday, November 20, 2000 12:01 a.m. EST
In case you're bewildered by the machinations of the Gore campaign-turned-law-firm, let there be no doubt that the goings on in Florida are perfectly in keeping with the way Democrats normally think and behave. Lawsuits are a key part of the Democrats' political strategy, so nothing about Florida should surprise anyone who has spent time in the Democratic Party.
Until 1995, I was a Democrat. I've been a Democrat elected official, a party official and an active party member, so I know how Democrats think.
Democrats know and internalize, understand and are motivated by, certain ideas, concepts and principles that seem to be foreign to Republicans. And Democrats are elated that Republicans don't know or function under the same ideas. These basic rules of Democratic thinking are at work in Florida. This primer should help explain what makes the Democrats tick.
Rule 1: If we don't win, we don't eat.
The fundamental motivation for Democrats is their understanding that winning control of government is tied to paychecks, jobs, government grants, public money for private groups and companies, government contracts, union bargaining advantages, rules by which trial lawyers bring lawsuits, and on and on. The use of government to feed friends and starve enemies is something Democrats know instinctively. Winning elections means getting or keeping a livelihood.
Say what you will about trial lawyers, but remember this: They get paid only if their clients win. Extending that principle to politics means that various Democratic constituencies are convinced that a Democratic victory means food on the table.
Rule 2: State courts are "home" to Democrats.
There is a reason why, of the more than two dozen lawsuits filed in Florida by various Democrats, virtually all have been filed in state courts. Democrats are at home in the state courts. It is where the judges are elected, often on partisan ballots. And the trial lawyers are the most ardent in overseeing who fills and keeps judicial positions.
Trial lawyers normally hate federal court, where rules are more strict and standards much higher, and where attorneys can be, and often are, punished for filing frivolous lawsuits.
Against the backdrop of the myriad state lawsuits filed by Democrats in Florida, and the call by the Gore campaign for even more trial lawyers to come and assist in the litigation battles there, the Bush campaign filed one legal action. It was filed in federal court as a challenge to the constitutional validity of the manual recount procedures in Florida and the absence in the statute of any objective standards for such recounts. The evidence to support the sole Republican lawsuit has unfolded on our television screens during the manual recounts conducted to date.
State courts are often a blank page to be filled in by the most clever manipulator in the courtroom. (No wonder the Democrats have brought in uber-litigator David Boies.) Only a state court judge would have entertained, much less ruled on, a lawsuit like the one filed by the Palm Beach Democratic Party, which argued that incomplete ("dimpled") ballots should nonetheless be counted. And that's just one example of the kinds of cases the Democrats have filed.
Republicans depart from their customary arguments in favor of federalism, decentralization of government power and devolution of authority to the states when civil justice system and lawsuit reform are at issue. Then, the parties switch sides and it is Republicans who prefer federal courts and uniform national standards and Democrats who fight vigorously to protect their state court fiefdoms. This may seem inconsistent--but it isn't, when one understands the hometown advantage of the Democrats and trial lawyers in state courts. Remember Rule 1.
Rule 3, the "golden rule": He who makes the rules wins the gold.
The post-election fight in Florida is the best evidence in my lifetime of the absolute supremacy of the rules-as-gold principle. Democrats understand impressively well that the rules, the regulations, the procedures and the processes will almost always dictate the outcome. In a nutshell, rules provide victories--or defeats. Because the statutory process in Florida did not provide the result the Democrats wanted, they knew it was imperative to change the rules after the election.
When I was first elected to the Oklahoma legislature, a veteran Democrat member told me to learn the rules. He told me, "If you know the rules better than your opponent, you can beat him every time." He was right. I also learned that writing and rewriting the rules is as important as understanding them.
The legal wrangling this week in Florida is neither about "technicalities," nor about "fairness." It is about winning. See Rule 1. Changing the rules is why the Gore campaign dispatched lawyers and organizers to Florida in the early morning hours of election night--because the rules had to be rewritten under public pressure, either through executive or judicial decisions, in order for Al Gore to prevail.
Changing the rules required a massive public relations effort by the Gore campaign to discredit the rules and procedures under which elections are normally conducted in the state of Florida. Changing the rules was the objective in the Gore campaign's vilification of Katherine Harris, the Republican secretary of state, for enforcing the existing laws and rules.
Any Republican who misses the lessons the Democrats are teaching us on national TV these past two weeks is terribly naive. If, as a result of all this, Republicans don't commit themselves to learning and practicing the art of political war, as well as its natural extension in the courtroom, there may not be much of a GOP to kick around anymore in the future.
Ms. Mitchell is a Washington attorney who has previously served as a Democratic member of the Oklahoma legislature.
Here's a WSJ article the Republicans should read every night before retiring.
We should take especial notice of Rule 2.
THREE RULES
How Democrats Wage Political War
Controlling the government is imperative to the party's survival.
BY CLETA MITCHELL
Monday, November 20, 2000 12:01 a.m. EST
In case you're bewildered by the machinations of the Gore campaign-turned-law-firm, let there be no doubt that the goings on in Florida are perfectly in keeping with the way Democrats normally think and behave. Lawsuits are a key part of the Democrats' political strategy, so nothing about Florida should surprise anyone who has spent time in the Democratic Party.
Until 1995, I was a Democrat. I've been a Democrat elected official, a party official and an active party member, so I know how Democrats think.
Democrats know and internalize, understand and are motivated by, certain ideas, concepts and principles that seem to be foreign to Republicans. And Democrats are elated that Republicans don't know or function under the same ideas. These basic rules of Democratic thinking are at work in Florida. This primer should help explain what makes the Democrats tick.
Rule 1: If we don't win, we don't eat.
The fundamental motivation for Democrats is their understanding that winning control of government is tied to paychecks, jobs, government grants, public money for private groups and companies, government contracts, union bargaining advantages, rules by which trial lawyers bring lawsuits, and on and on. The use of government to feed friends and starve enemies is something Democrats know instinctively. Winning elections means getting or keeping a livelihood.
Say what you will about trial lawyers, but remember this: They get paid only if their clients win. Extending that principle to politics means that various Democratic constituencies are convinced that a Democratic victory means food on the table.
Rule 2: State courts are "home" to Democrats.
There is a reason why, of the more than two dozen lawsuits filed in Florida by various Democrats, virtually all have been filed in state courts. Democrats are at home in the state courts. It is where the judges are elected, often on partisan ballots. And the trial lawyers are the most ardent in overseeing who fills and keeps judicial positions.
Trial lawyers normally hate federal court, where rules are more strict and standards much higher, and where attorneys can be, and often are, punished for filing frivolous lawsuits.
Against the backdrop of the myriad state lawsuits filed by Democrats in Florida, and the call by the Gore campaign for even more trial lawyers to come and assist in the litigation battles there, the Bush campaign filed one legal action. It was filed in federal court as a challenge to the constitutional validity of the manual recount procedures in Florida and the absence in the statute of any objective standards for such recounts. The evidence to support the sole Republican lawsuit has unfolded on our television screens during the manual recounts conducted to date.
State courts are often a blank page to be filled in by the most clever manipulator in the courtroom. (No wonder the Democrats have brought in uber-litigator David Boies.) Only a state court judge would have entertained, much less ruled on, a lawsuit like the one filed by the Palm Beach Democratic Party, which argued that incomplete ("dimpled") ballots should nonetheless be counted. And that's just one example of the kinds of cases the Democrats have filed.
Republicans depart from their customary arguments in favor of federalism, decentralization of government power and devolution of authority to the states when civil justice system and lawsuit reform are at issue. Then, the parties switch sides and it is Republicans who prefer federal courts and uniform national standards and Democrats who fight vigorously to protect their state court fiefdoms. This may seem inconsistent--but it isn't, when one understands the hometown advantage of the Democrats and trial lawyers in state courts. Remember Rule 1.
Rule 3, the "golden rule": He who makes the rules wins the gold.
The post-election fight in Florida is the best evidence in my lifetime of the absolute supremacy of the rules-as-gold principle. Democrats understand impressively well that the rules, the regulations, the procedures and the processes will almost always dictate the outcome. In a nutshell, rules provide victories--or defeats. Because the statutory process in Florida did not provide the result the Democrats wanted, they knew it was imperative to change the rules after the election.
When I was first elected to the Oklahoma legislature, a veteran Democrat member told me to learn the rules. He told me, "If you know the rules better than your opponent, you can beat him every time." He was right. I also learned that writing and rewriting the rules is as important as understanding them.
The legal wrangling this week in Florida is neither about "technicalities," nor about "fairness." It is about winning. See Rule 1. Changing the rules is why the Gore campaign dispatched lawyers and organizers to Florida in the early morning hours of election night--because the rules had to be rewritten under public pressure, either through executive or judicial decisions, in order for Al Gore to prevail.
Changing the rules required a massive public relations effort by the Gore campaign to discredit the rules and procedures under which elections are normally conducted in the state of Florida. Changing the rules was the objective in the Gore campaign's vilification of Katherine Harris, the Republican secretary of state, for enforcing the existing laws and rules.
Any Republican who misses the lessons the Democrats are teaching us on national TV these past two weeks is terribly naive. If, as a result of all this, Republicans don't commit themselves to learning and practicing the art of political war, as well as its natural extension in the courtroom, there may not be much of a GOP to kick around anymore in the future.
Ms. Mitchell is a Washington attorney who has previously served as a Democratic member of the Oklahoma legislature.
