You can’t say they’re not responsive

Amy Sullivan wrote one of the more important articles of the post-election season for the January/February issue of the Washington Monthly on the Dems’ chronic and systemic problem with party consultants.

Since their devastating loss last fall, Democrats have cast about for reasons why their party has come up short three election cycles in a row and have debated what to do. Should they lure better candidates? Talk more about morality? Adopt a harder line on national security? But one of the most obvious and least discussed reasons Democrats continue to lose is their consultants. Every sports fan knows that if a team boasts a losing record several seasons in a row, the coach has to be replaced with someone who can win. Yet when it comes to political consultants, Democrats seem incapable of taking this basic managerial step.

Sullivan’s case was more than just persuasive; it was devastating. She chronicled example after example of consultants — most of whom have serious conflict-of-interest problems working for the party and their own private firms — who continue to lose, but repeatedly get rewarded for it.

A major reason for that reluctance is that Democrats simply won’t talk openly about the problem. Shrum did eventually take some heat publicly during the 2004 campaign when the contrast between his losing record and his high position in the troubled Kerry campaign became too stark to ignore. But in general, a Mafia-like code of omerta operates. Few insiders dare complain about the hammerlock loser consultants have on the process — certainly neither the professional campaign operatives whom the consultants hire nor the journalists to whom the consultants feed juicy inside-the-room detail. […]

“If a company like General Motors had the same image problem that the Democratic Party does, they would fire the guys responsible,” [Dan Gerstein, a former advisor to Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.)] told me. But not Democrats. “We don’t just hire those guys,” Gerstein said, “we give them bonuses.”

One of the more common reactions to Sullivan’s powerful article was, “Is the party prepared to do something about this?” I’m pleased to report, the answer is yes.

Sen. Harry Reid (Nev.) and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), the Democratic leaders of the Senate and House, plan to shake up the Democratic political consulting community and break the grip that a small number of consultants have had on strategy and contracts, party sources say.

The Democratic leaders want to bring in new people with track records of success and innovation and look beyond the Beltway for message smiths to help guide the party.

In case you needed yet another sign that the Dems’ leadership team, more than any in recent memory, “get it,” this story adds further proof.

It was as if the Sullivan article offered Reid & Co. a playbook — and they’re following it to the letter.

* Turn to those who win, instead of rehiring those who lose — Reid, Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and other Democratic leaders recently met with Paul Harstad, the pollster who worked on the campaigns of Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), the lone bright spots of the 2004 election for Senate Democrats. The senators quizzed Harstad about the tactics used in the Obama and Salazar races and about broader party strategy, according to a source familiar with the discussion.

* Diversify — Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), the new chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), has also said he wants to diversify contracts awarded by the party committee, a Democratic consultant close to one of the party committees said.

* Focus on results and rebranding — A Democratic leadership aide said, “There’s general agreement in both chambers and at the House and Senate political party groups that we need to rethink our relationships with consultants [and have] more accountability for results. “Senator Reid is interested in reaching out to new talent both within and beyond the Beltway. He’s looking at our rebranding effort to simplify the message and looking for new professionals to assist him.”

* Change the party’s attitude — Durbin said there were “new people out there” getting results and others “who produce the same cookie-cutter ads with the same results, and we don’t want that anymore,” he added…. One Democratic strategist who worked closely with the so-called shadow Democratic Party, which spent tens of millions of dollars in the last election said, “There’s a clear sense that we need some fresh ideas and new blood. Being an establishment consultant tends to bring out the staleness in people.”

* Tap the best party talent outside DC — A Democratic strategist said Chicago-based consultant David Axelrod, of AKP Message & Media, and Philadelphia-based consultant Saul Shorr, of Murphy, Putnam, Shorr & Partners, are outside-the-Beltway talent who could be brought in by party leaders to help craft national party strategy.

This is the kind news that me genuinely optimistic about the future. It’s been easy to grow frustrated with party leaders of the last decade, many of whom seem to slow, insular, and, though I hate to say it, clueless. It’s given rise to increased “anti-establishment” feelings among the party’s grassroots, which has felt increasingly frustrated and estranged by a party that lacks focus an direction.

It took a few awful cycles and some painful defeats, but there’s ample evidence that there’s reason for hope.