Liberals Lose Because They Lack a Pair
If a liberal can’t defend himself, how can he defend me?
The Knock Out Obama Ad

As a broad generalization, the roots of American conservatism -- along with the deep culture of much of the country -- lie in two foundational cultures that accept high levels of conflict and confrontation as normal, and take the measure of a candidate on the basis of how confidently and creatively he or she responds to it. On the other hand, the roots of American liberalism -- along with the deep culture of the northern tier of the country -- lie in two foundational cultures that are extremely conflict-averse, and regard returning fire as an incontrovertible sign of personal weakness and poor character.
Unfortunately for progressives, the descendants of the Cavaliers and Borderers far outnumber those of the Puritans and Quakers (who, from the start, had much smaller families); and, thanks to the wanderings of the Borderers in particular, they're far more spread out across the country. Worse: these were joined later by large immigrant waves from traditional Catholic cultures (Irish, Italian, Latino, and so on) that, wherever they landed, also subscribed to the belief that a leader who won't rise to defend his or her own honor or interests is no kind of leader at all.
On the other hand, the Puritans were tremendous builders of social networks and educational institutions -- and to this day, the areas of the country they dominated enjoy a disproportionate share of political and cultural power, particularly on the liberal side. The bottom line is that the "don't fight back" crowd dominates the eastern power establishment -- but they're a distinct minority across the rest of the country. And that's where the fatal disconnect lies.
The persistence of those elites, and the commanding role they play in every election, explains why, time and again, Democratic presidential candidates refuse to engage attackers. Those lingering Puritan/Quaker cultural expectations always come to the fore at exactly the wrong moment, as experienced party heads from those regions, or that ancestry, or those universities do the cool-headed thing and stay their candidates' hands. And the rest of the country -- steeped in very different set of expectations that leaves them eagerly awaiting the glint of a gimlet eye and the deft flourish of a terrible swift sword -- is instead left wondering where their candidate left his balls. (Hillary, to her credit, left no doubt in anyone's mind that she'd had a bellyfull of these people, and was looking forward to taking the fight right back to them. It would have been a thing to see.)
And every time this happens, without fail, the GOP seizes on that moment of hesitation to reinforce the branding that Democrats are effete elites who lack the necessary backbone to lead. This argument works because even yellow-dog Democrats from the south and west are at a total loss to refute it -- at least, not in any kind of way that has meaning in their culture. Their candidate as been publicly exposed as an unprincipled, chicken-livered wuss -- and they know better than anyone that once that happens, the conversation's over. There's nothing left to be said in defense of someone who can't even be bothered to defend himself.
Fischer's thesis suggests this may be why an overwhelming number of the most successful Democratic candidates and political advisers have come out of the south and west. These native sons and daughters understand, viscerally, how badly it plays across the country when a Democrat refuses to respond forcefully to shut down GOP attacks. In their heads they can hear, loud and clear, just what the folks back home would say. Because of this experience, they're able to put up some resistance when the party's elites advises them to rise above it all and ignore the sniping, or find a way to talk it through. Where they come from, that dog don't hunt, and never will.
Look at it this way, and a couple of solutions become obvious.
First, progressives need to acknowledge that the vast majority of the country is firmly convinced that a candidate who refuses to answer challenges from the other side irrefutably proves that he or she is unfit to lead. The electorate has been sending us this message, loud and clear, for over 50 years now — and it's time that the Ivy Leaguers in charge finally sat up and listened.
Mike Dukakis committed political suicide in 40 seconds.

It won't be easy, because everything in their own cultural training screams at them that rewarding an attacker with an assertive, confident response is the worst possible thing you can do to your own credibility. But the first step out lies in humbly recognizing that this opinion isn't rooted in reality — in fact, the data from recent elections refute it soundly — but rather comes out of a set of cultural norms that, while sacred to them, are not shared by most of the country.
Out where the voters live, you never lose by fighting back. And you never win by holding back. You see this principle at work everywhere you find winning Democrats these days — and another several decades of enlightened examples of New England-style "civilized behavior" seem sadly unlikely to persuade the rest of the country to change on this point. (More's the pity.)
Then, progressive candidates need to recruit — and listen to — political experts who cut their teeth in the South and West, and know how the tackle version of the game is played. It's no accident that LBJ, Carter, and Clinton — our only successful Democratic presidential candidates over the past 40 years — came out of the South. (And the Kennedys were products of bare-knuckles Irish machine politics that didn't pull punches, either.) It's not an accident that James Carville, Lee Atwater, and Karl Rove all came from there, either.
Obama is at his best when he reaches back into his Kansas populist side; but these days, he's no doubt got plenty of old party hands giving him the same fatal advice they gave Gore, Dukakis, Mondale, Humphrey, and even old Adlai Stevenson. (Note that they're all Northerners, too. Gore was a son of the South, but spent most of his childhood in D.C., and went to Yale.) They're going to do him in, too — and in exactly the same way — if he keeps listening. He needs people who know how to stick it right back to the GOP — fast, fearlessly, fiercely, with deadly aim and a transcendently elegant sense of style. (There's no need to give up the high road, ever. You absolutely can do this and stay classy.) And he needs them this week.
We're not going to take back the country by doing things the way they do them in Boston, Philadelphia, or the salons of Georgetown. That low-conflict style of politics is, as the Wellstone people like to say, Not Normal — at least, not outside the Northeast. The pattern is clear enough now that we can bet the movement on it: Progressives win decisively when they acknowledge and directly address the deep cultural ideas about conflict and leadership that abide in the bars and churches and county fairs in flyover country. That's where elections are won — out where vast numbers of Americans of a very different heritage are looking for that firm assurance that their candidate has the guts and wit to fight for his own honor, and theirs, and the country's as well.
Sarah Robinson, OurFuture.org

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." - George Orwell