The Harvard Political Review recently sat down with Guy Cecil and Robby Mook, the executive directors of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, respectively.
Mr. Cecil, who assumed the role of executive director in December of 2010, previously served as the political director of the DSCC during the 2006 cycle. Mr. Mook, who also become executive director of his organization last December, is “considered a rising star” in the party and has worked for a variety of campaigns, perhaps most prominently with then-NY Sen. Hillary Clinton during her presidential campaign. During a recent visit to the IOP, Mr. Cecil and Mr. Mook took the time to sit down with the Harvard Political Review to answer a few questions about their work.
Harvard Political Review: What your goals are for the up-coming elections?
Robby Mook: For the DCCC, our goal is to pick up 25 seats or more, the number we need to win back the
majority. That’s just about as many seats as the 24 we won in 2008, and that’s actually less than the 30 we won in 2006.
Guy Cecil: The primary goal of the DSCC is to ensure that Democrats hold the majority in the Senate. The Senate is the place where Supreme Court Justices, federal judges and the President’s appointees are confirmed. To have President Obama not only have to deal with a Republican House or Senate but also the challenge of getting nominees through a Tea Party Congress would be really bad for the country.
HPR: Given the current unpopularity of Congress and of the government at large, how do you intend to reshape public opinion and engage voters constructively?
GC: Every election is a choice. It’s not a referendum, it’s a choice between the two people that are on the ballot. Our job is to make sure, primarily, that candidates are sharing with their constituents the vision they have for the country, but it is also to make sure that the truth is told about where Republicans stand, and to hold them accountable. Whenever Republicans have had the opportunity to cooperate or compromise, they have either said no or simply run away. We have to make that case to voters in a whole host of states, and then, secondly, our candidates have to make that case individually. They are running in states as different as Nebraska and Massachusetts, and they have to communicate with their voters about why what they’re doing in Washington best represents their state and puts their state first above everything else. [And] if we’re successful doing that — making sure they’re aligned with their state and making sure that we are drawing that contrast with the Republicans — I think we’ll be successful.
RM: It’s a similar situation in the House. For voters looking to choose their next representative, they know we have a Republican Caucus looking to end Medicare as we know it and to balance the budget on the backs of seniors through ending Medicare, privatizing Social Security, cutting back on teachers, schools, police and firemen but doing so to protect tax breaks for millionaires and Wall Street. And so we think it’s a very clear choice, particularly in the House.
HPR: To what extent, to be reelected, will Democratic candidates have to differentiate themselves from President Obama?
RM: Every candidate has to run their own race and get elected on their own merits. We’re over a year away from the presidential election, and frankly that’s not what’s important to our candidates right now. It’s not about President Obama or frankly any other candidate in the House or Senate. It’s about that individual Democratic House candidate.
GC: It’s the same situation in the Senate.
HPR: How do you think the emergence of Occupy Wall Street and its various offshoots will affect current political dynamics and will you try to harness this sort of populist anger?
GC: Occupy Wall Street is about something much larger for voters. Even before we were in the recession and the economy was growing, middle class income was declining while, at the same time, costs of college, medical care and healthcare were going up. People don’t see their government and large corporations responding. We have to do something about it, and I think the sentiment that Occupy Wall Street is expressing is shared by a lot of people, including those who can’t make it to a local protest. They’re concerned about the direction of the country, they’re worried about their own personal finances, they know that they’re working harder and doing more with less, and they want a government that matches their aspirations for themselves and their family. The candidates that win this cycle will be the candidates that speak to those issues. It just so happens that in almost every state across the country, a majority of Americans agree with Democrats and agree with our perspective on how we should be approaching those problems. So, I’m encouraged that people are motivated, excited, and that they’re organizing. I think it’s something that we’ll see not only in the Occupy Wall Street movement but that we’ll see in our races around the country.
RM: I’ll say that, from the House perspective, I think people across the country are angry right now, and they’re angry because they see Republicans in Congress balancing the budget on the backs of seniors and middle class families while corporations are allowed to get outrageous tax breaks or pay no taxes at all. Oil companies are getting tens of billions of dollars in subsidies while they’re making record profits. So, we stand with middle class families who are frustrated because we’re frustrated too, and I think our candidates that are out there trying to articulate that same frustration and will go to Washington and change that.
HPR: Thank you, Mr. Cecil and Mr. Mook, for your time!
Photos courtesy of the DCCC and Roll Call. This interview has been edited and condensed.