What's Wrong with the Democratic Party?
The GOP now controls the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. With no power to control the agenda in Washington, Democrats and liberals have had plenty of time lately for introspection. But so far, no consensus has emerged as to what the Democratic Party's primary problem is. In a post yesterday, Kevin Drum summed up the many theories that have been offered since November to explain the Democrats current predicament. Here's his list:
1) Too socially liberal. Need to move to the center.
2) Too wishy washy. Need to be loud and proud liberals.
3) Too tin-eared. We're terrific on the issues, but we
need to frame them properly.
4) Too wimpy. Need to convince Americans we can kick
Osama's butt.
5) Too wonkish. People don't want laundry lists, they
want character.
6) Too gutless. Need to get down in the gutter with Karl
Rove and rip his lungs out.
7) Too shortsighted. Need to create liberal versions of the
Heritage Foundation to help us build long-term vision.
8) Too tired. Need to break loose from the past and offer
fresh, original ideas.
9) Too splintered. Need to quit pandering to the interest
groups that actually vote for us.
10) None of the above. It's the media's fault.
I want to address each of these, if only briefly, but I should start by pointing out an important factor that is conspicuously absent from this list: the structural advantage the GOP enjoys by virtue of our electoral system and regional demographics. Under our constitutional structure, states with small populations have disproportionate influence (relative to their population size) in both the Senate and the Electoral College. Because these small-population states tend to be conservative, Republicans have a huge built-in advantage at the national level. Indeed it's impressive that the Democrats have even 44 Senators given the current ratio of red to blue states. This systemic advantage does not exist in the House of Representatives, but another one does. Republicans such as Tom Delay have redrawn Congressional districts in recent years so as to entrench the Republican advantage. This partisan gerrymandering will make it very difficult for Democrats to regain a majority in the House, even in a very favorable election cycle. Take away these structural advantages, and the Democrats might well be the majority party.
That being said, Democrats would be well-advised not to dwell on the uneven nature of the playing field. Doing so serves little constructive purpose (except perhaps in the case of gerrymandering). So let's run through the theories from Drum's list.
1) Too socially liberal. Need to move to the center.
This is the advice being offered by the James Carville's of the world, as well as many Democratic politicians from "red" states. It also happens to be the most near-sighted and cowardly advice. There is no question that positions on social issues such as abortion and gay rights have hurt Democrats. But there is also no question that Democrats are right about these issues and will be vindicated by history. The writing is on the wall. To tack rightward on these issues would be to relinquish the moral high ground and sacrifice what is perhaps the most redeeming feature of the Democratic party, it's support of tolerance and equality.
2) Too wishy washy. Need to be loud and proud liberals.
It would be nice to reclaim the world "liberal," a word which has been grossly distorted in recent years. Indeed, one of my goals in starting this blog was to do just that. I don't think that "wishy-washiness" is the real problem, though.
3) Too tin-eared. We're terrific on the issues, but we need to frame them properly.
This point has some merit. Republicans have long been better at framing issues and staying on message. Democrats really do need to work on the art of politics. Democratic pundits and politicians are all too often poorly prepared for obvious questions and inexplicably fail to use the arguments and numbers that are most favorable to their positions. The Social Security debate earlier this year was a prime example of this phenomenon. As Bob Somerby has tirelessly pointed out, Democrats almost uniformily understated the transition costs of Bush's privatization plan (failing to use numbers that even Dick Cheney had copped to) and all too often used the most gloomy set of projections about the program's solvency. Republicans would never make such amateur mistakes.
4) Too wimpy. Need to convince Americans we can kick Osama's butt.
In my opinion, this is and will continue to be the Democrats' primary obstacle to winning back the White House. I find this issue particularly frustrating because I think the perception of liberals as wimps and pacifists is so entirely meritless. Yes, there are many pacificists within the Democratic ranks, but far fewer than conservatives would have you believe. The vast majority of liberals are fully in favor of aggressively confronting Islamic extremism; they simply disagree with Bush's strategy and have little confidence is his ability to pursue the fight competently. Unfortunately, Republicans have been largely successful in painting these strategic differences as ideological ones.
5) Too wonkish. People don't want laundry lists, they want character.
This seems to be aimed specifically at Kerry. Kerry wasn't the best candidate, but it's not clear to me that any of his rivals would have faired better. As Rumsfeld might say, you run with the candidate you have, not the candidate you'd hope to have under ideal conditions.
6) Too gutless. Need to get down in the gutter with Karl Rove and rip his lungs out.
There is no question that the GOP and its surrogates are willing to play far dirtier than their Democratic counterparts. This has always been the case. For reasons I've postulated previously, I don't think liberals can ever hope to (or would ever want to) engage in these tactics as effectively as the GOP. For one, liberals simply do not have the media infrastructure. More fundamentally, though, I just don't think enough liberals have it in them to engage in Swift Boat style tactics. And even if they did, they would be quickly denounced by the influential liberals who write at the major newspapers and magazines like the New Republic. I just don't think liberal thinkers are capable of the kind of unified message-choreography practiced by the Right. And that's a good thing.
7) Too shortsighted. Need to create liberal versions of the Heritage Foundation to help us build long-term vision.
I don't buy this. There are plenty of good policy ideas out there, most of which were developed by people with no particular ideological agenda. Conservative-funded think tanks, on the other hand, generally begin with an ideology (e.g. big government is bad) and come up with proposals that fit within that ideology. This backwards-looking process often overlooks the best solutions to policy issues. This backwards empiricism is the opposite of liberalism, which as I've explained before, is more of a way of approaching problems than a specific set of beliefs.
8) Too tired. Need to break loose from the past and offer fresh, original ideas.
As I stated before, I don't think the Democratic party actually suffers from a lack of new ideas. To the extent this is perceived to be the case, it is largely a "framing" issue. And as Jonathan Chait has pointed out, there is nothing inherently better about new ideas.
9) Too splintered. Need to quit pandering to the interest groups that actually vote for us.
Pandering and politics go hand in hand. That being said, I think the GOP has a much worse reputation these days for pandering to various interest groups, particularly the religious right and the business lobby. I don't think this is anywhere close to the Democrats most serious problem.
10) None of the above. It's the media's fault.
Clearly the answer is not 'none of the above,' but many liberal commentators are far too quick to absolve the media of its enabling role in the GOP's recent successes. As I've noted before, there is a significant asymmetry in the media's political coverage over the last decade or so. Charges of liberal bias have forced the media into adopting a narrative format when covering political issues that values balance above all else, including objective truth. Conservatives, through their well-coordinated use of right-wing media outlets, have been able to take advantage of this phenomenon at the expense of Democrats.
1) Too socially liberal. Need to move to the center.
2) Too wishy washy. Need to be loud and proud liberals.
3) Too tin-eared. We're terrific on the issues, but we
need to frame them properly.
4) Too wimpy. Need to convince Americans we can kick
Osama's butt.
5) Too wonkish. People don't want laundry lists, they
want character.
6) Too gutless. Need to get down in the gutter with Karl
Rove and rip his lungs out.
7) Too shortsighted. Need to create liberal versions of the
Heritage Foundation to help us build long-term vision.
8) Too tired. Need to break loose from the past and offer
fresh, original ideas.
9) Too splintered. Need to quit pandering to the interest
groups that actually vote for us.
10) None of the above. It's the media's fault.
I want to address each of these, if only briefly, but I should start by pointing out an important factor that is conspicuously absent from this list: the structural advantage the GOP enjoys by virtue of our electoral system and regional demographics. Under our constitutional structure, states with small populations have disproportionate influence (relative to their population size) in both the Senate and the Electoral College. Because these small-population states tend to be conservative, Republicans have a huge built-in advantage at the national level. Indeed it's impressive that the Democrats have even 44 Senators given the current ratio of red to blue states. This systemic advantage does not exist in the House of Representatives, but another one does. Republicans such as Tom Delay have redrawn Congressional districts in recent years so as to entrench the Republican advantage. This partisan gerrymandering will make it very difficult for Democrats to regain a majority in the House, even in a very favorable election cycle. Take away these structural advantages, and the Democrats might well be the majority party.
That being said, Democrats would be well-advised not to dwell on the uneven nature of the playing field. Doing so serves little constructive purpose (except perhaps in the case of gerrymandering). So let's run through the theories from Drum's list.
1) Too socially liberal. Need to move to the center.
This is the advice being offered by the James Carville's of the world, as well as many Democratic politicians from "red" states. It also happens to be the most near-sighted and cowardly advice. There is no question that positions on social issues such as abortion and gay rights have hurt Democrats. But there is also no question that Democrats are right about these issues and will be vindicated by history. The writing is on the wall. To tack rightward on these issues would be to relinquish the moral high ground and sacrifice what is perhaps the most redeeming feature of the Democratic party, it's support of tolerance and equality.
2) Too wishy washy. Need to be loud and proud liberals.
It would be nice to reclaim the world "liberal," a word which has been grossly distorted in recent years. Indeed, one of my goals in starting this blog was to do just that. I don't think that "wishy-washiness" is the real problem, though.
3) Too tin-eared. We're terrific on the issues, but we need to frame them properly.
This point has some merit. Republicans have long been better at framing issues and staying on message. Democrats really do need to work on the art of politics. Democratic pundits and politicians are all too often poorly prepared for obvious questions and inexplicably fail to use the arguments and numbers that are most favorable to their positions. The Social Security debate earlier this year was a prime example of this phenomenon. As Bob Somerby has tirelessly pointed out, Democrats almost uniformily understated the transition costs of Bush's privatization plan (failing to use numbers that even Dick Cheney had copped to) and all too often used the most gloomy set of projections about the program's solvency. Republicans would never make such amateur mistakes.
4) Too wimpy. Need to convince Americans we can kick Osama's butt.
In my opinion, this is and will continue to be the Democrats' primary obstacle to winning back the White House. I find this issue particularly frustrating because I think the perception of liberals as wimps and pacifists is so entirely meritless. Yes, there are many pacificists within the Democratic ranks, but far fewer than conservatives would have you believe. The vast majority of liberals are fully in favor of aggressively confronting Islamic extremism; they simply disagree with Bush's strategy and have little confidence is his ability to pursue the fight competently. Unfortunately, Republicans have been largely successful in painting these strategic differences as ideological ones.
5) Too wonkish. People don't want laundry lists, they want character.
This seems to be aimed specifically at Kerry. Kerry wasn't the best candidate, but it's not clear to me that any of his rivals would have faired better. As Rumsfeld might say, you run with the candidate you have, not the candidate you'd hope to have under ideal conditions.
6) Too gutless. Need to get down in the gutter with Karl Rove and rip his lungs out.
There is no question that the GOP and its surrogates are willing to play far dirtier than their Democratic counterparts. This has always been the case. For reasons I've postulated previously, I don't think liberals can ever hope to (or would ever want to) engage in these tactics as effectively as the GOP. For one, liberals simply do not have the media infrastructure. More fundamentally, though, I just don't think enough liberals have it in them to engage in Swift Boat style tactics. And even if they did, they would be quickly denounced by the influential liberals who write at the major newspapers and magazines like the New Republic. I just don't think liberal thinkers are capable of the kind of unified message-choreography practiced by the Right. And that's a good thing.
7) Too shortsighted. Need to create liberal versions of the Heritage Foundation to help us build long-term vision.
I don't buy this. There are plenty of good policy ideas out there, most of which were developed by people with no particular ideological agenda. Conservative-funded think tanks, on the other hand, generally begin with an ideology (e.g. big government is bad) and come up with proposals that fit within that ideology. This backwards-looking process often overlooks the best solutions to policy issues. This backwards empiricism is the opposite of liberalism, which as I've explained before, is more of a way of approaching problems than a specific set of beliefs.
8) Too tired. Need to break loose from the past and offer fresh, original ideas.
As I stated before, I don't think the Democratic party actually suffers from a lack of new ideas. To the extent this is perceived to be the case, it is largely a "framing" issue. And as Jonathan Chait has pointed out, there is nothing inherently better about new ideas.
9) Too splintered. Need to quit pandering to the interest groups that actually vote for us.
Pandering and politics go hand in hand. That being said, I think the GOP has a much worse reputation these days for pandering to various interest groups, particularly the religious right and the business lobby. I don't think this is anywhere close to the Democrats most serious problem.
10) None of the above. It's the media's fault.
Clearly the answer is not 'none of the above,' but many liberal commentators are far too quick to absolve the media of its enabling role in the GOP's recent successes. As I've noted before, there is a significant asymmetry in the media's political coverage over the last decade or so. Charges of liberal bias have forced the media into adopting a narrative format when covering political issues that values balance above all else, including objective truth. Conservatives, through their well-coordinated use of right-wing media outlets, have been able to take advantage of this phenomenon at the expense of Democrats.
posted by A.L. at 11:39 PM
2 Comments:
I agree with some of your points. I think that the Democratic Party voters should consider nominating a presidential candidate who is from either the southern or border states. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton came from the South. Moreover, the Democrats seem to have backed off from gun control, which hurt them in the 1994 congressional elections.
I agree with the Democratic party standing for gay rights, but probably some moderation on abortion would be useful. While support of gay rights has been steadily increasing, most people are in favor of reasonable limitation on abortion. Say legal in the first trimester for any reason, afterwards only for the classic exemptions.
I really don't think the country is moving in the direction of increasingly liberal views on abortion but rather to some medium.
I think most people would like to see the numbers drop as well. So why not be pro-choice but favor some restrictions and also be committed to dropping the rate.
On gay rights, the party could be definitely for gay rights, but not militantly so. Willing to accept civil unions as a transitional measure rather than force gay marriage on an unwilling populace.
As for the hawkishness part, I totally agree that would help them big time.
However, I really have trouble believing that most liberals are as serious about combatting terrorism as you say. Look at Move On for instance. Don't you think that if a Democrat were in power they would have less ability to see things through in Iraq if some success were possible, with the anti-war left and the pacifists hounding them. Look at how the right wing fringe groups have screwed over the Republican party.
Kerry opposed the Gulf War and the Reagan buildup.
And McCain described Clinton as having "a feckless photo-op foreign policy." He did use some force with Kosovo, but his response to islamic terrorism and north korea were tepid.
Carter was kind of a wuss too. The last non-wuss Democrat I can think of is JFK.
I say this because I would really like to vote Democratic but I'm not convinced that they aren't wusses. I tend to think Republicans will use force when maybe they ought not, and Democrats will do the opposite, and in present circumstances I prefer the former.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home