The Republicans have a strong leadership in Bush, and a strong platform. The Democrats seem to have neither at the moment - Daschle and Gephardt both bowed down to the President on the Patriot Act and war with Iraq. I want to vote for a party which will defend civil rights, work for healthcare reform, and cover the planks that RTFirefly mentioned. But I can’t seem to find that party on the ballot.
Gee, Shodan, you’re right. Somehow, those pstatements of ours completely overlooked the hardcore conservative vote.
Thank god.
Shodan: perhaps it’s a bit less important how a party platform sounds to ideological opponents than how it sounds to ideologically close undecideds? The Dems would be foolish to structure their platform to be more palatable to Repubs than to their own (and arguably they have been that foolish to a large extent).
You know, this mid-term drubbing could be a positive thing for the Democrats. Even if they retained control of the Senate they would still be the minority party. And in the Senate, being the minority party is not nearly as bad as in the House. The R house can pass anything it likes. But the R Senate will need at least a few D votes to get anything done. Loss of control of the senate is not so bad.
I think this election will help the Ds get over the “Bush Cheated!” issue. If Bush was going to pay a price for the 2000 election, it would have showed in this one. That issue has no traction. Which means that Gore will not be the 2004 nominee. No one cares about 2000.
If the Ds take this loss to heart, and try to figure out why they lost…instead of complaining about how the voters let them down…they have a very good chance in 2004. I’d love to have a decent candidate run against Bush. I’d love to have decent senate candidates. (My rep in the house is “Baghdad Jim” McDermott. Well, I guess I’ll settle for 2/3).
But if they try the old “We’re not Republicans except we’re just like them!” routine in 2004 they’re going to get beat again.
Shodan, you would make an excellent columnist for WorldNetDaily. 
I have wondered during this campaign why the Democrats did not take a stronger line on the War with Iraq. I assume that the reason was that they thought it would harm them. Which to me implies that they felt the electorate is in favor of these things.
I’d also add a corollary to this, RT-
“You can’t beat somebody with nobody.”
The Republican victory in 1994 (and being able to hold on to that victory thereafter) was in some ways helped by having someone who seemed to be the speaker for the Republican Party- Newt Gingrich. As flawed a messenger as he might have been, he at least acted as a decisive leader for the Republicans in paralell to Bill Clinton for the Democrats. Likewise, the Democratic rebound to Reagan’s 1980 landslide was helped by having Tip O’Neill act in a strong leadership role in '81 and '82.
In 2002, the Democrats really didn’t have much of a national leader. Daschle attempted to hold that role, but I don’t think he had the presence or weight to carry it off well (though how much of that was trying to be leader of the “loyal opposition” post 9-11 is certainly up for debate). He reacted to events and tried to lay low, and neither of those led to a feeling of strong moral leadership.
I’m not laying blame on Daschle- certainly there were many who could have actually taken on that role- Gephardt, Clinton, Gore, Leiberman, etc. But no one did, and for that I feel the Democrats suffered.
I think the public is mostly ready to trust the President’s judgment on Iraq. But I don’t think very many people have a good idea of what’s in the USA-Last Refuge of a Scoundrel Act. These are two very different issues, tied together only in that they both are said to bear some relation to 9/11.
Even now, I’m not ready to say there isn’t a good reason for going to war in Iraq. I think Bush has made a poor and possibly dishonest case for it, and there are a pile of important questions about how it might go that haven’t been answered beyond the handwaving level, but that doesn’t mean a good case doesn’t exist. I’d personally leave Iraq off a Democratic CWA as a result.
Quick quiz: Name the two or three most powerful Democrats on the national stage. Name the top two or three things that the Democratic Party stands for.
It is my hypothesis that Republicans would have an easier time answering that question than Democrats would. Therein lies part of the Dems problem. Definition.
It’s said that off-year elections are “base” elections, that have to be carried by a party’s core, its true believers. The Democrats collectively didn’t campaign in a way that would inspire the core. And maybe the more centrist or right-leaning aspects of the core aren’t such true believers anymore, given what’s happened in the world in past year-and-few-months.
Some of the pundits last night and today have been saying, “Guess who comes out of this smelling like a rose? Al Gore.”
They have a point. Who has been the most vehement critic lately of Republican policies? It’s been Gore.
Democratic leaders are getting slammed at the moment over yesterday’s results. But I tend to cut them some slack. Politicians love polling. Democrats, Republicans. Maybe especially Democrats; maybe not.
At any rate, I don’t believe the Democrats were cosying up to positions seen as Bush or Republican positions willy-nilly. I’m sure it’s been carefully analyzed.
The frightening thing for that party is, it failed miserably for them yesterday on the federal level. So, now what? They can take positions that very clearly distinguish themselves from the Republican positions. But they must be so distinct from what are seen as Republican positions, that they are almost antagonistic to them.
My guess is, they’ve already done polling that indicates that such a move would fail even worse.
I just want to add a point to the OP that this is, IMHO, what happened to the Republicans in 1996. Bob Dole was made their candidate for President mostly on the reasoning that “It’s his turn, and we’re not going to let Clinton run unopposed.”
The blame really lies with party machines which do their best to promote party loyalty over individual merit and with the round-the-clock news media which finds so much time on its hands it obsesses over the next election even before the prior one has ended. If these two institutions would cool their heels on electioneering and let the people who actually comprise the parties’ memberships to have competitive primaries and genuine party conventions (instead of week-long rallies), we’d very likely have two well-defined candidates in every election. I don’t think America has had something like that since 1980.
Mostly true, I think, but I wouldn’t write Gore off just yet — not because the Y2000 Gore could beat Y20004 Bush, but because there are very few Y2002-2004 Democrats who have more than a snowball’s chance of beating Bush. Gore is still one of them.
The real challenge for the Dems in '04 will be to nominate a Presidential candidate who can win against Republicans instead of other Democrats. There’s lots of Dems who are within reach of the party nomination but who won’t win against Bush (Daschle, Gephardt, Lieberman). There’s a few others who could possibly win in November but for one reason or another aren’t viable nominees (John Edwards). There’s only a few who look winnable in both arenas.
My picks right now are John Kerry and Al Gore. Both have existing records of distancing themselves from the “New Democrats” (the faction responsible for much of the Republicanization of the Democratic Party), but can also garner enough support within the party membership to survive the process. Both have actual established positions which resemble those suggested by RT and minty. Both have name recognition, and both are experienced campaigners.
More importantly, both gentlemen actually have some things to say that don’t sound like what everybody else is saying, and, after this election, no reason to play it safe by pandering to popular sentiment that’s already claimed and branded by the Republicans. IMO, if either one of them runs an unrestrained campaign which carries progressive ideas clearly expressed and undiluted by populist maneuvering, they have a shot. Admittedly, it’s a long shot that either will have the guts to do this and the skill to pull it off, and it’s another long shot that they can counter the inertia of their own part in order to attempt it.
(On preview, I agree with Milo’s hypothesis that Republicans have defined the Democratic Party much more effectively than have the Democrats themselves. I disagree, however, with the suggestion that opposition to Republican positions is a losing strategy; I don’t think such opposition needs to be diametrically distinct, merely distinct.)
I am skeptical of this. It’s analogous to the sports fans who are forever trotting out cliches like “great teams know how to win big games”. Which is true by definition - the teams that win the big games get defined as great teams. Similarly, the success of leaders is dependent in large part by how much power they have - those who have a lot to work with are going to be big leaders.
Tip O’Neill did not owe his “strong leadership role” to his great personal qualities - he owed it to the fact that he was the head of an insurmountable Democratic majority in the House. (You have a better case with Gingrinch). Had the Democrats picked up seats - and many pundits who were familiar with Daschle et al thought they would - people would not be complaining about his lack of leadership.
That’s a bit of an over-simplification. The Democratic Party of the South was conservative on racial matters, surely, but there was also a longstanding populist/progressive strain within the ranks of Southern Democrats. This dated back to the era of the People’s Party of the late 19th century, which was a Southern and Midwestern political phenomenon. The progressive platform of the People’s Party was largely co-opted by later Democrats.
Think Huey Long.
There is certainly room for populist appeal in the Southern Democratic tradition.
Could you clarify that? Are you saying that these Democrats were not also very conservative on social issues, crime, & foreign policy?
As I understand it, besides for the South in general being a very conservative place (a situation that still prevails today), the level of antipathy towards the Republican Party was such that no matter what your polical views you supported, you would still identify with the Democratic Party, which meant that the Democratic Party was the party of everyone down south. Now, this issue has faded, so that the more liberal Southerners tend to be Democrats (though they might still be conservative by Northern standards) and the more conservative are Republicans.
Ok, let’s look at the concepts proposed by RTFirefly as lynchpins of Democratic politics:
-
“We believe in a balanced budget.” Quite apart from the fact that this is historically nonsense (Democrats have been no better at keeping income and outflow in check, and the concept of a balanced budget was first floated by the Republicans as an attack on the then Democratically controlled Congress), does middle America really CARE about balanced budgets? No. Hell, they loved the Republicans for driving spending in the 80’s through the roof, and at the same time cutting the tax rate making it harder to achieve the income necessary to pay for breaking the Soviet empire. And they haven’t said “boo” about the fact that the current rush to solve our terrorism issues with a military effort during a time of decreased revenues is likely to blow the budget totally out of whack, worse than it already is. Further, I submit to you that it isn’t always a good thing to HAVE a balanced budget, let alone run a surplus. There are economic results from that that ripple out and cause difficulties. And it hamstrings your response to critical issues. Basing a political philosophy on this concept is certain death for any party; it is simply a method for attacking whoever is perceived by the public as having control of spending in a given election cycle.
-
“We will fight for corporate reform.” Again, historically incorrect; Clinton’s administration was no more interested in reigning in the abuses running rampant in the bull market of the 90’s than the Bush administration was. Indeed, Republicans are much less responsible for the current percieved problems than Democrats are, because Democrats were in charge of either the White House or the Congress during most of the last 25 years, when our attempt to modernize our financial and business institutions has led us once again to forget the lesson that stockholders buy stock on what is perceived, not what is real, and you have to use government to make sure that what is sold is not puffery or illusion. Further, frankly, other than when it hits them in the damn wallet really hard, the public in general doesn’t care what the CEO of REALLYBIGCORP, Inc. does or doesn’t do. Nobody in Peoria is paying any attention to what happens to Mr. Pitt, e.g.
-
“We are worker friendly.” Um, while true, to what point? For the most part, the Democrats have stuck with blue collar workers through thick and thin. Currently, VERY thin. America is changing; it is quickly becoming a service and white collar economy. Blue collar jobs are leaving for places outside our borders, when they aren’t being eliminated by automation. Continuing to be the party of the “working man” is getting the Dems nowhere. To put this in its proper perspective, yesterday in Ohio the top state offices were swept for the third straight cycle by Republicans, by a 2-1 margin, basically. This in a state that has Toledo (home of the Jeep), Cleveland, Akron, the Mahoning River valley, etc. Democrats had best find out a way to say, “We are the friend of the software engineer.”
-
“We are the friend of the environment.” VERY true, and pointless at this time to say. If concern for the environment was tops on people’s list, the Green party would be doing what they are in Germany; namely, winning elections (yes, yes, I know that proportional representation in Germany helps the Greens out, but they get WAY more voters than they do in the US). The basic American is sick to death of hearing about the environment, because for the most part, we’ve done a good job of cleaning up the obvious abuses, and we aren’t facing an obvious environmental problem that affects our day to day lives anymore. Everytime some stupid little plant or animal ruins a housing tract or forces a road to re-route, it makes saving the environment a tough sell. Republicans have been dismantling environmental protections whenever possible for 20 years now, and the public doesn’t give a damn, based upon the electoral results.
Now, in 50 years time when we start registering floodwaters in our major coastal cities thanks to melting icepacks, etc., the environment may become an issue…
-
“We believe in the First Amendment.” I’ve lumped the religion issue here with the support of freedom of expression on purpose; it’s an issue that truly gets to the heart of the philosophical differences between those on the “left” and those on the “right”, specifically, which is more important, personal freedom or collective social need? While an important philosophical difference, it isn’t an “issue” that resounds with voters. After all, go out on the street and tell people that you are against God being a part of life (that’s how the Republicans phrase it). See how many supporters you get. Not even the current Democratic party leadership is THAT stupid.
-
“We are in favor of abortion.” Ooops, rephrase that, PLEASE. “We are in favor of a woman’s right to choose.” Being in favor of abortion wins you no friends, and gains you lots of enemies. But even touting a woman’s right of choice only gets you so far, even with the female electorate. Most women don’t think they’ll ever NEED an abortion, most don’t WANT to think about the possibility, and so long as the Supreme Court of the United States doesn’t back off Roe v. Wade, it has limited traction.
I won’t address the added points from minty green other than to note that the Democrats NEVER are able to trumpet being in favor of strong armed forces because a significant part of the Democratic coalition is always the dove wing. Besides, her points 8 are really just Anti-Republican points, precisely what RTFirefly correctly analyzes as being the major reason the Dems got their heads handed to them on a platter yesterday. And foreign policy is never a concern of average Americans until their boys are being shot at. Don’t believe me? Go see Jimmy Carter.
Ok, so what DO the Democrats put forth as a basic philosophy upon which to grow a constituency?
-
Education Republicans are in the process of dismantling the public education system. They want to turn it into a private enterprise. They don’t care what this will do to inner cities, because they don’t LIVE in inner cities. Democrats need to stand up as the friend of the public education system. They need to convince Americans that an education is everyone’s right, and that Republicans are out to steal this right from anyone who can’t pay for it. AND they need to do this without being a front for the NEA and other teacher organizations, which have as their primary agenda increased teacher jobs and pay; it’s that old union-friendly thing again.
-
Planned growth Republicans are letting our urban virus spread in such an uncontrolled way that we face the prospect of being unable to feed ourselves, much less complete a list of basic errands without having to drive 50 miles to do it. Anyone who lives in the Los Angeles or Washington, D. C. metropolitan areas knows exactly what I mean. We’re growing like a cancer metastasizing, and leaving inner cities that are war zones. One of the basic reasons for having government is to provide basic social cooperation; planned growth at all levels of government is inherently part of the job. This is an issue that is resounding at the local level in many areas of the country; it is ripe for attack at a national level by one of the major parties, and the Democrats are the obvious choice. It also dovetails nicely with environmental concerns, AND with social concerns such as decreasing poverty, keeping those wings of the party happy.
-
Employee benefits Democrats have been letting Republicans pick their pocket on this most basic of issues for the last 10 years. The party that instituted Social Security is letting Republicans obfuscate the current issue regarding that benefit, allowing them to seem like the friend of the retired worker! (We’ll let you invest that money; Democrats want to just waste it and let it sit idle!) The party that would prefer that market forces control medical insurance costs and availability is able to convince millions of Americans that it can provide them a solution to the difficulty of obtaining quality health care at an affordable price, paid for by the employer. For Goodness sake, Democrats, this used to be your bread and butter! Middle America LOVES its benefits; white collar two-wage-earner families NEED things like paid leave for childbirth, medical care that isn’t dependant upon an insurance carrier’s approval, etc. It’s still one of the fundamental issues that exists between the employer and the employee, even in a service industry. Flog the Republicans unmercifully with their willingness to take the side of the employer against the average American, leaving him/her without medical care, money, or a house (no, it doesn’t follow, but politics is always about making people believe the untrue).
For starters, at least it has everyday applicability, appeal to both the traditional base of the party and the middle ground, and it taps into fears that already are working on Americans, as evidenced by what we see happening in local politics. Then keep flexible to attack new problems as they occur (e.g., an environmental disaster that allows the environment to become an issue again (how many of you know that we were 1/4" from a nuclear incident in NW Ohio this year?)) Oh, and don’t let Al Gore be the candidate in '04. QED
I think there’s one pretty important factor that’s been overlooked: the Democrats lost the media. It started big time with Clinton’s trial and media execution, and finally came into its own during election 2000.
One can speculate on partisan conspiracy reasons till they’re blue in the face, but I think the real factors are much more mundane. The Democrats are dull, they have no figure other than Clinton which unifies the party nationally (and Clinton just can’t compare to Bush for mass appeal, since so many hate him so passionately) and most importantly they have no idea how to spin without falling flat on their faces.
The right, on the other hand, has bright and vivacious pundits out there, the sort of people producers want on Tv regardless of political orientation. They can get away with anything, and their “outrage” network is wide and deep, meaning the Dems can’t as easily do the same. They can make stories out of events and rumors far faster and far more compellingly, and the press can’t help but serve the exaggerations. Look how long the NEA myth lasted. Or the massive voter fraud conspiracy claims. The Gore/Horton myth is STILL repeated to this day. And, let me emphasize this, this stuff is MAINSTREAM. The left has plenty of similar myths, but they are stuck in Nader-land, not on Tv.
“Her”? “HER?” I think not, Mr. Young. 
BTW, it’s really amusing watching Republicans wander in here and try to define what Democrats stand for. “No,” they complain, “you guys can’t be for strong national defense. And you can’t be for balancing the budget. Those aren’t your issues.”
Guess what, fellas? We’re taking them back.
I think that’s a good point, John. Like you said, nobody stepped forward - none of the current Democrats played the role Tip did 20 years ago, or that Newt played for the GOP in 1994.
I think that if a large enough group of Democratic Congresspersons and Congressional candidates - several dozen at a minimum - had stood on the Capitol steps (if they can do that anymore :() it might’ve served as a rallying point. We’ll never know, of course, unless the Dem presidential candidate is getting beat in 2004 and a group of Congressional candidates tries it then.
But a charismatic leader is definitely a big plus for any cause.
My apologies, minty green. Hard to tell what gender a person is here. Maybe you just write like a female. 
As for taking issues “back”, don’t you have to have had them in the first place to take them “back”?
And who you calling Republican?? eww. shudder.