Memo to Democrats: You Can't Beat Something With Nothing

Great Debates
121

I’m a long way from the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. I would strongly oppose an intentional move to the left, just as I invariably support moderate candidates in the party primaries (and indeed, I even vote for moderate Republicans on occasion, when the Democrat is too far to the left for my tastes). RTF, on the other hand, described himself as pretty liberal, which means that I would probably oppose the details of his positions on a lot of policies.

Nevertheless, he and I appear to be in complete agreement in this thread because what we are both arguing is that that Democratic Party needs to define itself and present its prinicples in a way that is understandable to the public. Those principles can and should embrace the party all (or nearly all) the way across its spectrum. Those are the principles that make us Democrats, and it is those principles that separate us from the Republicans. Our discussion is about defining the party and identifying those principles, not about deciding whether to move left or right.

122

On a substantive level you might be right in theory. But obviously, it will be impossible to find core principles that everyone agrees with, so agreed upon principles will be the result of some compromise. Unless the center of the Democratic party is right where you are - and it sounds as if it is to the left of you - then a move to coalesce around core principles will tend to move the party to the left, regardless of your intentions.

Beyond this, a shriller expression of even moderate principles will be perceived as being more leftwing than a more muted opposition. And perception is key, when it comes to electoral success. As you may have noticed, in recent years (possibly earlier as well) there has been a tendency for Democrats in more conservative states (e.g. Texas :wink: ) to avoid identification with the national Democratic Party and its leaders - this becomes more difficult if Democrats are seen as speaking with a unified voice.

Interestingly, in one sense the Democrats are up against the paradox that always faces opposition parties - interests of the party vs. interests of the country. I would be inclined to think that if the Democrats tried to work with the Republicans and craft policies that benefit the country, this will increase satisfaction with the government as a whole and benefit the party in power. By contrast, tying up the government in a morass of partisan wrangling would increase “throw the bums out” sentiment, and benefit the opposition.

Regarding the House Minority Leader fight, which touches on related issues, see Democrats’ Fight for the Future from the WP.

123

I disagree. There is little that either RTF or I have proposed as core principles that would be offensive to Democrats from any faction of the party. Even on health care, which you and others have identified as an issue dooming the party to being identified with the more liberal wing, the basic principle is quite simple and palatable to all: We believe that in legislation that promotes the availability of affordable, quality health care for all Americans. See, there’s nothing there that would divide RTF and me, and yet we’ve just established a policy priority that can be articulated and promoted to the public.

Remember, we’re not trying to establish the nitty gritty details. We just need to identify what the hell our agenda is, so that people will understand the principles of the party and have an affirmative reason to vote for its candidates.

124

This principle wouldn’t divide you and Rufus from anyone, not even the most conservative Americans. E.g.

Pro-lifer view of “Quality health care” – first and foremost, we must stop doctors from killing thousands of babies each year.

Libertarian view – *Ending government involvement will promote providing available, affordable health care for all Americans.

Socialist view – *Abolition of private health care will promote…/i]

125

Quite wrong. Republicans do not believe in legislation as a means of promoting affordable, quality health care. Laissez faire and all that.

126

minty,

We do indeed disagree The meaning of the basic principles is defined by how they manifest themselves in legislative proposals. You can talk about an abstract “legislation that promotes the availability of affordable, quality health care for all Americans” for all you want and you will not get any interest from the public (or opposition from the Republicans, who will be claiming the same thing) until you show what that means in practice. And that is where you confront the ideological divide.

I believe this has been implicitly acknowledged by the Democrats in this thread. I don’t want to reread the thread now, especially with the board being slow, but I am pretty sure there has been some discussion on how to bridge ideological disputes with regards to specific issues. The one that springs to mind is abortion - someone (RTF?) suggested accepting some limitation on abortion in the interest of getting a unified position. This will probably be put to a test pretty soon, as the Repubs are likely to bring up another vote on partial birth abortions. The Democrats will either respond with forceful unified “party loyalty” opposition or with scattered opposition. Which approach they take will to a large extent define the Democratic position on abortion, regardless of how much the chosen slogan finesses the issue.

And the same goes for other issues as well. Foreign policy and military, by reaction to situations such as Iraq; healthcare by support for one or another healthcare bill etc. etc.

127

Of course we disagree. That’s what happens when I’m right and you’re wrong. :stuck_out_tongue:

128

Let’s put it this way, Izzy: the only point in the Democrats’ being a separate and distinct political party is if they have a competing vision of how America should work to offer (sell) to the American people. If they don’t have one, then they might as well fold up shop and let the Pubbies run things.

If they do have such a vision, they ought to be able to state some of its key points, particularly the key differences from the GOP agenda, they should put 'em out there and run on them. It doesn’t matter whether the Democratic sides of those key differences are centrist or liberal, but they’ve got to be distinct. And the voters have to know that the Democrats aren’t going to discard those distinctives at the drop of a poll. If the Democrats don’t believe in what they’re selling, then why should anyone else?

129

I wish Democrats would recognize that centrist voters aren’t the only ones who can swing elections.

There’s a big fat pool of nonvoters out there, and I’ve got the impression that a bunch of them are far to the left of the pool of current voters – that’s why public opinion polls often show the public to be to the left of our government.

I’d like to see Democrats, instead of trying to pick up centrist voters, try to pick up current nonvoters. And that can be done with bold, specific programs that are (I admit) to the left of anything seriously being offered right now in Washington.

This isn’t a football game, where we hope for our side to win because we have some weird team spirit. I hope Democrats retake office only because, and if, they’ll put programs I like in place. If they’re gonna move farther and farther to the right, then I care less and less whether they take office.

Get nonvoters to vote for you. Don’t try to get conservatives to vote for you.

Daniel

130

In other words, motivate your base to get off their asses and vote, right? I have no problem with that. It’s precisely what a Democratic Statement of Principles should aim to accomplish.

131

Daniel, if running on the far left would whip up a normally apathetic and sizable liberal voting block, please explain to me:

  • Why Ralph Nader could not manage to gain 5% of the vote.
  • The miserable failings of the national candidacies of Dukakis, Mondale, and McGovern, all of whom were painted as very liberal, which, by your theory, should have rousted a large otherwise apathetic crowd to vote them into the White House.
  • Why, in 1992 avowed and solid centrist Bill Clinton managed to win the Democratic primaries, easily outdoing solid liberals like Harkin.
  • Why, in 2000 both major candidates for the Democratic nomination worked as hard as possible to position themselves as centrist moderates during the primaries.

This “vast unappreciated left” that some liberals talk about is a myth, fostered- IMO- by cliquish mindsets where people only talk to people of the same point of view, and therefore assume that everyone thinks the same way they do. (A failing of many, many groups, such as academics, Republicans, Christians, etc.)

132

Would you call these nonvoters the “silent majority”?

Got news for you. It’s been tried.

133

I believe John Corrado’s analysis is essentially correct. The Democratic Party cannot win by playing to the far left. It can, however, win by doing something to get its natural constitutencies excited and motivated, which is why they need to formulate and promote a message of what the hell they stand for.

134

This may not be the best place for Democrats to be analyzing the election and doing strategic planning for the next one. If you hadn’t noticed, there are a fair number of people participating here who may not hold the success of the Democratic Party as a high priority.

On the “slide to the right” debate, let me point out that from 1992 through 2000 the national Democrats did everything they could think of to reach an accommodation with the national Republicans. The thanks for that was to be accused of stealing Republican ideas, the Contract with America and a generalized scavenger hunt to find the President’s privates in unexpected places. Anyone who thinks that the success of the Democratic Party lies in becoming more Republican is entertaining a death wish. The backbone of the party has always been a shifting and reforming temporary alliance of the high minded and the marginal . The fundamental principal of the party has been that this country’s promise is available to every one, not just to members of the country club and people of the appropriate race, gender, net worth and church.

All this breast beating and hair tearing over the mid-term election seem a little silly when you realize that the supposedly catastrophic loss in the Senate was the lose of a majority position held by the slimmest of margins and held by the fluke of Senator Jeffords change of coat. The loss of the Senate seat in Minnesota can be attributed directly to Senator Wellstone’s death on the eve of the election, not to the will of the people. The loss in Missouri was no surprise. The surprise is that after the President staked his prestige on the South Dakota election, his hand picked candidate loss, albeit by the narrowest of margins. The suprise is that the Democrats did as well as they did over the din of the war drums.

This party has principles, Minty did a pretty good job of stating them above. We don’t need new principles. What we need is to bring some of the honest passion to those principles that we brought to the Civil Rights Movement, and that good Republicans bring to the cause of making money and cramming their particular version civic of one size fits all Christianity down peoples’ throats.

Look at my State. Iowa is as honestly conservative (with a small “c”) a place as there is in this favored nation. None the less Senator Harkin was easily re-elected in a contest with a good and honest serving Congressman. You are not going to find many people in public life any more liberal than Tom Harkin–not excluding Senator Wellstone. On the other hand, keep your eyes open for our freshman Congressman from the Missouri River slope who wants to get on the House Ways and Means Committee so that he can advance his pet theory of replacing the income tax with a national sales tax. This guy is going to be fun to watch.

135

Spavined Gelding:

I don’t know Harkin’s positions locally as I’m not from Iowa, but the phenomena you speak of is not new. Tip O’Neill’s pronouncement that ‘All politics is local’, holds true. It’s a pretty sure bet that Harkin voted for most local programs that Iowans like, and against those they don’t. Where he was ‘liberal’ was most likely where it didn’t matter to Iowans. This was also done by Senator J. William Fulbright of Arkansas.

Most politicians are pretty shrewd. :smiley:

136

The essential problem the Democrats have is that their ‘core values’ are not really those of the mass of Americans. The same thing happened to the Republicans in the 1960’s.

What do you think would have happened if the Democrats had firmly opposed war in Iraq, campaigned to have the Bush tax cut repealed, and fought harder for, say, prescription drugs for seniors?

Is there anyone here who thinks they would have done better?

If the Democrats move to the left, in four years they might be able to get a dogcatcher elected in Podunk.

The problem right now for the Democrats is that world events favor the strengths of the Republicans. Like it or not, the Democrats are simply not trusted in issues of national security. For instance, they’re holding up the Homeland Security department in order to protect union workers. In other times, this would be an effective strategy, protecting the worker from heavy hand of big government. But when people fear for their safety, such a policy is disastrous.

Democrats say that they are for a strong defense, but history says otherwise. Major opposition to most military programs and budget increases almost always comes from Democrats. Opposition to the war on Iraq came almost entirely from Democrats. Opposition to programs like the B-2 and MX missile came almost universally from Democrats. Carter’s national security policy was a disaster, and Clinton seriously damaged the military.

If you want to point to one event that hurt Democrats the most in the last weeks before the election, I think it would be the trip to Baghdad that Bonior and McDermott made. Here would two Democrats that did what some here are suggesting - they stood up and opposed the president very visibly, standing on their core values. And the American people hated it.

137

If I had to boil down the reasons for the Democratic humiliation on tuesday to one critical point, it would be this:

Democratic leaders continued to pursue a public debate on war with Iraq for nearly a month after they had already lost it.

Had they recognized defeat on this issue back in September or early October, and held the vote in the House and Senate, they would not have been such an embarrassment to themselves, and perhaps have maintained the status quo in the Senate, and lost fewer seats in the house.

Gephardt, at least, was sharp enough to see the writing on the wall, and signed on with the President, leaving Sen. Daschle to twist in the wind like a rotten fruit. Daschle should have caved the next day, but he didn’t–The man who cosponsored legislation making “regime change” the official US policy toward Iraq back in 1998 apparently forgot about his earlier conviction–he played his best Hamlet for nearly two weeks, while blowing his stack on the senate floor. “Outrageous.”

No. Embarrassing. And unbecoming a leader.

And who does he get mad at? Who’s the object of Daschle’s wrath? Osama? No. Hussein? No. Kim Jong Il? Heavens, no.

He directs his little hissy-fit at a popular wartime president.

Hell, Daschle didn’t even have the guts to oppose the war outright–he ended up voting for the resolution. Which gained him nothing with conservatives, while alienating his left.

The irony is that Daschle still has his job as minority leader of the Senate. Terry “Jeb is Gone…We think Carnahan is in a strong position” McAuliffe still has his job as DNC chair. But Gephardt is out.

The Democrats don’t even know which of their own to purge. How could they possibly be entrusted with the reigns of power?

138

Yes. Not couched in those terms, of course, but yes. Rather, we are not going to war without the the rest of the world, we are not going to fuck the country with another deccade of Reagan-Bush gigantic deficits, and we are going to reform this country’s health care system. Have you bothered to read the first three pages of this thread, where we have repeatedly stated that these are principles Democrats believe in and that should be acctively and strongly promoted to the public?

Oh god, another right-winger has has dropped by to tell us what we believe in. Thanks for straightening us up, Sam. :rolleyes:

139

These may be good policy positions, but I don’t think they’re winners politically. I have seen surveys showing that a big majority (maybe 70%) of Americans believe Saddam and Osama are connected. (I’m not one of them.) So, most Americans would favor attacking Iraq alone if necessary as payback for 9/11.

For a good part of this century, Democratic administrations ran deficits and the country loved them. Then Reagan ran deficits and the country loved him. The voters don’t care much about deficits.

Health care – Yes, perhaps a convincing plan that the public believed was feasible could gain votes for the Dems. But, Hillary’s plan was a political setback, so the record isn’t so good on health care as a winning issue.

140

Well, I may just be wishing that liberal policies will get the party into power – I’m young enough that I can’t offer an intelligent analysis of the 84 or 88 elections.

As I said above, however, I have no interest in supporting the Democratic party for its own sake. I only support it as a means of contributing my voice to how I think we oughtta be governing ourselves – and if the Democratic party goes in a direction that I don’t the we oughtta be going, I don’t support them. So “moving to the center” is a nonstarter of an idea for me.

In fact, it looks to me, from the debacle of the '90s, that when Democrats move to the center, Republicans move to the right. They certainly want to distinguish themselves from Democrats, and they’re sure not going to do it by moving to the left; their actions are thoroughly predictable.

And when the Democrats move to the right, the folks on the left have a harder and harder time supporting them.

As for why Nader didn’t win much of the vote in '00:
-Here in North Carolina, write-in votes for him were not tallied. I don’t know how many other states had the same situation.
-Democrats were campaigning against Nader almost as hard as they were campaigning against Bush.
-The election was close enough that many people who really agreed with Nader ended up voting for Gore. Again, I don’t have numbers on this – merely the anecdotal evidence of lots of the Democrats I know.

Right now, Democrats are looking for ideas that’ll get them into office. I think that’s ass-backward: they should want to get into office so that they can implement their ideas. As long as they’re looking for their paycheck, they’re not going to get anyone very excited.

Daniel