For Demos, 3 Numbers = 1 Problem
By Callimachus | Related entries in General PoliticsWaPo op-edder E.J. Dionne in a new column celebrates the fact that “President Bush has finally faced his moment of accountability. The travails of Hurricane Katrina followed a bad summer for the president and have called into question his leadership style, competence and intense partisanship.”
He veers from that into the inability of the Democrats to capitalize on this, and their collective indecision over whether to be “liberal ideologues” or “centrist.” I think his analysis of the party’s woes as a matter of three numbers is a good one:
According to the network exit polls, 21 percent of the voters who cast ballots in 2004 called themselves liberal, 34 percent said they were conservative and 45 percent called themselves moderate. Those numbers mean that liberal-leaning Democrats are far more dependent than conservatively inclined Republicans on alliances with the political center.
[In my Internet interactions (admittedly a small and unscientific sampling), committed Democrats' reaction to centerists have ranged from mildly condescension to outright flamethrowing. Marc Cooper is the only one I've corresponded with who's been genuinely engaging. The frustration that underlies the hostility is understandable. But it makes better psychotherapy than political sense. But then that -- misplaced priorities between personal and political -- has been one of the center-right's grievances with much of what's left on the liberal side.]
Dionne also points out how these numbers present a problem for the Democratic dream of capturing the House in 2006.
It takes 218 seats to form a majority in the House of Representatives. Kerry carried only 180 congressional districts, according to the Almanac of American Politics. Put another way, Democrats, according to the Almanac, now hold and have to defend 41 House districts that Bush carried. Republicans are defending only 18 districts that Kerry carried.
After more ruminations on the Democrats’ dilemmas, Dionne turns to the bright side:
The truth is that opposition parties normally get a chance only when the governing party disappoints. For the time being, that means that Democrats will have no problem staying united behind the imperative of keeping Bush on the ropes. The flow of negative news about the administration will do much of the Democrats’ work for them.
Oh, but he makes no mention of what a tight-rope walk to the promised land that will be.
Dionne is careful to write “flow of negative news about the administration” (emphasis added), but too often his target audience blows right through that clause without regard for the qualifying element. They look like the ghoul party. “When America hurts, Democrats benefit.”
And while highlighting the administration’s problems is potentially a winning strategy, events like hurricanes and war deaths and even high oil prices mean suffering for all of America. The voters may be able, intellectually, to parse out the political angle from those tragedies and problems, but in their guts they will feel that anyone who actually celebrates such events is essentially on the other side.
It’s up to the party that attempts such a strategy to do it without a smirk, without a twinkle in the eye. It’s exactly because the voters will pay more attention to the opposition at such moments that the opposition has to be on its best behavior. If the voters sense the grim reaper smile on the opposition’s face at the sight of American suffering, the door slams shut. Essentially conservative (in the non-political sense) American voters will stick with the devil they know.
When bad news for America hits the front pages, too often my Democratic peers celebrate it. They only see it as bad news for Bush. They don’t seem to sense that an indictment of a Bush official is one kind of bad news, and a terrorist attack is another. There’s a dissembling art in politics, and they haven’t learned it.
Might I suggest that too often they are hamstrung by an essential and relentless pessimism about America’s history and its virtues, its potential and its promise, among the chief spokesmen and women of the movement? Might I suggest a reacquaintance with the rhetoric of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr., as a lesson in how to say, “We are a great nation, but we can do better than this; in fact, we must do better than this, because we are a great nation.”
Look, the Federalists were right about the War of 1812 and the Madison administration’s shenanigans. And look where it got them: They branded themselves as a party of national traitors, who preferred the British to their fellow citizens and held aloof in the nation’s time of dire need. They never won office at the national level again. Opposition is not in itself fatal, but it’s all in how you do the thing.
As someone with a strong suspicion of many people on the right, I don’t relish the sight of the party of the political left charging down the path to permanent minoritarianism. But I’ll keep waiting for political leaders from that side who convince me America can be moved forward by appeals to what is great in our national heritage and dreams, rather than driven shame-faced into “progress” by the lash of Michael Moore’s tongue.
This entry was posted on Monday, September 26th, 2005 and is filed under General Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
September 27th, 2005 at 1:41 am
It’s refreshing to read a post by a reasonable Democrat who can see the detrimental effect that political hatred is having on the party’s prospects. As a Republican, I’m glad that our side has made significant gains in the last few elections. But, I am under no illusion that “Republicanism” is the cure for society’s ills. Our founders instituted an ingenious form of government that relies on checks and balances precisely because they understood human nature and the corrupting influence of absolute power. The succession of losses incurred by Democrats over the past few years does not provide the electoral “balance” that is healthy for our society, but is understandable considering their dearth of ideas and the requisite optimism to lead. While I do not look forward to the day when Democrats are again running the government, I do think it’s healthy for political leaders to lose once in awhile (including our side). Losing is humbling and can afford an opportunity for introspection. Unfortunately, instead of taking this opportunity to formulate policies that would actually help our society, many Democrats are busy rooting for its failure, as you correctly pointed out (I’m still amazed by how many politicians place their personal/political welfare above that of the nation they’re supposed to be serving). If they continue to fail to provide the leadership necessary to improve our society, the Democrat party will lose elections into the foreseeable future, which is not healthy for our Republic.
September 27th, 2005 at 3:43 am
As a frustrated Democrat, I understand your concern. Bush hatred is a real puzzle. Start with the fact that, whether or not you like him, Bush will not be on the ballot in ‘08. Given that, as you say, Democrats need to be talking about their vision. Another concern is that many Democrats at the grass roots have lost touch with economic reality. They want to tax and regulate the entire economy and are largely silent on the GOP’s deficit-funded pork, so long as they get their share. It is this that will keep them from power. I’m concerned that the GOP base is now a gaggle of fundamentalists, national security fascists, and plain old law ‘n order types who are building a machine for total state control of our lives. The Democrats’ response to this is pandering to the civil rights and pro-abortion hacks who are their base. There is room in this for a non-wacko libertarian candidate to have some success and perhaps force one of the major parties to come to its senses.
September 27th, 2005 at 10:49 am
larry is right that the Democrats’ walk in the Wilderness may not be best for the country, aat least in the short term, but it will be good for the Democrats.
The “pessimism about America’s history and its virtues” is a relic of the Civil Rights era and Vietnam, ironically, because that was a time when those virtues triumphed. But many of the leaders were either overtly religious leaders or else borrowed the emotional vocabulary of morality and religion, and that lead the discussion into an unending confession of sin. People have continued to indulge in this for two reasons. One is that we are raised to feel best about ourselves when we are maligning ourselves the worst. It is a form of moral exhibitionism. The other is that it reminds a certain generation of when they were cool and young and righteous, so they cling to it for the mst selfish reasons.
September 27th, 2005 at 11:06 am
The “walk in the wilderness” has been going on a long, long time and its end is nowhere in sight. I’ve been reading similar articles about dysfunctional Donks for at least 20 years, maybe more. This isn’t a new examination. Dems have been reexamining themselves since McGovern lost to Nixon (1972) and Carter was butchered by Reagan (1980). Certainly in 1988 following Dukakis’ loss, these articles were everywhere. This is just part of a long line of hand-wringing on the aimlessness of the Democratic Party. The one new twist in EJ’s approach? The numbers are increasingly anti-liberal- more bad news. Other than that, it’s deja vu all over again.
September 27th, 2005 at 11:24 am
That being said, I agree 100% with Cal that I want to see a prospering Democratic Party. However, there’s a huge difference between the negative “Hoping for GOP Misfortune” as opposed to a positive “We Have an Agenda”. Watched former Senator Edwards on CSpan’s campaign trail, talking about free college and health care for all Americans. Is Santa Claus the titular head of the Dem Party?
September 27th, 2005 at 11:58 am
Personally, I couldn’t care less whether the Democratic Party implodes or not. I want a realistic message of civil rights, some social safety measures, and a purer capitalism where consumers can be more informed. At this point, I don’t care what party carries it. The Dems have the most infrastructure, but it doesn’t fit their current message (if you could call a picket sign reading “THE END IS NEAR” a message). The Libertarians have the opposite problem; it fits their message more, but they have no money.
I don’t know if this is showing above, but I’m kinda in a snit right now, because I just read another indirect threat message from a Democrat.
September 27th, 2005 at 1:56 pm
Well, Edwards isn’t a bad place to start to rebuild a genuine, robust American party. He’s nobody’s ideal yet, perhaps, but he’s seems to see the light beyond the wilderness.
September 27th, 2005 at 2:46 pm
Edwards is an attractive, intelligent and articulate candidate, to be sure. But I’m unfond of his “Two Worlds” approach. Apart from being oversimplistic, it renders politically homeless a large number of voting suburbanites- who are neither rich or poor but who are looking for some government aid in their lives.
September 27th, 2005 at 3:04 pm
I agree with this sentiment, as they would be of the “have not” world. That’s certainly a problem since those people probably don’t want to grouped alongside urban minorities who are traditionally the poorest groups in this country. A difficult communication problem to say the very least.
September 27th, 2005 at 4:35 pm
It’s a substantive problem as well, Justin, and not just an issue of framing or phrasing. Many middle-class suburbanites are sensitive to higher taxes because they’re largely employed. The GOP has successfully exploited this for years. So while this group may be drawn to the luster of national health insurance or free college tuition, they’re mindful that such programs aren’t free.
September 27th, 2005 at 4:59 pm
Right, kreiz. But there’s a wedge to be made in that issue. So far, the Democrats don’t seem to have noticed it yet. Instead of rhetoric that basically promises to tax people more, they can say, you’re taxed enough, but we need to change the ways your money is spent, so it does more good for all Americans, including you.
That’s easy to say, but to really mean it, you have to become the party of leaner, meaner government. Gods know, the way things are going in the White House these days, that job is open. But how many Democrats are really willing to step up and fill it?
Also, the anti-tax-cut rhetoric is a shot in the foot. Sometimes a tax cut for the rich really does stimulate the economy — if there’s a new techonlogy opening up and starving for investment money, for instance. That’s why Reagan’s cuts worked so well. But that wasn’t the situation this time around.
Be a little smarter, Democrats. Don’t say “tax cuts are evil” and expect to win middle class votes.
September 27th, 2005 at 9:36 pm
100% concurrence, Callimachus. There’s a tremendous opportunity here- frame it any way you want- voters want competent government. For the first time in decades, the GOP has demonstrated an inability to deliver. But I haven’t seen a Dem leader courageous or visionary enough to grab that message and moment. Instead, Dem pols seem to fall back to interest politics. This could be a momentous shift ala 1932 or 1980. But someone has to galvanize and embody (yes, even ooze) competence. Giuliani is the only one who comes to mind- and he’s in the wrong party.