Why Democrats Must Change
By Martin Walker
UPI Editor
Washington, DC, Nov. 3 (UPI) -- With more votes than any presidential candidate in American history, and with an advantage of over 3 million in the popular vote, President George W Bush won the election convincingly despite an unpopular war, a lot of lost jobs and a majority of Americans saying their country was on the wrong track.
What that means is that Democrats have to ask themselves what on earth they have to do to win back the White House. For the past 40 years, the only Democratic presidents have been southern white males -- Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Only when the Democrats have broken the Republican lock on the South have they been able to win the presidency.
So what do they do? The party refused to make the decisive shift to the electable center that Tony Blair achieved for his party in Britain and that Bill Clinton tried to bring about. Clinton, along with his running mate Al Gore, and Gore's own running mate Sen. Joe Lieberman, had put a lot of effort into the Democratic Leadership Council, a group that had long tried to nudge the party towards the centrist policies of welfare reform, free trade and focusing on responsibilities rather than entitlements.
Al Gore's defeat four years ago undermined that strategy and the liberal Democratic constituent groups, from the labor unions to the black caucus and gay and environmental activists, regained much of their old influence. It was an uneasy Democratic coalition that Kerry cobbled together for this year's campaign, united largely by their common loathing for Bush.
And now the Democrats -- facing another stretch of minority status in both Houses of Congress -- are looking at a second Bush term that can give the Supreme Court a conservative profile for a generation to come. The conservative ascendancy stretches out for years ahead -- unless the Democrats can agree to rethink their politics, re-connect with the American voter, and find out a way to win again.
The stage could be set for a Democratic civil war between the old liberal-left and the centrists. But a lot of Democrats want to duck any ideological battle, and allow demographic changes, more immigrants and the squeeze on the old union jobs with high pay and good benefits to do the job for them. The authors of this theory, and of the book "The Emerging Democratic Majority" are Ruy Teixeira of the Century Foundation and the author John Judis.
"As the white working class was changing and moving away from the Democrats, other pro-Democratic constituencies were emerging," argues Teixeira, and he identified women, minorities and well-educated professionals as the key components of the new Democratic coalition.
They dominate what he calls the "Ideopolis" cities that control America's financial, intellectual, cultural and academic life. Three of the most loyal Democratic states, New York, California and Massachusetts, account for almost half of the country's top universities, most of its Nobel and Pulitzer prizes, and the growth industries of Silicon Valley, Route 128 and Silicon Alley. These are the states that will attract the best and brightest and most ambitious youngsters of the 21st century, and will be the spearhead of the Democrats' eventual return to power.
Maybe. But even those associated with this theory think the Democrats cannot just sit back and wait for eventual victory, but have to work out fast how to win elections again.
"I think that Democrats need to think very hard about the lessons of this election, regardless of what happens in Ohio with the provisional ballots," noted Alan Abramowitz in a commentary on the emergingdemocraticmajority.com Web site. "We lost the popular vote and probably the election to a Republican incumbent with a horrible record. It is going to be very difficult to win a presidential election unless the Democratic candidate can do significantly better in the southern and border states."
Right now, the Democratic focus is on personalities and individuals. Some are wondering if they might do better with John Edwards at the head of the ticket. Others think that a military man from a Southern state -- like former Gen. Wesley Clarke -- might be the best course. Even more relish the prospect of a magic ticket of Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama in 2008.
But the Democratic problem is deeper than that. Bush is clear about the conservative principles he stands for, on tax cuts and social security reform, on opposing gay marriage and the aggressive defense of American interests abroad.
The Democrats are far less clear on what they stand for, except to defend a welfare state complex of Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare that is palpably unsustainable once the baby boomers retire. The education system is in trouble, and the Democrats dare not offend the teachers' unions in trying to fix it. The tort system has its own deep flaws, but the Democrats need the campaign donations of the lawyers. Trade protection is wholly the wrong course for an open, free market and trading economy, but the Democrats have to bow to the protectionist labor unions.
At some point, because the American system requires a second party that is a viable candidate for government, the Democrats will either reform themselves or be replaced. The question now, as the conservative ascendancy looms over the Supreme Court and the legislature and the executive, is whether the Democrats change, die or get out of the way. They cannot go on like this.
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-break...3425-1806r.htm
Reply With Quote
)
