The Lost Party (part 1)

Ah, the Democratic Party. Much is made about its prospects for a victory in Congress in November's election. Although many commentators make this seem iminent, such a goal still seems unlikely to me. Currently, the Democrats' 202 seats in the House is the second lowest in any Congress since 1930. The official 44 Democrats in the Senate (although Jim Jefford, the independent, votes with them) is also the lowest count since '30 as well. The party's at what could best be described as its nadir, and yet everyone is projecting its re-emergence. Such an event occurred between 1930 and 1932, when the Democrats shifted the balance in the House by 150 seats and 20 in the Senate. But we can thank the early years of the Great Depression for that. Why is everyone so optimistic? Is Iraq tantamount to that previous fiscal crisis?

In fact, the greatest hope for a Democratic party victory this year would be such an economic crisis. If the real estate market were to collapse, or if foreign lender-nations decided to sell their treasury bonds, then such a crisis may occur. (It might even occur if $100+ oil prices cripple the market.) Since the Democrats are linked with a robust economy (think Clinton, not Carter) and they poll better on that issue that anything else, such a turnaround could greatly benefit them. It may even throw the necessary seats their way.

But what if such a collapse fails to take place. What then do the Democrats do? One strategy is to rely on the poor numbers of the president. This theory states: if Bush is unpopular, the House Republicans will be too. History supports this assumption. Presidents with declining poll numbers (especially if they seep below 40%) lead their parties to massive losses in mid-term elections, especially in the middle of the second term (see '38, '58, and '86). Such indicators might suggest that were Bush to still be sub-40% come election day, the Republicans would lose at least 20 seats in the House. The Senate, however, is less affected, because the particular seats up in a given year can be very important. If 10 swing state seats were up this year, we could talk about strong possibility of the Democratic victory. This, however, is not the case, as only about 7 are really in contention. Thus, even if Bush's numbers remain poor, the Senate may be difficult for Democrats to wrest from Republican control.

Yet, can we truly say that relying on Bush's shortcomings is a valid strategy? I don't think we can. The larger picture suggests more obstacles for the party. The Democrats have been out of power on Capitol Hill for vitually all of the past twelve years. The party fares poorly in rural districts and, more generally, in the South and Mountain West. (One bright spot is the movement of libertarian Republicans toward the party, as a result of civil liberty crackdowns by the Bush administration. But the viability of these discontented rightists voting for a Democrat is in question.) The remnant Left of the Democrats, those for example who ersthwhile supported McGovern or Johnson's Great Society, have been almost completely neglected by the party. (Some don't think they even exist, because today such positions would be considered to the left of the Deaniacs.) New Dealism remains mostly in its regulatory legacies and desire of conservatives to retreat from it. The fact is that no mainstream politician in today's environment ever proposes the raising of taxes or increased regulation of energy or media. Just as the New Deal made Social Security and the minimum wage into accepted standards, the Reagan revolution has engrained tax cuts and deregulation into the mind of voters. As a result, the real Left is dead. The Democratic Party is controlled by the very organization, the DLC, that was once considered barely more than a joke. In that sense, we also live in the post-Clinton era, one where Democrats have to cater to business interests and eschew any notion of sacrifice for the common good. The party has losts both its voting base (especially whites) as well as its identity.

Yet, the party is somehow on the march. Today, the highlights of this (supposedly) emerging Democrat consensus include such things as the so-called liberal blogosphere. (Please don't count me within that bunch.) This blogosphere connects with 187 group websites, like MoveOn.org and others, to form the backbone of the grass-roots Left. Although they may feel that anti-Bush rhetoric and elitist, anti-elitist collectivism poses a great threat to the Right, they are mistaken. They may attract some passionate individuals to aid their cause, but all their hard work is often subverted by the candidates and party that they support. The new online Left may be the future, but they are hindered by the past. They exist in simplistic opposition to Bush while failing to eschew most of the legacies of the past two and a half decades. In this context, the push to defeat Lieberman in Connecticut is not a failure because it's an inquisition (as David Brooks suggests), but because it's a mere referendum on Bush. Lieberman is too close to this enemy for the bloggers to handle. While the result may not be that bad, the reasoning behind this challenge is simple-minded.

The Democrats must seek something beyond merely a attack, a single issue, or even a "vision". The party needs an institutional structure that will expand upon the old bread-and-butter issues. But, I do not intend to push the party toward the center, as many would have it. Instead, I feel that they should reshape the Left. To be sure, American is more prosperous than in the past and, on the whole, the average standard of living has increased. But the overall functioning of American society is highly problematic. Voters may not care about the U.S. trade imbalance or debtor culture, but they are important issues for our nation's future health. Voters, however, can understand such things as credit/loan re-regulation, increased wages, national savings plans, tiered taxes, and other economic policies that effect people's day to day lives. Today, corporations have a stranglehold over much of American society and, with this, investment culture has weakened the futures of many Americans.

In a word, the Democrats need to re-frame economic issues through the benefits that policy changes offer for a vast majority. Higher taxes brackets, assessing 50% rates on those who make over a million dollars a year for example, would affect only a tiny portion of the population and enable tax cuts for those on the bottom half of the income scale. Within this framework, the prosperity of corporate growth may spread to those who have not yet enjoyed the benefits of its security. A workable future for the Democrats exist. They just need to reframe the economy issue as a set of rights, not as a sacrifice. Tax relief for the middle class, college credits, or fuel efficiency rewards. If the party can appeal to the voters prurient interest in self-benefit, because it can pry them away from the Right.

Additionally, the Democrats need to regain kind of smart populism. Not one that attempts to vilify or mock (as many demagogues do), but one that sees an optimistic future that can be achieved through a change in priorities. The Left can never win an election on foreign policy, because they will always be perceived as weak and should be. (Sure, a candidate can lie like Kennedy about a false missile gap, but in the end, the Democrats are the party of a world reprieve after the Cuban Missile Crisis while the Republicans are the party of Iraq and the bombing of Cambodia.) The Democrats, due their consideration of issues and the failure to consider brute force as necessary, are the better party. But they do not make people feel safe. They need to focus on what they do best. I hate to use a cliched line, but it's still the economy stupid!


Additional articles on this topic will appear periodically in the lead up to the mid-term election.