Centerfield

Rick, I agree that the objective is to win. I don't believe you have to forsake principles to do it.

What would you advise them to give up?

Well, as a centrist, I don't really have to give up my principles to move to the center, since I'm already there.

With a couple of exceptions: I do support gay marriage. However, if I were running for office, I would not push it as a matter of public policy. I think marijuana should be legalized. But I wouldn't push that as a matter of public policy either. It should be possible to make a contract with the voters, saying that irrespective of your personal preferences, this is the agenda you will pursue.

If someone can't make this sort of compromise, they probably ought to get out of electoral politics. There is a role for people to try to change the system from outside it. But if you are going to work within the system, there's no point in running quixotic campaigns.

There's another thing to consider. Liberals should consider the possibility that the public knows what it wants, and within constitutional limits, the majority gets to set the rules.

I'm becoming skeptical that the Democrats lost because they stood on principle, or because they didn't give people what they wanted.

They're on the side of the public in terms of supporting Roe v. Wade, and plenty of Dems support restrictions on abortion (parental consent laws and the like); they raise the budget deficit as an issue; plenty of Dems support the death penalty (though I don't think that's a burning issue these days); Kerry's position on gay marriage was that civil unions were okay, but marriage was not, which is entirely in keeping with the public. They're not out of step with regards to Iraq -- after all, according to Bush himself, Kerry's plan wasn't much different from Bush's plan.

For every issue that the Dems are out of step on, I can name one that the Republicans are out of step on.

And there are so many things that people have mixed opinions on, where there's no clear majority -- social security (most people want to save it, but the question is how), Iraq (everyone wants a good outcome, but what's a good outcome and how to get there is debatable), etc. Taxes is another example -- how people feel about taxes generally depends on whether they think the $$ is going for a good purpose (i.e., paying down the debt).

So I agree with the article -- except that I'm not sure that changing positions, or ditching principles, would have made much difference. It's hard to kick incumbents out of Congress, particularly when retirements and redistricting work against you. It's very hard to win the Senate when your party dominates the most populated states. And it's hard to unseat an incumbent president in times of a reasonably good economy. When all the forecasters did their models, Bush almost uniformly won, with a higher percentage than he eventually got (I don't particularly care for the forecasting, but the poit is that in generally incumbents governing over a good economy have an enormous advantage).

I don't know what the answer is for the Dems. But I don't think their issues stances are any more of a problem for them than they are for the Republicans.

Kate,

You raise good points. I don't have the answers as to how the Democrats need to change, but I feel this article at least asks the right question.

The Democrats are in a hole--as the party of urban America in an electoral system that gives extra weight to rural areas, they need to be the majority party in order to get their agenda passed. Turning inward will not do it. Part of the reason Kerry lost is that many people thought he was inauthentic, and much more liberal than the way he campaigned. They were afraid he'd revert to type once elected. I don't think running an authentic liberal candidate would have helped. Democrats need to run an authentic centrist--Mark Warner, perhaps.

But that's my point -- even if the Dems nominate a centrist, he's likely to be painted as an extreme liberal. Kerry wasn't, in my opinion, that much less of a centrist than Bush, if you look at his actual policy positions. I think that's why he did so well in the debates. Why that didn't translate into a victory is a matter of debate -- I tend to think in a recession, it would have translated into a victory. And I think the incumbent just has an enormous advantage in terms of visibility. I do think there were things that Kerry could have done differently, but I really don't think he was that bad of a candidate, or that they ran a bad campaign. It's not like they choose Kucinich or Dean (tho Dean at least is really fiscally conservative -- a quality I miss in candidates overall).

But this has been oen of the big frustrations of the Dems with Bush -- more so in 2000, because that's when they really *did* mess up more, in my opinion -- they feel that the public agrees more with their candidate than with Bush on the policy issues, but it doesn't seem to make much difference. (Of course, it probably *does* make a difference -- if Bush didn't have his own appeal problems, he would have won by a much larger margin).

In terms of what could be done differently, of course, the Dems would have a better chance of they nominated candidates from larger states, and less safe states. So that does make someone like Warner attractive, although from what I've heard, he may be seen as lacking charisma.

And at the level of the House and Senate, one of the most important things I think they could do is groom and fund candidates. The Republicans seem to do a better job of this. Actually, in general, I would love to see electoral reform that really just increased competitiveness, regardless of the party it advantaged. Congress has reasonably high turnover, but it's of course virtually impossible to defeat an incumbent U.S. rep, so it means that voters get a real choice about every 8 years, when a seat opens up. I would expect that the Presidency is going to remain competitive, as are state and local races. But the House -- well, in terms of individual districts, by any measure it's depressingly uncompetitive.

I largely agree with Starr. But I think one of the problems is that the Democratic Party has become a party of intelligentsia rather than politicos. I know it seems odd to be defending politicos, but look at the GOP. Guys like Rove and Atwater--however distasteful--know how to connect with the public. The Democrats used to have people like that. But we have become increasingly identifed in the public mind (certainly with help from the GOP) with trendy academic theories and a style of intellectual discourse and politics that is angry and negative toward the institutions and people of the US. We need to be able to say to people (as the GOP does IMO) that we think you (the public) is ok but that our policies can do a better job of improving your lives. Instead, what gets out is the academics (and I have seen it on other blogs) talking about how racist, sexist, homophobic, sexually repressed, greedy, ignorant, unsophisticated and, just downright nasty, American society is. And there is some truth--society is made up of humans and humans are flawed. But you are not going to win saying things like that.

Obviously, the Democratic Party has little influence over what academics and activists say and do. But we need to do a better job of separating our policies and our principles from people like this. After 9/11, The New Republic published a regular feature for several months called "Idiot Watch" which reported on (and condemned) the most inane statements about the attacks from such luminaries as Michael Moore. Democrats need to come down on idiots like that; we need to make people feel like we are on their side. (I know people like Carla will say we already do that, but I don't think a lot of people believe it.)

I don't think we need to abandon our principles as I understand them. We don't have to be against choice (but we need to accomodate those that are), we don't need to be anti-gay marriage(but we need to understand that opposition reflects how rapid social change is disruptive to people, not necessarily hate), we don't need to be against the responsible use of government to achieve social goals (but we need to understand that people don't like having their lives dictated to them), etc. And there are some things that we will simply differ from the GOP. What we need to do is understand the American people, not treat them as some alien race. IMO, this is what the Republicans have been able to do.

And tell Michael Moore to stay the HELL away from the Democratic National Convention.

The point is that so long as the Democrats are perceived as the party of the liberal intelligentsia (NOT necessarily the party of liberal policies), we will never win the hearts and minds of the electorate. That's not to say that we should become anti-intellectual like the GOP--but if it was up to me, I would tell the Norman Mailers, the Michael Moores, the Hollywood liberals, etc., to get the hell away from the Democratic Party. If you want go give money, fine, but don't come to our rallies. I realize the importance of the Hollywood money, but if I were the Democratic candidate, I would go out of my way to snub Hollywood.

I would clarify MWS's statement with 'liberal intelligentsia AND Hollywood liberals' I don't see them as necessarily the same group.

Bull Moose suggests that Democrats become the party of deficit hawks.

The Democrats need to quit attacking the red states and those who agree with them ... they are the very ones needed to win. Dems won't get states like MS, AL, and SC for national elections but local Democrats cannot get a fair hearing from the public. And Dems might be able to swing states like MO, OH and WV.

Rick:

I like you too. :)

And yes, we disagree on strategy. I see your strategy as a willingness to abandon principle and soul.

I can't rightly see the point.

What would be an example of a well-known academic who creates a problem for the Dems? I can think of potentially Krugman (who I guess I'd classify as such even though I don't think he's in academia)....but he's just an op-ed columnist.

I agree about the Michael Moores though. Michael Moore isn't even a credit to his own work, the way he goes about publicizing himself.

kate,

I didn't really mean that specific academics were problems, but that the ideas and theories that come out of academia have been identified with the Democrats. For example, white studies (the idea that "white" culture inherently harms minorities), literature on suburbia (the idea that suburbs are sterile places full or ignorant philistines), anything by Andrea Dworkin or Noam Chomsky. I'm not saying that people consciously associate these ideas or people with the Democrats, but they do give off a strong whiff of disdain for American culture and I believe that subconsciously these ideas (obviously on the left) have influenced not only how the left sees America but also how America sees the Democrats.

I don't think Krugman's ideas are necessarily a problem (a lot of what he says is probably correct) but I think his anger and vitriol is counterproductive.

Krugman is a Professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University, and was formerly Ford Professor of Economics at MIT. He abandoned objectivity a while ago to become a partisan political cheerleader on the strength of his academic record. Sad, because he's a very bright fellow who made some seriously important contributions in the field of international trade and finance, before he sold his soul for a pot of political message.

When I was a child, students were just beginning the Free Speech movement to radicalize the campuses. They felt (with some real justification) that conservatism had too strong a grip. They succeeded, and now our campuses are strongholds of doctinaire left-liberalism where the prevailing orthodoxy is enforced with ruthless rigidity. The ideal of Free Speech vanished in the process.

The upshot of this is that today the campus radicals and revolutionaries are increasingly conservatives, rebelling against that mindless prevailing orthodoxy.

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

If the GOP is any indication of where this strategy leads, there will be no "balance" to be had. You'll get your "win" alright. But, it will come at the price of ditching nearly all of your principles.

Folks, it has not been all that long ago since Bill Clinton occupied the White House. Maybe we should be looking to him for a winning strategy and not Team Bush.

Tully & MSW --

Yes, I think I tend to think of "academic" and "activist" as almost mutually exclusive (which, of course, they're not)....so when individuals move from research and teaching into the world of influencing public opinion, I stop thinking of them as academics. But it's true, I'm sure Krugman would consider himself an acadmic, and he probably teaches a class or two now and then. I wonder if he ever grades a paper. :)

Now that I'm thinking, I'd add Catharine MacKinnon (I really don't like her work, ftr), and Laurence Tribe, and perhaps Nadine Strossen (not sure about her degrees, positions, etc., but clearly she falls in that general category of writing). I'm not sure how well known they are to the general public. Is Andrea Dworkin really an academic? (I don't know).

Kate,

I admittedly tend to conflate left-wing academics and activists, perhaps unfairly. However, in terms of their affect on Dems perception by others, they are the same.

Most people I'm sure don't know who these specific people are. But it's likely they have heard something about some theory espoused by someone like this. For example, I think a lot of people believe the sterotype that feminists are anti-male. It's not true, of course, for the mainstream feminists, but people have probably heard statements from radical feminists (such as Andrea Dworkin) that influence their perception of feminists and Democrats generally.