E-MAIL THIS LINK
To: 

How Democrats Could Win Elections (if they'd listen)
......

The report is entitled “The Politics of Polarization” and was prepared by William Galston of the University of Maryland School of Public Policy and Elaine Kamarck of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard.

First and foremost to understanding the current political environment is a review of voters’ self-identification by political philosophy: “In 2004, the electorate was 21 percent liberal, 34 percent conservative and 45 percent moderate,” according to the report. “This is practically a carbon copy of the average of the past thirty year – 20 percent liberal, 33 percent conservative and 47 percent moderate – with remarkably little variation from election to election.”

In other words, for every two liberals, there are three conservatives with almost half of the electorate being in the moderate middle.
I think I see the problem here....

If the numbers have remained stationary for the past 30 years, why have Republicans won more elections than Democrats?
Because the Dems have gone stark raving batshit crazy?
According to the authors, one of the main reasons is polarization. Democrats used to get the votes of a significant number of conservatives (30 percent in the 1976 presidential election).
This is true. I remember voting for some Democrats many years ago - and my core beliefs haven't changed.

Today, the electorate is much more polarized with liberals voting Democratic and conservatives voting Republican. Since there are more self-described conservatives than liberals, this means that for a Democrat to win, he or she must win a larger share of the moderate vote (in excess of 60 percent according to the authors) than in the past.
*snip*

So how do Democrats do better with political moderates and married women? The authors make a number of interesting recommendations.

First, “The Democratic Party must be able to articulate a coherent foreign policy that is based on a belief in American’s role in the world
 Democrats must emphasize the importance of the American military as a potential force for good in the world.”
Strike #1; most of today's Dems (a) aren't coherent and (b) don't believe our military is good.
Specifically, they recommend that “Democrats must seize the opportunity to offer compelling alternatives to current Republican policies concerning homeland defense and the ultimate nightmare of nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists.”
You mean they need to lie like a rug.

On the social issues, the authors recommend that Democrats “show tolerance and common sense on hot-button social issues."
"show tolerance and common sense" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh, wait - they're serious?

Specifically, they suggest that Democrats “could continue to support the core of Roe v. Wade while dropping their intransigence on questions such as parental notification and partial birth abortion. They could oppose court-imposed gay marriage while favoring decent legal treatment for gay couples and insisting that this is a matter for the people of the several states -- not the U.S. Constitution or the judiciary -- to resolve.”
GFL on that one, too. Strike #2 here.

Third, they recommend that Democrats adopt a more free trade position (“an economic policy that embraces global competition”) while at the same time providing a social safety net for people who lose their jobs in the process. That, of course, is the single most controversial of their recommendations because it goes contrary to the position of organized labor, a key part of the Democratic base.
Oops, that would be strike #3. Though "base" (in at least one of its definitions) does describe the greedy, power-grabbing union thugs running the unions into the ground while ignoring the actual workers who pay the dues.
Three strikes - yer out! (Just like today's Dems.)

Finally, they make a very interesting recommendation about the personal quality of candidates, particularly candidates for president. The authors note that “recent Democratic candidates have failed to establish the bond of trust with the electorate that is so essential to modern elections.
Ya think? What gave them away? Their snootiness? Their self-aggrandizing? Their lying? Their blaming everyone but themselves if something went wrong? Oh, yeah, that's right - all of the above.
Specifically, they note that Democratic candidates need to demonstrate, “strength, certainty and conviction.”
In sKerry's case, he needed a conviction. For treason. 30 years ago.

The authors posit that the last three losing Democratic Presidential candidates (Dukakis, Gore and Kerry) tended to talk primarily to highly educated upscale professionals who make up a significant part of the liberal base of the Democratic Party, rather than to less well educated working class voters who are also necessary for victory.

“If Democratic candidates do not ‘speak American’ as a native language, average Americans will find it hard to believe that these candidates really understand or care about them.”
And therein lies the difference between rich-guy George Bush and the rich-guy Dems named above: Bush is just a regular guy, with money. The others are snooty self-centered "entitled" assholes, with money. Gee, I wonder why so many regular people don't want to vote for them? (Actually, I wonder why so many do.)

Galston and Kamarck may not have all the answers for the Democratic Party, but their report deserves serious discussion by both Democratic leaders and the rank and file.
Which it ain't gonna get. Particularly from the Kool-Aid®-drinking Soros crowd.


Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2005-10-18
http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=132513