| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| How Democrats Could Win Elections (if they'd listen) |
| 2005-10-18 |
| ...... The report is entitled âThe Politics of Polarizationâ 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 votersâ self-identification by political philosophy: âIn 2004, the electorate was 21 percent liberal, 34 percent conservative and 45 percent moderate,â according to the report. âThis is practically a carbon copy of the average of the past thirty year â 20 percent liberal, 33 percent conservative and 47 percent moderate â with remarkably little variation from election to election.â 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, âThe Democratic Party must be able to articulate a coherent foreign policy that is based on a belief in Americanâs role in the world⊠Democrats must emphasize the importance of the American military as a potential force for good in the world.â Strike #1; most of today's Dems (a) aren't coherent and (b) don't believe our military is good. Specifically, they recommend that âDemocrats 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.â You mean they need to lie like a rug. On the social issues, the authors recommend that Democrats âshow 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 âcould 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.â GFL on that one, too. Strike #2 here. Third, they recommend that Democrats adopt a more free trade position (âan economic policy that embraces global competitionâ) 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 ârecent 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, âstrength, certainty and conviction.â 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. âIf Democratic candidates do not âspeak Americanâ as a native language, average Americans will find it hard to believe that these candidates really understand or care about them.â 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 |
| #11 AlanC - you are spot-on. Any electable Democrat would so alienate the loony left base that they'd never get the nomination. It'll be interesting to see how Hillary's fake "move to the middle" strategy works. It's already angering the Kos / DU / Move-on crowd that represents the mainstream of today's Dems. The conservatives can see right through it. It'll be interesting to see how it plays with the moderates. But it won't matter if the left torpedos her nomination. |
| Posted by: DMFD 2005-10-18 22:17 |
| #10 The democrats will re-write themselves much like the republicans did, and follow much the same course, perhaps taking as long to recover. After the crushing defeat by Frank Roosevelt, the republicans were devastated for many years. They didn't have an effective political party until Eisenhower, and their rise was proportional to the decay of the democrats. The last gasp of the radical right, before the moderate right, what are now called "conservatives", took over, was in 1964. By 1968, the conservatives utterly dominated the republicans, and the radicals seized the democrats. With the set back of the fall of Nixon, otherwise it was all uphill for republicans and downhill for democrats since. Electorally, the democrats may be near rock bottom, nationally. They will stay there, making only marginal gains, until more moderate democrats, willing to work with the republicans, ascend to leadership roles in their party. By cooperating with the republicans, they will not only marginalize the radical left, but the radical right as well, and the country will have conservative-moderate government for many years. Only during this time period will the democrats have the time and inclination to create a "learned philosophy". Not just knee-jerk nonsense, but something they can sell to the public, that the public wants to buy. They will have found the chinks in the republican armor, national problems that the republicans refuse to fix, and they will capitalize on them. Finally, the radical leftists will have one last gasp, one last great failure, before they democrat moderates sweep them from power. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-10-18 19:34 |
| #9 Richardson hired Lewinsky, resume unseen, (nor oral skills) when they wanted her out of the WH....nuff said |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-10-18 19:12 |
| #8 Hold the first Democratic primary in Tennesse, Kentucky or North Carolina. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-10-18 18:53 |
| #7 SG, wasn't Bill Richardson involved in Clinton's China financial transactions? Does he have a credible America first foreign policy? The name that I've heard as a decent Demonrat is Phil Bredesen from Tenn. but I don't know anything about his party standing or foreign affairs proclivities. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2005-10-18 17:26 |
| #6 AlanC, .....maybe Gov. Richardson, NM. He carried the same state that went to George this past election and unlikely to face any real challenge at home. |
| Posted by: Slolutch Glith4065 2005-10-18 16:12 |
| #5 From what I just read, I think they are F*CKED! He, He, He. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2005-10-18 13:29 |
| #4 Dick Morris said much the same thing as these authors on Howie Carr's radio show yesterday. |
| Posted by: Raj 2005-10-18 13:24 |
| #3 Okay, here's a test...name ONE Democratic candidate that even comes close to these points? Lieberman? Saw how well he did in the primaries. McCain might fit.............oh, wait a minute. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2005-10-18 13:14 |
| #2 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. As this is the conservative position, this will never happen. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-10-18 12:56 |
| #1 Hmm, no class envy, no race baiting, be polite? WTF? What really do the have to offer then?? What would Marx do in a situation like this? |
| Posted by: macofromoc 2005-10-18 12:46 |