Sunday, January 02, 2005
Like many other Democrats who were appalled and disappointed by the Republican electoral victory of last year, I've spent a good deal of time and thought on the question of why John Kerry lost. Even the question is slippery. Though Kerry ultimately lost, he came awfully close, and given that, it's disturbing that Democrats were so soundly defeated in Senate and Congressional races around the country. Other puzzling and important results included the votes for various propositions to ban gay marriage, and what appears to be a Democratic victory for the governorship of Washington state, but only by the narrowest of recount-aided margins.
A variety of theories have been forwarded to explain the above results. Values was the most popular explanation in the aftermath of the election, at least partially because of flawed polling results released by exit-pollers in the wake of the election. This particular interpretation of the election results was welcomed by the Republicans, and reinforced frequently on Fox News, but after a week or two, real statisticians and professional pollsters came forward with the surprising information that the numbers of voters who identified values as their primary concern in voting had actually declined in 2004 as compared with the last two elections.
Democrats found a number of other reasons besides values to explain the results of the elections. The war in Iraq was a popular explanation for how a polarizing and seemingly vulnerable incumbent won reelection. Another idea was that John Kerry was a flawed candidate, either because of how easily he played into the Northeast liberal stereotype, or because of personal shortcomings in charisma, speech cadence, or human touch. Shortly on the heels of this theory came the wiseacre liberal punditry which exclaimed that Kerry, despite his obvious shortcomings and unenviable affiliation with Massachusetts, still garnered more votes than any other man in history aside from George W. Bush. Clearly, if Kerry fell only a few thousands votes in Ohio short of the presidency, despite facing a well-funded incumbent who was in the midst of waging war, the Democrats must be on the right path, or so the thinking goes.
Understanding the reasons for Kerry's loss is key to the Democrats as they seek a unified overall strategy for dealing with the reform-minded Republicans over the next two years. With another Congressional election looming in 2006, there is not a lot of time to overhaul the Democratic platform, strategy and message.
But it is just not clear which changes need to be made. Republican control of state governments has enabled them to gerrymander effectively throughout the country. Strong feelings about gay marriage, and particularly the use of the word marriage to define gay unions, led to the passing of several gay marriage bans, even in deep blue states. The debacle that was Grey Davis' governance of California, particularly in the state's fleecing by unregulated energy concerns like Enron, opened the door to Republican control of the governor's mansion in the largest, and arguably bluest, state in the union. The fact the Arnold Schwarzenegger is a Republican who rejects many core Republican values highlights the fact that the Republicans have learned how to expand their base around something other than core ideology. For Democrats, none of the above indicates a clear plan for reforming Democratic tactics, overall campaign strategy and structure, or basic principles and policy goals.
In addition to examining the above factors, as well as many others, such as the President Bush's ability to make many Americans feel safe, the desire of many Americans to be a part of something as important as World War II, and so forth, it's critical to understand that these factors are interrelated and often self-stoking.
One of the great failures of the Clinton administration was the loss of control over the legislative branch, beginning in 1994. In his first term, Bill Clinton intended to put a capstone on New Deal legislation with one final massive entitlement program: national health care. The failure to pass this piece of legislation, or anything else of a like scale, robbed the Democrats of any real, lasting achievements in the eight years of Clinton's presidency. Though various important laws were passed, and some parts of Clinton's legislative agenda survived, the the nineties is remembered for Newt Gingrich and the Contract With America then any clean air acts. By the time the 2000 election rolled around, Al Gore had little to run on beyond prosperity. There was no massively successful, highly visible program to run on. The foreign policy initiatives in the former Yugoslavia, Northern Ireland, and Israel had either failed, or remained in nascent, unstable phases. Moreover, they did not directly impact the daily lives of most Americans, no matter how important they were to certain interest groups.
During John Kerry's run at the presidency, I remembered hearing one of my favorite comedians, Lewis Black, describe the Democrats as the party of no ideas, and the Republicans as the party of bad ideas. This struck me as funny and true (though perhaps not funny because it is true). What makes the Republicans effective is not the power of their good ideas as much as their ability to sell bad ones. But since Democrats by nature do not appeal to things like blind faith, when Democrats don't have good ideas, they don't win elections.
John Kerry was not an unattractive candidate. He was a man of faith, a long-time hunter, and a virile, active, tall, and fairly good-looking man. He was a decorated veteran, a respected member of the senate who had vast experience in dealing with international terrorism, and a man of obvious intelligence, education and erudition. But in many ways, he was also the ultimate facade. In nearly every way, he was almost what you wanted in a candidate. Though tall and somewhat attractive, he was also gawky - perhaps not as gawky as Al Gore, but still not the smooth, lithe athlete. He was a hero and a veteran, but he came home angry at his government, and not proud of his service and awards. Though he was a religious man, and anti-abortion, he was Catholic, and either refuse or was incapable of speaking eloquently about the division in his heart over abortion. He had long experience in the Senate, but he had few legislative achievements, and never even managed to emerge out of the shadow of the senior senator from his state, Teddy Kennedy, prior to running for president. John F. Kerry hoped that he could be John F. Kennedy, but in the end, he was just a cheap imitation. Though he fought well in a difficult Democratic primary, many felt that Hillary Clinton and Howard Dean better expressed the two different visions for the party, and that John Kerry was an Establishment candidate who won a flawed nomination process through traditional methods in Iowa and New Hampshire.
That's not to say that the loss in '04 is to be laid solely at the feet of John Kerry, who was at least a better campaigner and probably a better candidate than Al Gore. Rather, it's to show that John Kerry couldn't win on force of personality alone. That's not surprising. Bill Clinton never won 50% of the electorate, or even as many votes as John Kerry. Rather, it's to say that Democrats needed, and still need, to do two things. First, Democrats must make it acceptable to be a Democrat again. Second, they must have real ideas and a true vision for the future of the country.
Democrats have for too long failed to effectively counter the Republican assault on the word 'liberal'. The results of this assault, and all of the collateral attacks on liberalism that were not solely linguistic, is a United States in which people are uncomfortable identifying themselves as Democrats and liberals. Many self-styled independents or libertarians no longer wish to be associated with the Democratic party because of this utter failure to debunk the myth of the bleeding heart liberal. Many social conservatives have abandoned the party entirely, to the point that it's almost laughable to think that a person could be against gay marriage and still be a Democrat.
The numbers from the 2004 election back this up. Bush won about 84% of all those who identify themselves as conservative, while Kerry won about 85% of those who identified themselves as liberal. Kerry soundly defeated Bush when it came to moderates, who voted 54-45 in favor of John Kerry. The telling statistic? While 34% of the country identified itself as conservative, only 21% of the country identified itself as liberal - a difference of 13%. Kerry's landslide among the moderates is deceptive - it's not that Kerry was so much more appealing to moderates than Bush, it's that a large segment of moderates identified themselves as moderates because liberalism has been poisoned.
Clearly though, the problem goes beyond just labels, presentation, and message management. Democrats need more vision. Right now, the primary values that the Democratic party appears to be defending or championing are the rights to abortion and gay marriage. The party does not have a unified vision for Iraq, for terrorism, or even for the economy. Fiscal discipline remains important to Democrats, but solutions to spiraling health care costs and social security have not been forthcoming from either executive or legislative leadership. Instead, Democratic positions appear to be shaped by opposition to Republican policies.
So which policies should Democrats be pursuing? Here's some statistics to point the way. In 2004, the voters who chose President Bush were those who saw one of the following issues as most important: moral values, taxes, and terrorism. While the moral values voters can safely be considered base right-wing voters, the other issues are not as straightforward. Only 5% of voters identified taxes as their primary concern, and they 57-43 in favor of President Bush. What this statistic tells us is that Republicans did not get a huge boost, electorally speaking, out of the $1 trillion Bush tax cut. While I don't have statistics for this, presumably, that 5% is disproportionately made up of wealthy voters, for whom tax policy has very serious economic implications. Instead, we get to the unsurprising answer. Of 19% of voters who identified terrorism as their primary concern, a whopping 86% voted for George W. Bush. Though John Kerry won all the other categories, including Iraq, education, health care, and the economy, no category was won as decisively as terrorism (not even moral values).
In other words, America told us that it thought John Kerry would be better at dealing with all of the problems that face our nation, from domestic concerns like health care and social security to foreign entanglements such as Iraq. The only problem was that America didn't trust Kerry to fight terrorism. But it's not an 'issue' problem. It's a perception problem. In order to gain America's trust on this key issue, we need to confront not just that issue, but all issues. We need to have a strategy, rather than just a collection of good ideas. We need to fight back hard when Republicans call us names or impugn our patriotism, because America won't believe that Democrats will keep them safe when they have so much trouble standing up for themselves.
And finally, we need to have just a little bit of faith. Most of this country believes in God. Democrats need to remember that believing that God wants America to be great is a good, healthy belief, not one that needs mocking. Democrats need to understand that, particularly in times of trouble, people draw strength from their faith, and from the belief that God cares about them because they, as individuals and as a nation, are unique and special. Unfortunately, Democrats shy away from messages of American particularism, and often look at people of faith as though they only recently came down from the trees. Most Americans do not have the hubris to believe that the only thing which will save us is the power of the good ideas of our elected officials. For Democrats to succeed, they need to learn not how to speak to these people, but how to understand these people. Democrats need to understand that trustworthiness comes from consistency, and leadership is demonstrated through vision and commitment.
The time has come for Democrats to declare a new vision for America, and to strike back at the slander and lies of the Republican machines. We need leadership, we need dedication, and we need ideas. But more than anything else, we need to stop dickering with ourselves and with Republicans over details and specifics. Our policies have already won over this nation, that much is clear. Now we need to show that we have the strength of character and the personal will to lead this country. To do so we need to stand up consistently for our beliefs, attack the Republicans for their disrespect for this country, its ideals, its institutions, and most importantly, its people. We need to demand responsibility from our leaders for their behavior, from the actions of our military abroad, to the rights of citizens at home. And we need be responsible for ourselves as well. If anybody stole an election from us, it's because we didn't lock the front door. If anybody took our rights, it's because we failed to stand guard over them. And if anybody thinks to victimize and shame us again, our vigilance, our integrity, and our commitment to the cause of freedom will stand to defend us.
All statistics are from CNN.
0 comments
A variety of theories have been forwarded to explain the above results. Values was the most popular explanation in the aftermath of the election, at least partially because of flawed polling results released by exit-pollers in the wake of the election. This particular interpretation of the election results was welcomed by the Republicans, and reinforced frequently on Fox News, but after a week or two, real statisticians and professional pollsters came forward with the surprising information that the numbers of voters who identified values as their primary concern in voting had actually declined in 2004 as compared with the last two elections.
Democrats found a number of other reasons besides values to explain the results of the elections. The war in Iraq was a popular explanation for how a polarizing and seemingly vulnerable incumbent won reelection. Another idea was that John Kerry was a flawed candidate, either because of how easily he played into the Northeast liberal stereotype, or because of personal shortcomings in charisma, speech cadence, or human touch. Shortly on the heels of this theory came the wiseacre liberal punditry which exclaimed that Kerry, despite his obvious shortcomings and unenviable affiliation with Massachusetts, still garnered more votes than any other man in history aside from George W. Bush. Clearly, if Kerry fell only a few thousands votes in Ohio short of the presidency, despite facing a well-funded incumbent who was in the midst of waging war, the Democrats must be on the right path, or so the thinking goes.
Understanding the reasons for Kerry's loss is key to the Democrats as they seek a unified overall strategy for dealing with the reform-minded Republicans over the next two years. With another Congressional election looming in 2006, there is not a lot of time to overhaul the Democratic platform, strategy and message.
But it is just not clear which changes need to be made. Republican control of state governments has enabled them to gerrymander effectively throughout the country. Strong feelings about gay marriage, and particularly the use of the word marriage to define gay unions, led to the passing of several gay marriage bans, even in deep blue states. The debacle that was Grey Davis' governance of California, particularly in the state's fleecing by unregulated energy concerns like Enron, opened the door to Republican control of the governor's mansion in the largest, and arguably bluest, state in the union. The fact the Arnold Schwarzenegger is a Republican who rejects many core Republican values highlights the fact that the Republicans have learned how to expand their base around something other than core ideology. For Democrats, none of the above indicates a clear plan for reforming Democratic tactics, overall campaign strategy and structure, or basic principles and policy goals.
In addition to examining the above factors, as well as many others, such as the President Bush's ability to make many Americans feel safe, the desire of many Americans to be a part of something as important as World War II, and so forth, it's critical to understand that these factors are interrelated and often self-stoking.
One of the great failures of the Clinton administration was the loss of control over the legislative branch, beginning in 1994. In his first term, Bill Clinton intended to put a capstone on New Deal legislation with one final massive entitlement program: national health care. The failure to pass this piece of legislation, or anything else of a like scale, robbed the Democrats of any real, lasting achievements in the eight years of Clinton's presidency. Though various important laws were passed, and some parts of Clinton's legislative agenda survived, the the nineties is remembered for Newt Gingrich and the Contract With America then any clean air acts. By the time the 2000 election rolled around, Al Gore had little to run on beyond prosperity. There was no massively successful, highly visible program to run on. The foreign policy initiatives in the former Yugoslavia, Northern Ireland, and Israel had either failed, or remained in nascent, unstable phases. Moreover, they did not directly impact the daily lives of most Americans, no matter how important they were to certain interest groups.
During John Kerry's run at the presidency, I remembered hearing one of my favorite comedians, Lewis Black, describe the Democrats as the party of no ideas, and the Republicans as the party of bad ideas. This struck me as funny and true (though perhaps not funny because it is true). What makes the Republicans effective is not the power of their good ideas as much as their ability to sell bad ones. But since Democrats by nature do not appeal to things like blind faith, when Democrats don't have good ideas, they don't win elections.
John Kerry was not an unattractive candidate. He was a man of faith, a long-time hunter, and a virile, active, tall, and fairly good-looking man. He was a decorated veteran, a respected member of the senate who had vast experience in dealing with international terrorism, and a man of obvious intelligence, education and erudition. But in many ways, he was also the ultimate facade. In nearly every way, he was almost what you wanted in a candidate. Though tall and somewhat attractive, he was also gawky - perhaps not as gawky as Al Gore, but still not the smooth, lithe athlete. He was a hero and a veteran, but he came home angry at his government, and not proud of his service and awards. Though he was a religious man, and anti-abortion, he was Catholic, and either refuse or was incapable of speaking eloquently about the division in his heart over abortion. He had long experience in the Senate, but he had few legislative achievements, and never even managed to emerge out of the shadow of the senior senator from his state, Teddy Kennedy, prior to running for president. John F. Kerry hoped that he could be John F. Kennedy, but in the end, he was just a cheap imitation. Though he fought well in a difficult Democratic primary, many felt that Hillary Clinton and Howard Dean better expressed the two different visions for the party, and that John Kerry was an Establishment candidate who won a flawed nomination process through traditional methods in Iowa and New Hampshire.
That's not to say that the loss in '04 is to be laid solely at the feet of John Kerry, who was at least a better campaigner and probably a better candidate than Al Gore. Rather, it's to show that John Kerry couldn't win on force of personality alone. That's not surprising. Bill Clinton never won 50% of the electorate, or even as many votes as John Kerry. Rather, it's to say that Democrats needed, and still need, to do two things. First, Democrats must make it acceptable to be a Democrat again. Second, they must have real ideas and a true vision for the future of the country.
Democrats have for too long failed to effectively counter the Republican assault on the word 'liberal'. The results of this assault, and all of the collateral attacks on liberalism that were not solely linguistic, is a United States in which people are uncomfortable identifying themselves as Democrats and liberals. Many self-styled independents or libertarians no longer wish to be associated with the Democratic party because of this utter failure to debunk the myth of the bleeding heart liberal. Many social conservatives have abandoned the party entirely, to the point that it's almost laughable to think that a person could be against gay marriage and still be a Democrat.
The numbers from the 2004 election back this up. Bush won about 84% of all those who identify themselves as conservative, while Kerry won about 85% of those who identified themselves as liberal. Kerry soundly defeated Bush when it came to moderates, who voted 54-45 in favor of John Kerry. The telling statistic? While 34% of the country identified itself as conservative, only 21% of the country identified itself as liberal - a difference of 13%. Kerry's landslide among the moderates is deceptive - it's not that Kerry was so much more appealing to moderates than Bush, it's that a large segment of moderates identified themselves as moderates because liberalism has been poisoned.
Clearly though, the problem goes beyond just labels, presentation, and message management. Democrats need more vision. Right now, the primary values that the Democratic party appears to be defending or championing are the rights to abortion and gay marriage. The party does not have a unified vision for Iraq, for terrorism, or even for the economy. Fiscal discipline remains important to Democrats, but solutions to spiraling health care costs and social security have not been forthcoming from either executive or legislative leadership. Instead, Democratic positions appear to be shaped by opposition to Republican policies.
So which policies should Democrats be pursuing? Here's some statistics to point the way. In 2004, the voters who chose President Bush were those who saw one of the following issues as most important: moral values, taxes, and terrorism. While the moral values voters can safely be considered base right-wing voters, the other issues are not as straightforward. Only 5% of voters identified taxes as their primary concern, and they 57-43 in favor of President Bush. What this statistic tells us is that Republicans did not get a huge boost, electorally speaking, out of the $1 trillion Bush tax cut. While I don't have statistics for this, presumably, that 5% is disproportionately made up of wealthy voters, for whom tax policy has very serious economic implications. Instead, we get to the unsurprising answer. Of 19% of voters who identified terrorism as their primary concern, a whopping 86% voted for George W. Bush. Though John Kerry won all the other categories, including Iraq, education, health care, and the economy, no category was won as decisively as terrorism (not even moral values).
In other words, America told us that it thought John Kerry would be better at dealing with all of the problems that face our nation, from domestic concerns like health care and social security to foreign entanglements such as Iraq. The only problem was that America didn't trust Kerry to fight terrorism. But it's not an 'issue' problem. It's a perception problem. In order to gain America's trust on this key issue, we need to confront not just that issue, but all issues. We need to have a strategy, rather than just a collection of good ideas. We need to fight back hard when Republicans call us names or impugn our patriotism, because America won't believe that Democrats will keep them safe when they have so much trouble standing up for themselves.
And finally, we need to have just a little bit of faith. Most of this country believes in God. Democrats need to remember that believing that God wants America to be great is a good, healthy belief, not one that needs mocking. Democrats need to understand that, particularly in times of trouble, people draw strength from their faith, and from the belief that God cares about them because they, as individuals and as a nation, are unique and special. Unfortunately, Democrats shy away from messages of American particularism, and often look at people of faith as though they only recently came down from the trees. Most Americans do not have the hubris to believe that the only thing which will save us is the power of the good ideas of our elected officials. For Democrats to succeed, they need to learn not how to speak to these people, but how to understand these people. Democrats need to understand that trustworthiness comes from consistency, and leadership is demonstrated through vision and commitment.
The time has come for Democrats to declare a new vision for America, and to strike back at the slander and lies of the Republican machines. We need leadership, we need dedication, and we need ideas. But more than anything else, we need to stop dickering with ourselves and with Republicans over details and specifics. Our policies have already won over this nation, that much is clear. Now we need to show that we have the strength of character and the personal will to lead this country. To do so we need to stand up consistently for our beliefs, attack the Republicans for their disrespect for this country, its ideals, its institutions, and most importantly, its people. We need to demand responsibility from our leaders for their behavior, from the actions of our military abroad, to the rights of citizens at home. And we need be responsible for ourselves as well. If anybody stole an election from us, it's because we didn't lock the front door. If anybody took our rights, it's because we failed to stand guard over them. And if anybody thinks to victimize and shame us again, our vigilance, our integrity, and our commitment to the cause of freedom will stand to defend us.
All statistics are from CNN.
Comments:
Post a Comment
