Where do the Democrats go from here?

The Democrats now need a liberal version of Barry Goldwater, says veteran political observer and author Jules Siegel

Where do the Democrats go from here?

By Jules Siegel

762 words

The Democratic midterm election disaster has the pundits either gloating or weeping angrily, depending on their political persuasion. There's also some heavy-duty strategic analysis about why it happened and what should be done about it.

The best article I've seen so far on the topic is New York Times columnist Frank Rich's
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/09/opinion/09RICH.html">"We're Not in Florida Anymore". It's a bit lengthy and deserves reading in full, so I'm only going to quote one paragraph:

"The Democrats are farcically - or, if you choose, tragically - even more mired in the past than the press is. Terry McAuliffe has been fond of saying that defeating Jeb Bush was his top priority this year. The notion that avenging 2000 could be more important than, say, holding onto the Senate into 2004 is so nonsensical that only a party chairman cryogenically entombed in the Clinton-Gore fin de siècle could say it with a straight face."

As good as it is, the column does not do much more than analyze how the Democrats failed. It does not really offer any new directions. In that sense, Frank Rich is caught in the same dilemma as the people he criticizes so well. Yes, we know that the Democrats failed to present a plan. Well, what is the plan going to be now? If Bush & Co. manage to stabilize the economy, and either avoid war or win quick against Iraq, 2004 looks very grim for the Democrats. So that means looking ahead to 2008.

If Americans accept Jeb Bush after the two Georges, perhaps it would just be best to formally recognize the Bush family as a monarchal dynasty and give up on democracy at the national level. Why bother with elections at all, when so few seem to be interested enough in them to actually vote, anyway?

To me, that's the first issue to deal with. Democrats and Republicans are both competing for the same core group of voters. The typical voter is characterized by a higher income level than those who don't vote. I don't mean rich against poor, but across the board. Even at the poverty level someone who has a telephone is more likely to vote than someone who doesn't. A property owner is probably more likely to vote than a renter. And, as we know, people with property tend to be more conservative than those without.

Property and prosperity aside, People who have a strong interest in any given issue will be more likely to vote than those who don't. Finally, those who feel their vote will make a difference are more likely to vote than those who don't.

Therefore:

[1] The Democratic Party has to find its votes mainly among people who are not now voting, not by hoping to convert Republicans.

Voters who call themselves Independent seem to me to be Republicans who are embarrassed by some of the party's more uncomfortable positions, but nonetheless basically center right. I don't see a lot of votes for the Democrats among them.

[2] Democrats will have to concentrate first on getting out the vote in a general sense, because it seems very likely that a larger turn-out will benefit them more than the Republicans.

Getting out the vote is a lot less complicated than any other political strategy because it depends mainly on logistics rather than issues. I realize that this is a gross simplification, but anyone with on-the-ground political operations experience will understand what I mean.

[3] Democrats must identify the issues that non-voters care about intensely and develop strategies to dramatize these issues in a way that will not damage their existing base.

This is one area in which Clinton was especially brilliant. He used polling methods not only to determine which way the wind was blowing, but how to state the case for his positions most effectively.

Despite my rather pessimistic tone, I feel very strongly that there's a lot of hope for the Democrats. The general very outspoken despair about the current defeat is a good sign, because it means that people care. The defeat also may have discredited the get-along-to-get-ahead strategies that I feel led to this disaster. Conventional wisdom has been shown to be merely conventional.

The Democrats now need a liberal version of Barry Goldwater. In that sense, maybe Nancy Pelosi is not the Democratic Jonah that Republicans are chortling about. I can remember when Goldwater was ridiculed. But he recreated the Republican Party. It took a while for his philosophy and methods to produce results. How does he look now?

JULES SIEGEL worked simultaneously in the Nixon and JFK campaigns in 1960. Since then his writings have appeared in the Village Voice, Playboy, Best American Short Stories, The Library of America and many other publications.