Tuesday, December 28, 2004
Rebirth Day
Distance brings perspective, and it's clear now, eight weeks after the election, that John Kerry's biggest asset as a presidential candidate was that he wasn't George W. Bush. That was more important than being a war hero, or being a veteran senator, or being tough on terrorists. And because of that, just about any Democrat, except maybe Al Sharpton or Barbra Streisand, would probably have done about as well.
There's a plausible argument that progressives are somewhat better off in the long run thanks to Kerry's defeat. "Anybody But Bush" would have at least stopped the bleeding in 2004, but it would also have fed the illusion that the Democrat status quo was still OK. Lots of thinking Democrats knew long ago that it wasn't, but if we'd become consumed with the day-to-day battles of running the country, the party's necessary rebirth would likely have been postponed.
Even if you've dipped into lefty journalism and blogs only a little since November 2, you've been exposed to many opinions about how best to remake the party. One thing is pretty sure: What we believe in is not really the problem. Poll after poll shows that large majorities of the electorate are with us on Social Security, the environment, and other key issues. So if there's nothing wrong with what we stand for, the kind of sellout on abortion that some Democratic Party leaders are floating is exactly the wrong way to begin a transformation. Congressman Tim Roemer, reportedly urged to seek the DNC chairmanship by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, thinks the party should become more "tolerant" of pro-lifers, by promoting adoption and supporting parental notification laws and late-term abortion bans. The first idea ain't bad, and it fits quite consistently with Bill Clinton's line about keeping abortion "safe, legal, and rare." The other two are problematical, however. They're likely to keep alive the kind of fault lines that already make the Democratic Party a marriage of convenience between dissimilar groups. For every swing voter they attract, they could just as easily cause an abortion-rights supporter to defect to a third party or stay home. And as evidence of what other political strategies party leaders might have in mind, it doesn't make me too optimistic. Roemer's gambit sounds like another exercise in swing-voter-peeling, the same dishwater that's turned the Democratic Party into a punching bag for the Repugs. It presumes that the Democratic coalition--a dysfunctional family if ever there was one--is OK, and that it needs only some fiddling at the margins to be a winner again.
In the January/February 2005 issue of Mother Jones, Todd Gitlin writes about the fusion of movement and machine necessary to revitalize today's left and turn it into a credible force around which people can rally. What Gitlin argues for (and what Michael Kazin seconds in another Mother Jones article) is a change in the way we think about our side as a political force. It would involve employing the same sort of grassroots strategy the Repugs have used so well over the last 20 years. It would involve enlisting the same ground troops who fought against Bush in 2004 to fight for progressive causes in years to come--if we want to stop being the people who win elections only by default (when the Republicans run ineptly), and start winning on the demonstrable merits of our case.
Distance brings perspective, and it's clear now, eight weeks after the election, that John Kerry's biggest asset as a presidential candidate was that he wasn't George W. Bush. That was more important than being a war hero, or being a veteran senator, or being tough on terrorists. And because of that, just about any Democrat, except maybe Al Sharpton or Barbra Streisand, would probably have done about as well.
There's a plausible argument that progressives are somewhat better off in the long run thanks to Kerry's defeat. "Anybody But Bush" would have at least stopped the bleeding in 2004, but it would also have fed the illusion that the Democrat status quo was still OK. Lots of thinking Democrats knew long ago that it wasn't, but if we'd become consumed with the day-to-day battles of running the country, the party's necessary rebirth would likely have been postponed.
Even if you've dipped into lefty journalism and blogs only a little since November 2, you've been exposed to many opinions about how best to remake the party. One thing is pretty sure: What we believe in is not really the problem. Poll after poll shows that large majorities of the electorate are with us on Social Security, the environment, and other key issues. So if there's nothing wrong with what we stand for, the kind of sellout on abortion that some Democratic Party leaders are floating is exactly the wrong way to begin a transformation. Congressman Tim Roemer, reportedly urged to seek the DNC chairmanship by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, thinks the party should become more "tolerant" of pro-lifers, by promoting adoption and supporting parental notification laws and late-term abortion bans. The first idea ain't bad, and it fits quite consistently with Bill Clinton's line about keeping abortion "safe, legal, and rare." The other two are problematical, however. They're likely to keep alive the kind of fault lines that already make the Democratic Party a marriage of convenience between dissimilar groups. For every swing voter they attract, they could just as easily cause an abortion-rights supporter to defect to a third party or stay home. And as evidence of what other political strategies party leaders might have in mind, it doesn't make me too optimistic. Roemer's gambit sounds like another exercise in swing-voter-peeling, the same dishwater that's turned the Democratic Party into a punching bag for the Repugs. It presumes that the Democratic coalition--a dysfunctional family if ever there was one--is OK, and that it needs only some fiddling at the margins to be a winner again.
In the January/February 2005 issue of Mother Jones, Todd Gitlin writes about the fusion of movement and machine necessary to revitalize today's left and turn it into a credible force around which people can rally. What Gitlin argues for (and what Michael Kazin seconds in another Mother Jones article) is a change in the way we think about our side as a political force. It would involve employing the same sort of grassroots strategy the Repugs have used so well over the last 20 years. It would involve enlisting the same ground troops who fought against Bush in 2004 to fight for progressive causes in years to come--if we want to stop being the people who win elections only by default (when the Republicans run ineptly), and start winning on the demonstrable merits of our case.
