1) Recognize that we are no longer a majority party. In the past few elections, the Democrats have acted as if all they had to do was turn out their voters, and they would win. Given the large and rock-solid evangelical Republican base in many battleground states, there will be as many or more identified Republicans. The recent Democratic strategy of playing not to lose by running out the clock assumes far more Democrats than Republicans. This won't work, because in the battleground states, we don't have a numerical advantage: in Ohio, there were more self-identified Republicans than Democrats.
Psychologically, the Democrats have to be more aggressive and try to gain ground.
If you don't think we're a minority party, consider this: most Democrats are hoping for lower evangelical participation in the next election. Hoping for low voter turnout is precisely what minority parties do. (As an aside, am I the only one who thinks that in 2008, the Republicans will successfully rally their base with school prayer ballot initiatives?) The good news is that when you're a minority (voting, not racial), you don't have much left to lose; you don't have to worry about losing this or that state because the states you do have are Democratic strongholds.
2) Stop complaining about wedge issues and start manufacturing some. This Election Night, you would have thought that we were having a formal national referendum on gay marriage. Does anyone think that the eleven ballot initiatives were spontaneous? Of course not: the Republicans saw an opportunity to fire up their base. By nationalizing the local process, the Republicans were able to inject this issue into the campaign. It's time we do the same, so here are three issues that would be agreeable to most or all Democrats:
i) Stem-cell research. It's amazing how many rank-and-file Democrats came up with this idea independently the day after the election. This has the double whammy effect of blunting and clouding the abortion issue, as well as subtly injecting the notion of nuance. The Democrats should try to get a California-style initiative on the ballot, even in states it won't likely pass. Be clever about it: call it a "Gift of Life" initiative or something.
ii) Real wage initiatives. Put the minimum wage on the ballot. Don't call it a livable or minimum wage (those sound wonky), or a fair wage ("fair" is a wimpy word). Call it a "real" wage. These passed by large majorities in Ohio and Florida. Since we're all but shut out at the national level it's time to embrace federalism.
iii) A Five-Million dollar tax (do not call it this). In states that allow it, put up referenda that create a new income bracket at five million dollars of the highest rate plus 10% (or ten percent if there's no income tax). Not only do we Democrats think it's good policy, but it takes the edge off the "limousine liberal" tag (or helps it turn it into the corporate jet conservative tag).
One thing to note: to make the initiatives work, they have to happen in multiple states at a time (Stem cell research is probably the best initial bet).
3) Fire the current political operatives. The current crop of Democratic political advisors treats the voting public as if they were Pavlov's dogs. The utter disdain for the public is apparent and makes Democrats appear elitist. It would also appear that the primary job qualification of being a Democratic advisor is the ability to remove any sense of passion or commitment from his or her candidate.
Remember when Kerry talked about Christopher Reeves? He had passion. And it was as moving as anything Clinton ever said. Certainly, after years in public life, there must have been issues that Kerry felt passionately about. Can anyone tell me what those issues are?
Fundamentally, the Democratic operative class is unable to speak (or write speeches) about issues with moral certitude. Often, an issue will be either described in wonky terms ("good policy") or invoke families in some half-assed whiny way-and let's not even consider crass cynicism. Let's take the minimum wage. How hard would it be for Democrat to say with conviction, "If you're a single parent with two kids who works 40 hours a week, 50 weeks per years, the government -[dramatic pause]-the American people will make sure that you are not officially poor. There is right and there is wrong. Supporting a real wage is right. It is just. Opposing it is wrong." Not "unfair" or "anti-family", wrong.
Most Democratic politicians seem unable to summon any righteous indignation whatsoever. I think a good deal of this stems from an utter disconnection from and inexperience with religion. They feel uncomfortable with any sort of moralizing. (Clinton actually chewed out some of his speech writers for their unfamiliarity with religious cadence.) If there were ever a Democratic speech writer school, the books of Amos, Isaiah, and Jeremiah should be front and center (I would also add Camus' Resistance, Rebellion, and Death; righteous indignation doesn't have to be doctrinaire).
Consider this: among most Democratic policy makers, moralizing is considered to be a bad and uncouth thing. But aren't morals good things?
The arrogance, alienation and disconnection of the Democratic establishment wouldn't be so bad if they actually delivered. The most frustrating thing is that I don't how to remove or influence the operatives who seem to have more influence than the politicians that they mind: there's no way to vote out the same old stale campaign advisors.
4) Regain the language. From "death taxes" to "tax relief", Democrats are getting clobbered in the language battles. We need to develop our own verbal counter-agitprop. Here's an example: refer to Republican deficits as the "Republican birth tax." Not only will it alarm people-The Republicans want to tax me for having children?"-but it also hammers home the point that your kids will have to pay for these deficits. Then point out that this is wrong and immoral.
Second, depending on the context, always call conservatives either crazed conservatives or corporate jet conservatives (or go for the twofer and call them crazed corporate jet conservatives). Repeat as needed.
Third, don't ever use the word progressive. It sounds pretentious and snooty.
- Respond to the Democratic rank-and-file. There's been a huge amount of thoughtful criticism, particularly on the Internet (that wacky free transmission of ideas). Many rank-and-file Democrats feel isolated from the party leadership, so they've started writing, blogging, and publishing in journals. The Democratic leadership needs to stop being so condescending and start listening to these ideas: it's not as if the leadership is winning elections. If they don't listen, get rid of the leadership.
- Reward those who support the party. While Anybody But Bush can get you close, you need a program to get further. If the Democratic party stopped insulting their base, not only would they get sustained fervency from the core, but they would also gain intellectual coherency (note: I'm not arguing for a shift to the left):
*Democrats support bill after bill after bill that transfers revenue from Democratic areas and programs and sends it to Republican areas and programs. We are the only political organization that rewards its opponents at the expense of its supporters.
*Stop 'Sister Souljah-ing'. Has it ever occurred to anyone that the lower turnout among younger blacks is in part because we (actually the DLC and the rest of the Nattering Nabobs of Ninniness) demonized low-income young African Americans to gain white votes. Do you ever hear Republicans criticizing their core? This is indicative of a larger problem. Think of all the issues the Democrats have run away from: voting rights, civil rights, women's rights, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and environmental protection, just to name a few. That's why I liked Kerry's convention speech, he did not say, "Civil rights? Who us? Nope, you must be thinking of someone else" as so many Democrats have in the past. We should and must be proud of these accomplishments. Then we must argue that we will go further (at the convention, Kerry's "marching" imagery was superb; yet one more potentially powerful way to define the campaign that was fumbled).
7) Get out in front of the tax issue. Democrats have been defined as the party of taxation, and whether we like it or not, we're going to have to confront this. Luckily, Bush's calls for income tax reform give Democrats opportunity to reposition ourselves:
*If it looks like Archer's national sales tax idea will pass, vote against it, but don't filibuster it. Tactically, we can beat them to death with it for years. In the long run, it allows the creation of a new, unencumbered 'means-tested' (don't call it progressive) income tax.
*If it looks like the flat tax is the favored child, get out in front of it by proposing to eliminate all deductions except for charitable contributions, the automatic deduction, and dependents. Keep it revenue neutral, and cut the 15% and 28% rates, and eliminate the alternative minimum tax (it wouldn't be needed). We have a golden opportunity to significantly lower the tax burden for those who support the Democratic party (eliminating "tax expenditures" is also good policy).
8) Figure out how the Democratic party will relate to corporate America. The alienation and anger behind cultural conservatism stems in large part from the dehumanizing effect of corporations run amok. Job loss and the health care crisis are obvious culprits, but the treatment of citizens solely as consumers and units of production is also dehumanizing. We need to clearly state, with examples from everyday life, that treating people, rich and poor alike, as economic units, and not two gay men behind closed doors, is the cause of moral crisis.
When he ran for president, Bill Bradley described the Democratic party as torn between the 900,000 who donate and the 26 million who don't. While more people are able to donate due to online fund raising, the underlying issue remains: how do Democrats relate to corporate America? My impression is that much of the Democratic and Independent vote would like a harder line and rhetoric. I'm not sure I would call this moving to the "left": how far left were William Jennings Bryan and Teddy Roosevelt?
So will these ideas work? I don't know. I do know that it's time for some new ideas.
