The most intelligent comment from the recent Al v. Joe tiff comes from the L.A. Times Ron Brownstein, saying more in two paragraphs than Howard Kurtz says in the rest of his article citing him.
"While the two men are arguing over whether Gore's 'people versus the powerful' populism is the right economic message for the party, much evidence indicates that cultural attitudes had a larger effect on the 2000 election – and could present a more formidable hurdle for Democrats in 2002 as well.
"Indeed, exit polling from the 2000 campaign suggests that Gore's populist appeal neither attracted the working-class voters it targeted nor repelled the more affluent voters that critics believe it alienated. More dramatic was the party's decline in 2000 among culturally conservative rural voters, who will likely prove a decisive group again in many of the most competitive Senate and House races this fall. . . .
Two thoughts come to mind. First, in the effort to win over rural voters, Dems are effectively swimming upstream. No amount of economic populist rhetoric is going to put the Humpty Dumpty New Deal coalition back together again. Instead, as Judis & Teixeira 's brilliant article in the New Republic explains, the emerging Democratic majority is metropolitan and cosmopolitan. Middle-class Latinos, working women and professionals are the Dems major growth demographics. Nor does the recent wave of corporate fraud change this dynamic one bit. The investor class that has been hammered by neo-laissez-faire policies is concentrated in the blue/Gore states. Those who are clinging to the Shrummian dream of stoking the populist fires should read David Brooks blithe, but incisive Atlantic piece exploring the differences between the Blue and the Red states. The denizens of Red America don't feel poor, because they live in an environment that is far more homogeneous in what people earn and consume. On the other hand, residents of Blue America see first-hand the yawning gaps between the luxurious life of uber-rich and even gainfully employed middle class.
The second thought is that after 9/11 foreign policy has re-emerged as a central issue in American politics - and with some exception, it tends to act more like a cultural issue than a economic one. Reagan's hawkish stance was a major draw among working class Reagan Democrats. With the Republican embrace of the religious right drawing increasingly marginal returns, one should expect to see the GOP go back to old playbook. Which means, to the extent that the Dems are going to be able to hold their ground in Red America - they can not afford to be portrayed as McGovernite doves.
Which brings us back to the Monday Morning Quarterbacking of Gore's campaign. The Dems need to understand that the failure was not one of policy, but rhetoric. Al Gore's op-ed is correct - the past two years have vindicated his campaign positions on socioeconomic issues. The problem was that Al Gore was campaigning for the 21st century version of Teddy Roosevelt's agenda with William Jenning Bryan's campaign script. There is a significant difference between Bryan-style populism and TR-style progressivism. The Populists wanted to reverse the damage done by the emerging industrial economic order. The Progressives, on the other hand wanted to bring people and institutions up to speed so that they could become full members of the new order. Al Gore made a rather awful Populist, because he has always been a Progressive. If he runs again, he should run as himself next time.
No comments:
Post a Comment