MORE POST-ELECTION THOUGHTS


So I've read the various analyses of why the Dems lost this election, especially the fascinating selection from Slate. The problem as I see it is that there there were two losses last Tuesday: First, John Kerry's narrow loss to Bush in the Presidential election; and second, the disastrous performance of the Democrats in Congress. As a result, the Democratic party and political liberalism is from the perspective of power and influence at its lowest ebb since before FDR.


Depending upon what you foucs on - the relative parity in popularity between the two parties, or the massive gap in power, of course leads to quite different assessments as to the seriousness of the Dems problem and how radical the solution is required.


Because of the nation's rough ideological parity, the closeness of the last two presidential elections was not a mirage. This suggests that to win next time around it will simply be enough to field a candidate that can 1) relate to cultural conservatives (as opposed to the cultural reactionaries who would cast their ballot solely on the basis of gay marriage), 2) articulate an alternate national security vision (opposing wars you think are stupid and singing the praises of multilateralism doesn't count) and 3) run a better campaign with consistent themes and sharper messages.


On the other hand, the depths of the Democrats powerlessness in the absence of holding the White House suggests that a more radical fix is necessary. Part of the Dems problem is simply due to larger structural phenomena. Majoritarianism in increasy unchecked in the Congress due to computer-modeled gerrymandering and the ideological homegenization of the parties. The Dems 49$ of the vote translates into 45% of the Senate and 46% of the House. While 45% of the Senate can still hold its relative weight (for now, but watch out for GOP moves to disable the fillibuster break, especially with respect to judicial appointments), 46% of the House now attributes for about 5% of the power in a Tom Delay led GOP Congress. And in contrast to how close the Dems are to regaining the White House, the prospects for regaining either house of Congress in the near term don't look particuarly good.


First of all, the undemocratic nature of the Senate forces the disproportionately metropolitan Dem party to fight uphill. A rough cut of the nation from this past election puts us at 25 states which Bush carried easily (to be unoriginal, lets call them "Red" states) arrayed throughout the South, Plains and West, 13 states won cleanly by Kerry (the beleaguered "Blue" states) clustered on the coasts, and the 12 swing states that until the last minute could have broken either way (those finicky "Purple" states). Thus, it is very possible for the Democrats to gather support from a clear majority of the country and barely prevent a filibuster-proof GOP majority. The fact that the Dems are now at 45 is actually testament that Democrats can win in Red America. There are currently Democratic senators from Montana, Nebraska and Louisana, and 2 Democratic Senators from North Dakota, Arkansas and West Virginia. (In contrast, the GOP has only the three anachronistic New England moderates in Blue states). And until the next census and redistricting, the Dems will be fighting an uphill battle in the House as well, due to their failures at the state level.


Which lends itself naturally to what the core problem is - the Dems are losing worst at two critical levels, both at the most mundane, concrete level in terms of local and state grassroots networks, and the opposite end - in the battle of overaching vision. (What the Dems are doing perfectly fine at is developing concrete policy proposals that consistently outscore the GOP alternatives in blind taste tests) On the ground, the Dems need to do what the GOP did 20 years ago by tapping into the religious right - develop a core grass-roots organizations that will fight the critical, less glamorous fights for school board and state legislature. It is simply not enough to rely on the declining strength of organized labor (much of which is increasingly concentrated in the public sector, where it more often than not does more harm than good to progressive policies) and episodic get out the vote campaigns. In the clouds, the Dems need to settle on a set of core principals with which to combat the GOP's clearly articulated vision of "economic liberty" (tax cuts for the rich, hand-outs to big corporations, and abdication of governmental responsibity for socio-economic problems) and "public morality" (expressed through gay-baiting and the imposition of radical theological constraints on medical research). This will facilitate the Dems ability to frame debates such that their criticism of GOP policies resonates rather than alienates mainstream voters.


These are the steps that need to be taken now, so that by 2006, when mainstream America goes to the polls uncomfortable with where an unfettered Bush administration is taking the country, they will feel comfortable turning to the Democrats as a leigitimate counter-balance. Once that happens, we are well on the way to this election being anything but the epochal landslide that depressed Dems and shameless Republicans are presenting it as.