Remember November 3, 2004?
I do. I remember the all the ups and downs of Bush vs. Kerry, the first time I really became engaged in the political process beyond just voting. I remember Zell Miller screaming at Chris Matthews. I remember the “we’re doomed” days of early- and mid-September when the polls looked dire and the “I think we’re actually going to win” high points after the first debate. I remember many a cold day and night in New Hampshire knocking on doors. I remember the leaked exit polls on the day of the vote while my friends and I were out waving signs and canvassing for last-minute votes, the initial optimism, then the increasing evidence that Kerry’s numbers weren’t coming through the way we expected, and finally the realization that, for all our hope and hard work, we’d been beaten.
But here’s one other thing I remember: in the aftermath, it seemed that the road back to power for Democrats might be a long one, that while we had a solid base, we appeared stuck somewhere in the 47-48 percent range — not enough to win most elections or gain a meaningful seat at the table without flukes like Jim Jeffords switching parties. The soul-searching commenced then as it did now, and we wondered why our message wasn’t breaking through where we thought it should. Were people who we thought would reject Bush’s ideological governing style still just fixated on the idea that we’d raise their taxes? Did we still seem too much like out-of-touch elitists to the Reagan Democrats who might otherwise support our economic agenda? Did people just not trust us to defend the country from terrorism with 9/11 and Iraq prominent in people’s minds? All worthwhile questions, and ones that we figured we needed to answer in order to build a movement and a party capable of winning the trust of a majority of Americans.
Then something a bit unexpected happened: the Bush Republicans began to self-destruct in fairly rapid fashion. Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans and the government’s response was shockingly inept. Iraq descended into chaos with no clear end in sight. Harriet Miers was nominated for SCOTUS and bowed out partly because Bush’s own party didn’t seem ready to support her. Somehow, what seemed like a formidable political juggernaut had turned into the gang that couldn’t shoot straight. Democrats hadn’t really developed much consensus over those lingering questions about their party’s direction and message, but at the time it didn’t seem to make much difference. People were fed up with the Bush administration’s failures and flocked to the available alternative in the midterms. Things mostly continued on a downhill slide for the GOP after that, culminating in the economic crash of 2008. Meanwhile, a political wunderkind named Barack Obama appeared on the scene, speaking in a way that seemed to connect with our better angels and promising something new in politics. Youth and minority turnout soared, the Republican brand became toxic, and Democrats won a sweeping victory in 2008.
But what was it a sweeping victory for, exactly? The persona and stature of Barack Obama? Democratic promises to fix the economic destruction of the Bush era? Increasing acceptance of diversity? Ending the Iraq War and a more restrained foreign policy? I’m not sure we really knew — enough external events had shaped the last few years that all we could really be sure of was that a majority of Americans liked Obama a lot more than they liked the Republicans at the time. Meanwhile, the Republicans, rather than trying to fight the Democrats for the political center, broke into one faction of kooks, crackpots, and obstructionists, and another faction of people who were somewhat pragmatic but felt that they needed to accommodate the kooks, crackpots, and obstructionists. The kooks, crackpots, and obstructionists were great at firing up midterm base turnout after the inevitable disappointments of a President’s first two years, but they didn’t convince a majority of Americans that they should actually be governing the country. Mitt Romney, who hailed from the “accommodate the kooks, crackpots, and obstructionists” faction, was too easily painted as a distant plutocrat and never articulated a particularly convincing argument that we should fire Obama or hire him.
Unfortunately, I think too many Democrats thought they’d hit on a permanent winning formula whereby “demographics” would deliver them one win after another, at least in presidential years. But we still hadn’t answered those questions from 2004. Maybe we thought we didn’t need to because that “emerging Democratic majority” had finally emerged. Maybe we just sort of forgot about them while dealing with government shutdowns, Healthcare.gov, SCOTUS obstructionism, and all the other political drama of the past few years. But the political dynamics and trends that handed John Kerry a defeat hadn’t gone away. Earlier this year, a writer at Vox speculated that, if the Clinton and Trump factions remained ascendant within their respective parties, we could be heading towards a new political divide between the “cosmopolitan urban business liberalism” of the Democrats and the “rural nationalist populism” of the Republicans. Perhaps part of what we just saw is that, in the minds of a small but significant faction of previous Obama voters, that change has already happened, and that when push came to shove, they’d stay home or reluctantly side with rural nationalist populism in the absence of a clear reason to do otherwise (such as the failures of the Bush GOP, Obama’s persona and credibility as an agent of change, or Romney’s relative weakness as an alternative).
Now, a disclaimer: Yes, Donald Trump should have been disqualified by national consensus a long time ago for his bigotry and misogyny, his failings of character, his disinterest in the actual details of governing, and his disrespect for the basic norms of how to behave in a democracy. And yes, Hillary Clinton was subjected to a disgraceful amount of personal abuse and sexism, phony “scandals” of zero relevance to her qualifications to be President, lazy media coverage, and what sounds like firing-level misconduct by at least a few people within the FBI. To make a long story short, the political system in this country has really become pretty dysfunctional and labyrinthine (which I’m thinking about tackling in another diary) and the media get a big F-minus for their part. But it’s what we have, and if we want to make meaningful change, we need to find ways to win elections within these parameters.
My own thoughts? In a nutshell, Democrats need to engage with rural and working-class populism while working to remove or undercut the “nationalist” part and with it any racist undertones. Speak the language of communitarianism, of shared sacrifice and responsibility and not just individual empowerment. (On a personal note, even though I almost always vote Democratic and cast what I considered a symbolic vote for Bernie in the primary, I don’t really consider myself a “liberal” so much as a social democrat with a tinge of what Canadians might call Red Toryism, and I do depart from Democratic orthodoxy on a few of the social issues. While I may not exactly fit the profile of a swing voter or a Reagan Democrat, I think I can speak from the perspective of someone who wouldn’t naturally gravitate towards “cosmopolitan urban business liberalism.”)
“You just want to take my tax money and give it to welfare cheats”? Well, no — we want everyone to contribute to the common good of the community so that there’s a safety net for people who fall on hard times. And the ones who should contribute the most are the ones who have gained the most from the system as it exists (i.e. the 1%).
“You’re killing our town with all these regulations and trade deals”? Well, here’s how we’ll help you rebuild alongside the people you’ve known and trusted all your life, and we’ll help you do it here, not in a megalopolis 200 miles away. And yes, we'll stop signing up for trade deals that don’t actually benefit the working and middle classes both here and in the countries that are our prospective trading partners.
“You’re elitists who think we’re all racists and bigots”? No, we don’t think that (and we need to mean it when we say that no, we don’t think that), but please understand that a great many minorities are terrified of what’s about to happen under President Trump, and they need our support and solidarity right now. If you did vote Republican, please make clear to your elected officials what you expect of them and what you don’t, and that part of what you don’t expect is widespread intimidation and brutality towards minorities.
“America first”? That day has passed if it ever existed, and all of us will be better off if we find a way to make this civilization work. We’re specks on a pale blue dot in a vast universe, and it’s the only home any of us have. Spend our time fighting over it and we all lose.
Most importantly, Democrats need to actually deliver on this and not just talk about it, or at least put up one huge public fight if the GOP obstruct it. Most voters probably don’t sit down and scrutinize economic policies, but they know the difference between something changing and nothing changing.
Finally, Democrats should keep an open mind, hear people out, and look for new areas of common ground. If there’s one thing I’ve learned about politics, from all the canvassing and phone-banking I’ve done over the years as well as my own personal life, it’s that people develop their political views and make decisions on how to vote for all kinds of reasons that you wouldn’t necessarily predict or expect. Sometimes they may confuse and confound us, but they are what they are. Obviously, there are some people who are just intractable racists or bigots. But there are others who have their own unique reasons for supporting Trump, and changing their minds and bringing them into the Democratic tent may be critical to the party’s strategy.
None of this is to minimize the task of defending all those who stand to suffer under a Trump Presidency and a Republican Congress. But the party may also be stronger, more effective, and indeed more inclusive if it can complete the reckoning that remains undone from 2004.
