Decisions, when made in good faith, lead to action. Actions have consequences. Before people decide the Democratic party needs to change direction dramatically, the final consequences of such change need to be considered.
And before I continue, I want to make a statement on values. Any Democratic party that becomes more obsessed with winning while losing sight of doing what is right and making a place at the table for those, all of those, who are harmed by the actions of the GOP, is a party that I will once again lose interest in. The values thing, first and foremost, is about standing by your convictions and explaining them to the electorate. The Democratic Party MUST stand up for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for every American citizen and continue to let the USA shine as a beacon to those coming from other countries to seek freedom and opportunity.
Okay, I will continue my rand thoughts about the title concernes below the fold or the jump or whatever we want to call it.
At the risk of insulting some people by oversimplifying their views, I have distilled five main themes being bandied about as to how the Democrat party needs to change (or not change). I see positives and negatives to each.
I. Move to the Center Strategically / Triangulate.
+: Gains the middle. Might help win VA, NC, MO, AR, FL. It is a very likely way to win the white house in 2008, depending on who the GOP puts forth. Makes it easy to get big money and big endorsements because it makes Dems "safe".
-: Turns off a big part of the base. Drives down turnout. Makes it hard to organize at the grass roots level and build a party that has it's own "values" and themes. Personally, it may move me back to the Green column. As far as actual damage to house or senate possibilities, it's hard to predict, but I suspect that states with strong left-of-base constituentcies but narrow margins of victory for Dems (OR, WA, MN, WI) could see thrid party spoiler action.
II. Move to the Center on Socio-economic Policy (trade, taxes, social services), but Hold Firm or Increase Commitment to Civil Liberties, Internationalism and Process Reform.
+: Strengthens appeal among moderate Independents and ex-GOPers (or the few remaining GOPers moderates), helps solidify Washington State, New England states, Philly suburbs. Makes inroads among white suburbanites in upper midwest swing states. May be the key to swinging Colorado & Arizona by bringing in small-l libetarianesque moderates. Might help with Florida, too.
-: Does not excite the traditional base. May alienate the urban working class in the big north-central & rust belt swing states, putting Ohio out of reach and endandering Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.
III. Regionalize on Culture War Issues, Adopt Strong Populist Themes Nationally.
+: Helps to regain some of the natural working class constituency where the GOP has made inroads (though the working class does still vote over 50% Dem, they do less so than 5 or 15 years ago). Could bring back OH, IA, MO and AR, while making us competetive in NC and, with demographic trends, Georgia. Strengthens our lead in MI, WI & MN.
-: May alienate "new left" and cultural vanguard activists who cannot tolerate anti-marriage or anti-choice candidates being in the party, even in some small far away state where pro-choice or pro-marriage (or even pro-civilunion) candidates can't win. Although I show my hand here, I am concerned that there are many in the base who provide money and energy that can't stand for regional gradualism. Hurts our chances to take AZ or CO, unless we can really use this to gain a hold on the Latino vote.
IV. Step Firmly to the Left and Diminish the Role of (or even purge) the Centrists.
+: Energizes the base. Makes the mushy middle respect the Dems more. Shifts the national dialog and makes room for POVs that are currently marginalized (like my views on foreign policy ). Planted firmly on values and speaking truth to power, this strategy gives cover to activists and organizers on the ground to energize those discouraged cynics who still believe there is no diff between Rs and Ds.
-: Puts the presidency out of reach for at least one or two cycles by temporarily ceding WI, MI, OH, PA and maybe OR and NH. Hurts our chances for state power in the red states. May open the door for a new centrist party made of DLCers who flee the Dems and northerners leaving the hard right southern-fried GOP. Too many questions as to whether this could ever be a good thing.
V. Improve Marketing, While Maintaining Essentially the Current Policy and Ideological Themes.
+: Less soul searching and adaptation. Probably holds ground and makes it possible to be competetive in 2006 and 2008 in the swing states that were lost.
-: Ignores the fact that there is a values problem in the Dem party even if it's not the one the pundits think it is. For over 15 years, there has been no moral center to the party. People know when they are being marketed to unless it's done really really well.
Along with all of this geography, there are also questions of race and class and shifting demographics.
A few other things to consider:
1. The Black "remigration".
Many African American, especially those with college educations, are moving from the old industrial cities of the north to Atlanta, Charlotte, Orlando and to a lesser degree Raleigh, Nashville and Memphis. If they bring the political values of the northern, urban, black communities (i.e. Detroit, Cleveland, Chicago, Milwaukee) we could see a much more fertile ground for not just centrist, but progressive Dems in the south. Georgia, in particualr, may start to really surprise people. Atlanta is already a hotbed of multiculturalism and progressive attitudes. Watch it spread.
- The Latino immigration and population growth and spread. This is a big question mark for me. Latino voters in different regions behave very differnetly. Perhaps we should seperate out each point of origin, but I've been told that in many ways, the Latino communities homogonize somewhat in the US unless they are in areas where one point of origin is very dominant (ie. Cubans in southern Florida). Nonetheless, even if not as relibly Democratic as black voters, Latino voters lean Dem and are growing in number in every region. Regionalized populism may create some party loyalty that carries over to more uniformly liberal andidates at the top of the ticket. IN my experinces (long ago) living and travelling south of the border, it seemed party loyatly is a bigger part of personal identity in Latino cultures than in Anglo cultures. Once again, this may be changing either with time or with geographic relocation.
- Changes in workers rights, benefits and pay structure are proletarianizing the lower middle class and creating a more distinct working class. As Ben P has wisely touched on, the resurgence of unions, especially the excellent SEIU, could be the future of not only a better life for this growing army of lower wage workers, but also a politicized Dem union base. Watch for more on the role of the SEIU in the future.
So ... there are some random thoughts triggered by seeing a bunch of maps this morning.
I certainly have my biases regarding strategy, but here's my real bias:
Bottom up over top down.
Any national stratey must be organic and responsive to what is going on at the ground level. We need to reach out into our communities and organize and persuade people. We need to win at the local level.
Another final point. We need a big tent, but I acknowledge that there are both practical and moral limits to the size of that tent. A party that stand for everytihng stands for nothing.
Your thoughts?