There are multiple theories circulating these days among Democrats about why the party, despite favoring policies that have the apparent support of a majority of Americans, continue to lose elections.
Some, like Thomas Frank, argue that the Democrats have abandoned the economic interests of the white working class, and that the white working class has in turn abandoned them. Others, a la Lakoff, believe that our policy preferences are sound but that our sales pitch and marketing prowess - our "framing" of the issues - is lacking. Still others, like Peter Beinart, argue that Democratic policies on domestic issues are favored by the American people but that our positions on national security and foreign policy are not sufficiently hawkish, and "idealistic". Yet others argue that Democrats's cultural liberalism is sabotaging their chances for a national majority, and that they should be open to anti-choice candidates, and disavow their support for same sex marriage. And let us not forget those who are always quick to put out that our candidates are too often charistmatically challenged bores who don't look good on TV.
There is a grain of truth to all of these diagnoses, and more than a grain of truth to some of them. Putting aside for the moment the fact that some of these proposed solutions to the dilemma facing Democrats fly in the face of political realities within the party, and that others fly in the face of wider political realities, and that still others fly in the face of reality realities, what they all share is the underlying belief in the viability of the Democratic Party at the national level - if only Democrats would follow their advice.
But let's be honest.
Between 1968 and 1992, there was a significant exodus of both educated, white collar suburbanites from the Democratic Party, and a significant exodus of white, working class voters from the Democratic Party (defined here as white voters with a high school education, not as voters earning less than the median income in their state). Both of these demographics I believe understood better than not who and what they were voting for, although they did so for mostly different reasons. White collar suburbanites wanted low taxes on the wealthy (in the belief that they too would strike it rich either in their work life or their investments or both), deregulation (for the promise of lower consumer prices), cuts in social spending for the poor, a war on crime, and were happy to sacrifice manufacturing and textiles workers in the war against inflation (again for the promise of cheap tennis shoes, TV sets, and hatchbacks). The white working class on the other hand understood that the Democrats had increasingly little to offer them economically in the age of neoliberalism, and so began to vote for Republicans on the basis of culture issues, from "acid, amnesty, and abortion" to "God, guns, and gays." Both of these demographics I believe also began to embrace the GOP after the war in Vietnam in the hope that Republicans (who by then had become the more nationalist party) would assuage the sense of shame and humiliation that many Americans felt about losing that war. Reagan gave them national pride - however perverse - in spades.
Fast forward to 1992. The bouyant and charismatic Clinton promised to be a new kind of Democrat, fiscally conservative, in favor of deregulation, and "free trade," and tough on crime. And because the cold war was over Mr. Clinton did not have to pass the national security test. The more socially moderate inner suburbs - especially - warmed to him, and Democrats began to make advances again among the white collar middle class, from IT professionals to sales executives. And although Democrats have continued to lag among the white, working class since 1992 their gains among white collar suburbanites have been sufficient to make them a 48% party - even in the age of Islamist terrorism.
It is clear today to anyone paying attention that the Bush administration is imploding, that the bloody and anarchic situation on the ground in Iraq does not lend itself to easy solutions, and that Republican domestic policies are broadly unpopular with the American people. As others have noted, there is a widespread sense in this country that we are in a number of ways truly on the precipice, and that the political and economic elites have abnegated their responsibilites, and practically abandoned this country. This is not 1989 or 1997. It is not I believe even 1977. It is more like the late 1920s or early 1930s.
The threat of further catastrophic terrorist attacks on American soil, the threat of some kind of global economic collapse, and the potential threat of both diminishing oil reserves and global warming are real, and possibly catastrophic. I believe quite srongly we are facing the most difficult period in American history since the great depression and the second world war, although the themes and realities of this crisis are still emerging, and different from the last one.
So far, neither party has displayed the kind of grown up leadership that will be needed to shepherd us through this period. Neither party has put forth the kind of broad, sweeping program of political and economic reform at home and abroad that will be needed. The GOP has treated this time rhetorically as a moment of crisis, but continued to govern in the interest of their largest donors, and most vocal minorities, rather than in the national interest. And I have heard little indication from Democrats that they comprehend the scope of the challenges facing this country, and the need for truly visionary change. The yearning for a "return to normal" seems to be fading among Democrats, but that broad, transformative vision is nowhere in sight. And the hour is getting late.
What concerns me is less that the center is falling out, but that a new, more opressive center will emerge. Whether we like it or not, only about 20% (depending on the poll) of Americans identify as liberals, and to be frank the broad center of the electorate simply does not share my progressive values on any number of issues. Pandering to the hard right, as the Bush Republicans have done, has been a disaster for this country, but pandering to the suburban center of the electorate is in my mind only slightly less bad.
I have little idea which party will lead the next American revival, and perhaps give us the next FDR or Lincoln (the challenges facing us are certainly on the same order as the ones they faced). But I have a strong suspicion that the solution to the coming fiscal meltdown our elites choose for us will involve the privatization (as in corporatization) of entitlements and pensions and the middle class will not object. I have a strong suspicion that the solution to the coming energy crisis will involve the widespread use of nuclear power and the middle class will not object. I have a strong suspicion that in an age of ongoing terror threats (there will be others after al Qaeda) the surveillance state will only grow stronger, our right to privacy will only grow weaker, and the middle class will not object. I have a strong suspicion that as the last remnants of social cohesion evaporate any hope of rolling back the prison state will evaporate with them and the middle class will not object. I have a strong suspicion that as socialism falls further and further into the rear view mirror the corporatization of government services will only increase, and the middle class will not object. I have a strong suspicion that even in solidly blue states we will see rollbacks of abortion rights (especially for teenage girls), and the suburban middle class will not object.
There is a lot of talk in these parts about a fifty state strategy, but I see little evidence that Democrats would not be compelled to pander to the tyranny of suburban centrism should they become the national majority party - just as they did in the 90s - and this progressive has lost all patience with the notion of converting others to my point of view. Even a majority of people with undergraduate degrees "brainwashed" by those roving bands of radical professors vote Republican. I simply want to live in a place where policy on all fronts - economic, fiscal, social, criminal justice, and foreign - reflects my values. I see little hope for a progressive majority nationally in my lifetime, and I'm tired of waiting. I've been a good, quiet, cynical moderate, tolerating even some of the most insane economic, foreign, social, and criminal justice policies. But I've had enough, of corporate hacks, imperialist thugs, and as Ms. Mary-Louise Parker in Showtime's "Weeds" put it "Christian bitches". I'm tired of having the policies that govern my day-to-day life determined by the irrational fears and selfish desires of the suburbs. What I want to see during the coming crisis is a migration of red and purple state progressives to solidly blue states (or at least the migration of enough progressives to an already blue state to guarantee an overwhelming progressive majority), a dramatic reduction in the power and responsibilites of the federal government, and the radical devolution of power to states and localities. I want to live outside the corporate, imperial system, however difficult that may be. And I know I am not alone.