Outside view: Emerging Democrat minority

UPI ^ | 11.24.03 | Horace Cooper

[Registered]

Outside view: Emerging Democrat minority By Horace Cooper A UPI Outside view commentary Published 11/24/2002 1:52 PM

WASHINGTON, Nov. 23 (UPI) -- The Democrats have a real dilemma on their hands in the wake of the November midterm congressional elections. The challenge of repositioning their party so that it is more attractive to the American electorate is a difficult one. But reposition they must or they risk becoming a long-term minority party or -- even worse -- being superseded by a new upstart one.

Many analysts offer pedestrian advice to the Democrats about what they must do to increase their political appeal, including developing a more coherent message; focusing on issues important to main street America; and finding more enthusiastic and photogenic messengers. But the Nov. 5 election results demonstrate that the problem is far more serious and systemic.

The collapse of the Democratic Party's electoral majority was neither necessary nor automatic. But it has happened. And unless that fact is recognized soon this collapse may remain permanent.

Even if the Democratic nominee for president is successful in 2004, a highly unlikely prospect at present, the serious problem of the party's disintegration will likely continue.

According to United Press International, Americans voted for the GOP over the Democrats by a margin of 53 to 47 percent. A telegenic face doesn't easily undo a six-point margin.

This is the political landscape after Nov. 5: Republicans hold a majority of statehouses and a majority of governorships; they are the majority in the U.S. and the House of Representatives. As a result, the GOP has a bench from which to launch new candidates making them a viable party in races across the board.

In contrast, the Democrats find themselves increasingly taking a pass in potentially competitive races by either fielding unqualified candidates or no candidates at all as they did in several Senate and House races this year.

Having every Democrat united on one message is not going to overcome this state of affairs.

Actually it's worse than that. There are places in the country, like Texas and Virginia, where there simply are no serious Democrat challengers left who are undefeated, capable of raising a credible level of funds or likely to command at least 40 percent of the vote in the general election.

In Texas, every statewide office is held by a Republican. In Virginia, Democrats hold only two out of five, and that appears to be the upper limit. To be fair, Democrats appear to have a similar advantage in California. But the advantage is deceiving.

The Republican Party is viable in California. The GOP candidates consistently and regularly break 40 percent, significantly higher at the statewide level. Republican Bill Simon's lackluster gubernatorial bid still came within six points of upsetting incumbent Gov. Gray Davis. Repositioning the party so that it appeals to more than just beneficiaries of the social safety net as some progressives recommend won't negate this type of structural disadvantage.

Consider that among several voting groups, Nov. 5 was a walk through the electoral killing fields for the Democrats. White men nationally gave the GOP a 20-point margin and the trend looks likely to increase rather than contract.

Married women favored the Republicans by 10 points on Election Day. Rural voters in general preferred the GOP by an average of 20 points. And the former Democratic stronghold, the South, voted overwhelmingly against them, expelling several governors and at least one senator from office while handing new legislatures over to the GOP.

There is a serious values gap aiding the GOP and hindering the Democrats. Increasingly a sizeable percentage of the voting public rejects the Democratic party out of hand.

The sense that the party promotes the agendas of elite liberals, caters to minorities at the expense of equality of opportunity and fails to treat national security issues seriously undermines the electoral prospects of the party.

Heading into the 2004 campaign the Democrats face a serious headwind. For the first time in a generation Gallup polls show that the American people have a more favorable view of the GOP than the Democratic Party.

Even as President Ronald Reagan was winning 49 out of 50 states in 1984, he was unable to translate his landslide electoral support to the Republican Party itself. The GOP since then has maintained a favorable rating, meaning more people liked it than disliked it, but the Democratic Party was always more popular with the public because it was perceived as representing the interests of the average person.

That advantage no longer exists. Increasingly the public thinks of the Democrats as the party of special interests. Notwithstanding Ruy Texiera and John B. Judis' thesis that there is an "Emerging Democratic Majority," it appears not to be so unless that majority is undergoing an unusually long gestation period -- say 25 to 50 years. The untold story is how rapidly and how far the Democrats have descended from the heights of political power they once enjoyed. In less than 30 years the party has changed from having a stronghold in every area of the country to now being primarily limited to the two coasts. It has shrunk from being popular in urban and rural areas alike to dominating only in the inner city.

Did the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks that destroyed the World Trade Towers and part of the Pentagon have an impact on this? Perhaps, but it shouldn't be overstated. The trend is the real issue. Does a wartime president like Bush, whose leadership skills shine during a crisis, provide benefits to his party? Certainly, just as a charismatic president like Reagan drew the country towards him and made being a Republican respectable for new demographic groups.

The reality is that the collapse of the Democrats is part of a nearly 40-year-long process. Since 1964 the Democratic Party, while winning the presidency four times, has received more than 50 percent of the vote in a presidential election exactly twice. In 1964 by a wide margin and in 1976, just barely.

The GOP on the other hand has won six times and received an outright majority of votes four times -- in 1972, 1980, 1984, and 1988.

In the 2000 presidential election, Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore won the popular vote while losing in the Electoral College, but he carried fewer than 200 congressional districts, foreshadowing the House Democrats' uphill challenge in their failure to retake the House in 2002.

What does this mean? It is possible for the Democrats to topple a GOP candidate here and there such as in Wyoming, a state Bush won by more than 40 points in 2000 but elected a Democratic governor? But the problem is those elections are anomalies rather than trends. The fact is that the so called "GOP electoral lock" at the presidential level has expanded and now in approximately two-thirds of the country the GOP candidate for state and national office starts out with an advantage that must be overcome by his Democratic rival.

The longer this trend continues the more difficult it will be to reverse. Losing replicates itself. As the backbench is depleted by losses, new challengers come in with less experience and less viability and they lose even more.

Issues such as liberal attacks on the Boy Scouts, support for needle exchange in the inner city, and a reflexive hostility to U.S. military action are part and parcel of the modern Democratic Party.

While these and similar issues are a large cause of the public's alienation with the Democratic Party, reversing course may not be the best option. Critics of the Democratic Leadership Council and other "centrists" within the party rightly charge that if given the choice between the GOP and a Democratic Party posing as a "wannabe" GOP, voters will elect the real GOP every time.

On the other hand, there needs to be a real examination among the party members as to why issues important to core Democrat constituencies prove to be losers nationally. Reversing course on issues like the death penalty and middle class tax relief may help in the short run, as they did for President Bill Clinton in 1992. But, as the Republican triumph in regaining control of the House in 1994 proved, beware the wrath of a scorned public.

The truth is that unless the party can convince the public to change its view on these issues, the decline of the party will continue.

Perhaps the bleakness of the present situation will challenge the Democratic Party sufficiently that it decides to take action now. It's more likely though that the party elders will agree that better polling, TV friendly candidates and other smoke-and-mirror approaches will solve their problems.

Even if these techniques work in the 2004 presidential election they can't sustain the party against this long-term trend. When the GOP has a majority of inner city mayoralties it will be too late.

(Horace Cooper is a senior fellow with the Center for New Black Leadership.)

(Outside View commentaries are written for UPI by outside writers who specialize in issues of public interest.)

[Registered]

Searched and did not find.

[PhiKapMom]

This is a really good article -- thanks for posting!

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

On the other hand, there needs to be a real examination among the party members as to why issues important to core Democrat constituencies prove to be losers nationally.

Bingo!

[eureka!]

FYI. Feel free to megaping John, this one has a lot of meat to chew on...

[BartMan1]

ping

[mewzilla]

(Outside View commentaries are written for UPI by outside writers who specialize in issues of public interest.)

I guess the real question is why UPI would find this article to be in the public's interest?

[Registered]

some flags

[Coop]

Can't read without a smile breaking out. :-)

[eureka!]

Yep. Lots of nice lines, all doom and gloom for the 'rats. The sheeple may be awakening....

[Wright is right!]

"I guess the real question is why UPI would find this article to be in the public's interest?"

It's the "Stopped-Clock-Is-Right-Twice-A-Day" phenom.

Michael

[Prodigal Son]

Issues such as liberal attacks on the Boy Scouts, support for needle exchange in the inner city, and a reflexive hostility to U.S. military action are part and parcel of the modern Democratic Party.

This is going to get 'em every time as long as we have troops fighting.

[wayoverontheright]

The reality is that the collapse of the Democrats is part of a nearly 40-year-long process.

It took that long for the socialists of my generation to infiltrate and proceed to completely remake the party in their Marxist image, culminating with placing one of their own in the White House in 1992.

What's happening now is the result of the exposure of who they REALLY are by the NEW AXIS OF TRUTH, Fox News, talk radio and the internet.

[q_an_a]

from his mouth to God's ear. you can not debase the morals of a country and expect the people to embrace your position.

[Cyber Liberty]

United Press International isn't as bad as Associated Press.

[Better to Be Lucky Than Good]

This article is a year old. The UPI guy has done a more recent update on the same topic. "Emerging Democrat Minority II" http://interestalert.com/brand/siteia.shtml?Story=st/sn/11190000aaa020c2.upi&Sys=siteia&Fid=POLITICS&Type=News&Filter=Politics

[js1138]

Here's a clue: Creating wealth is better than distributing it; creating opportunities is better than "equalizing" them; defending the constitution is better than ignoring it; promoting democracy is better than asserting moral equivalence.

[abner]

Issues such as liberal attacks on the Boy Scouts, support for needle exchange in the inner city, and a reflexive hostility to U.S. military action are part and parcel of the modern Democratic Party.

Repeat.... repeatedly... . repeat again...

[observer5]

"The challenge of repositioning their party so that it is more attractive to the American electorate is a difficult one."

Wonder why??? May be its the constellation of the stars?

[MeekOneGOP]

Thanks ! It is a good article alright !

The 'RATS lost ground in 2002 and must have perceived that as due to not being far enough left. One of their corrective measures was to dump Gephardt for someone farther left. I like that plan ! Keep it up, stupid 'RATS !! ...

Exposed: Pelosi's Socialist Ties

Pelosi leader of 'Progressive Caucus'

From those links, these excerpts ...

"DSA/USA, the 'Democratic Socialists of America' are the U.S. arm of the Socialist International. They share the symbol of the fist holding the rose, and they share the tasks to be accomplished — in our case, an altogether different America ...

"Some time ago — the date is missing from the descriptions — 58 members of the U.S. House of Representatives formed a subdivision of the Democratic Socialists of America and called it the Progressive Caucus. Their statement of purpose, as well as their membership list, formed an integral part of the dsausa Web site (www.dsausa.org ). The membership list appeared on the screen with the continuous background of the fist holding the rose, should anyone have missed the connection with the Socialist International."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., the likely [she is now] new minority leader in the House of Representatives, serves on the executive committee of the socialist-leaning Progressive Caucus, a bloc of about 60 votes or nearly 30 percent of the minority vote in the lower chamber.

The Democratic Socialists of America's chief organizing goal is to work within the Democratic Party and remove the stigma attached to "socialism" in the eyes of most Americans.

"Stress our Democratic Party strategy and electoral work," explains an organizing document of the DSA. "The Democratic Party is something the public understands, and association with it takes the edge off. Stressing our Democratic Party work will establish some distance from the radical subculture and help integrate you to the milieu of the young liberals."

Progressive Caucus

[ElCapitanAmerica]

"I'm deeply, deeply saddened ..."