Freedom is just a word for nothing left to
lose. ~ Janis Joplin
At this point, the quadrennial task surrounding development
of practicable political strategies to win presidential and Congressional
elections in America is unmistakably facing the Democrats. Big time. Given the
Trump administration’s astonishingly frenzied, disordered, tumultuous record so
far, you might think it could be an easy task. I doubt it.
How bad is it now for Democrats? Let me count the ways.
Republicans hold a 241-194 majority in the House of Representatives and a 52-48
majority in the Senate. The Democrats’ Congressional representation is very
concentrated. More than 50% of the House Democratic caucus members come from
just six (12%) of our states. One of every four House Democrats is from either
California or New York. At the state level, Republican governors now exercise
power in 33 states. Republicans now control 66 of the 98 legislative chambers
in the country. Republicans control 32 state legislatures, including 17 with veto-proof
majorities. Those 32 states account for 61% of the U.S. population. Republicans
now have total political control over 25 states outright and another 2 where
they can override a Democratic governor’s vetoes. The nation hasn’t seen this
level of Republican dominance in our political process since Herbert Hoover was
president.
Despite this unassailable Republican domination, during the
past weeks much of the liberal media has been running stories about how Rex
Tillerson, Betsy DeVos, Jeff Sessions and Steven Mnunchin could be denied the
cabinet positions He Who Shall Be Named Micro-Man
nominated them for. Hope springs eternal and all that, but the laws of
Senatorial mathematics unsurprisingly crushed those less than faint Democratic hopes.
As of Feb 14, each of these questionable, unfitting nominees has become a Senate-approved
cabinet member, as expected. Oops, I wrote too soon. On Feb 15 Andrew Puzder,
the president’s nominee for Labor Secretary, resigned after numerous Republican
Senators expressed dissatisfaction with him.
During the past year well-founded, “identity”-based issues
raised by progressives were thrust into the nation’s social, legal and political
limelight. These issues included “visibilzing” the 0.6% of the population who
identify as transgender. [Yes, visibilizing
doesn’t appear in the dictionary; the term is used by the LGBTQIA community.[1]] This limelight engendered a diverse
set of personal and political reactions across the nation, including support
and outrage. What happened from these reactions? Among other things, the Nov 8,
2016 federal election happened with calamitous results for the Democrats’
social liberals, among others.
There are many ideas floating in the political ether about what
contributed to this election’s surprising outcome, now that the Democrats are
WOPPed – wholly out of political power – in Washington DC and many states. I
think 3 of the reasons Democratic social liberals/progressives fared badly are:
a lack of motivating, emotional connection of enough voters with Democratic candidates’
goals and priorities; geographically-concentrated, heavily urbanized backing; and
fractionalizing minorities central to the Democrats’ base.
The Democratic coalition that twice elected Barack Obama
nosedived this time around. During the campaign there was much talk about the
increased prominence of minority voters and their amplified importance for Sec.
Clinton’s success. Demographically, that was true for her campaign, but not the nation. According to Census projections,
no one racial group will be a majority of the country by the year 2044, which
is 27 years in the future. But right now,
non-Hispanic whites represent 70% of eligible voters and they vote more
reliably than any ethnic or racial group. The Democratic campaign tactics
seemingly forgot this; the election’s actual vote count reflects this gross
oversight. Micro-Man won
58% of the total white vote and 63% of the white male votes.
Despite being unwaveringly tooted by Democrats, Hillary
Clinton failed to win a majority of white women voters. Also, Millennial,
Hispanic and African-American voters failed to vote for Sec. Clinton in
sufficient numbers in enough states
to ensure her victory. Critics mention that Sec. Clinton’s campaign emphasized far
more why voters should not cast their ballots for Micro-Man, and not a strong
or alluring enough message to voters about why she deserved their votes. There was too much pessimista and not enough optimista in her campaign. It
seemed like her campaign forgot, in a stunning error, about the primacy of our outdated
Electoral College mechanism. An example of this misguided bungle was her
spending campaign effort in Arizona and Texas (among the reddest of
all states), rather than Michigan and Wisconsin. OMG.
Here’s a personal example attesting to why Democrats now inhabit
such a dark political space. Recently my wife and I had dinner with some
friends and inevitably talked about the despairing situation we and our nation are
facing because of He Who Shall Be Named Micro-Man is president. Recalling former
times when progressives were actively headlining the news, one of us asked “What
was the name of that group who was protesting Wall Street.” It took us a while
to remember the answer: Occupy
Wall Street.
The Occupy movement was formed in late 2011 to demonstrate
against inequality and the deluge of financial disruption for millions of Americans
during the Great Recession. It popularized the phrase “we are the 99%,”
reflecting the continuing struggles inequality poses on people who are neither
wealthy nor rich (the 1%). In 2011 at the height of its influence, the Occupy
movement had palpable difficulty stating its principal objectives because of
its commitment to “participatory democracy.” Perhaps as a consequence, its
legacy does not include demonstrable electoral political success.
In contrast, it takes much less time to remember the Tea Party, and its
movement’s widespread (and all too successful) influence on American politics
since 2009. In 2010 the Tea Party Caucus (that has since morphed into the
Freedom Caucus) in the House of Representatives was formed after conservative
candidates it directly supported had won 48 seats in the House. In a real sense
the Tea Party’s legacy includes the populist ground-roots political activism
that helped elect the current president as well as very conservative members of
the House and Senate.
The Democrats have had no counter to the well-organized
political movement that has provided total control of Congress and the Presidency
to the Republicans. In a sense, now that the Democrats have virtually nothing
left to lose, they have the freedom to create a fresh, new strategy and tactics
for future success.
The average age of the 4 Democrats’ Congressional minority
leaders is 73 years. The Democrats are now electing much-needed, new leadership
of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). The DNC, like Democrats in the
majority of states, has no unified political power base. Creating such
unification will be imperative.
Notable exceptions to the Democrats lack of power include
their 5 state trifectas (states where one
political party controls both legislative houses and the governorship): California,
Oregon, Hawaii, Connecticut and Maryland. Nevertheless, as mentioned above, Republicans
enjoy having 25 state trifectas, as well as the all-important federal trifecta.
As one journalist put
it, Democrats and the DNC are “leading from behind.”
In effect, the DNC is now searching for relevance as well as
a plan for 2018 and beyond. They would do well to learn from the successful
efforts of the Tea Party and other political crusades. In the short time
available for next year’s House elections, this plan needs to entice majorities
of voters to elect Democratic candidates in local, state and Congressional
elections. Creating such a plan will require discipline and focus – something
Democrats have found difficult in the past to master. The DNC will need to finally
acknowledge the obvious; that the world beyond the Washington DC beltway is a
much different place than they thought it was.
The Democrat’s plan for success also should include direct
financial and political support for the growing number of grass-root
organizations that already have empowered thousands of people’s “resistance” to
Micro-Man’s chaotic, painful changes. The DNC and Democrats will need to build
upon the initial successes connected with the Women’s March, the airport demonstrations
and town-hall meetings to form a viable, enduring movement founded on a new, expanded,
easily-repeatable message that emphasizes inclusion, human rights, safety and
opportunity.
In fact after being WOPPed 4 months ago, messaging is the
only leverage Democrats now have at the federal level. If successful, such communication
– from strong, distinctive and broadly empathetic candidates – coupled with resistance
and other action, can induce more people to actually vote for Democrats. Only then
may there be a sparkle of light at the end of the dark tunnel Democrats now
find themselves in. What do we now have left to lose?
[1] The better-known abbreviation for the Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) community has been amended to LGBTQIA as a term
used to refer to the now more multi-faceted community by explicitly adding the
Queer, Intersex and Asexual communities.
Well done Bruce. An insightful commentary. This was my critique of the Occupy folks. We need an effort to harness the energy of the January 21st March, and put people in power from the local levels.
ReplyDelete