Whither The Democrats?

The Washington Post (here), the New York Times (here), and a bunch of other papers (Google it) have articles today on a controversial new report on the Democrats, past and future, by former Clintonians William Galston and Elaine Kamarck (press release; report).

The Democrats should (but most won’t) hope that this report will be as influential as the same authors’ Politics of Evasion (1989), which is credited by many as paving the way for the election, and governing style, of Clinton. The new report, The Politics of Polarization, makes a convincing argument that the Democrats are just whistlin’ Dixie (figuratively; they don’t do that literally any more) if they believe they can come to power simply by energizing and turning out their base, by relying on more and more Hispanics, or by “framing” more compelling “narratives.”

Read it, because I’m not going to summarize it, not even their interesting (and I think persuasive) argument that the Republicans have been winning not because the country has become more conservative but because ideology has become a much more important determinant of how people vote — and the corollary: the more ideological the contest (especially over “values”), the more Republicans benefit.

I do, however, want to mention what I think are two shortcomings of the report:

1) The virtual absence of any discussion of what promises, or threatens, to be an explosive new issue, immigration. (See here and here for its emergence in Virginia’s gubernatorial race); and

2) The way the report soft-pedaled race as an issue.

Say What? (4)

  1. actus October 7, 2005 at 3:58 pm | | Reply

    “I do, however, want to mention what I think are two shortcomings of the report:”

    The war?

  2. John Rosenberg October 7, 2005 at 8:01 pm | | Reply

    the war?

    The report makes a big deal out of the necessity for Democrats to reassure voters that they can be trusted on national security issues, something that is not now the case.

  3. actus October 8, 2005 at 12:26 am | | Reply

    “The report makes a big deal out of the necessity for Democrats to reassure voters that they can be trusted on national security issues, something that is not now the case.”

    Sure. the report is going to say that democrats should score higher on what they score low at. But what about the war? Are the democrats gonna talk about the incredibly unpopular way this war is being run?

  4. Cobra October 8, 2005 at 1:34 pm | | Reply

    John writes:

    >>>”One can understand why former Clintonians would want to argue that Clinton “solved” the racial issues that had bedeviled the Democrats, but I believe they are wrong to argue that it is only “conservative activists” who continue to oppose racial preferences.”

    Wasn’t it Ken Mehlman, RNC chairman, who openly admitted that the GOP strategy was to use race as a wedge issue? Clinton successfully used triangulation on race–offer reforms on programs that were viewed to aid primarily African Americans while showing an affinity and comfort level with the same group he’s proposing reforms upon.

    The RNC example is to play to the base (white Christian males, especially in the south) while offering a few brown faces in high places to parrot the hard line stances, telling the moderate whites (the real majority of the voting block) “Hey, we can’t be that bad. Look at Condi, Colin and Alberto?”

    –Cobra

Say What?