The Road Back….The 2006 elections are shaping up as a potential watershed. We know, every election feels that way nowadays, but this time it?s true?really.
Since January, Republicans have staged a dismally instructive clinic on how not to govern (Social Security, Schiavo, Katrina). These missteps have coincided with the arrival of ?political payment overdue? slips for longer-standing debacles (Iraq, increasing budgetary strain, corruption cases that seem to proliferate almost daily).
The combination has sent GOP approval levels sharply down and ?wrong path? sentiments sharply up (though Democrats aren?t necessarily reaping the gains, a point we?ll return to in later posts). And all this comes as Republicans prepare to face the ?six-year itch??the old adage that sixth years of presidencies are unlucky ones for ruling parties.
Democrats are clearly starting to salivate. And yet tempers run hot when the topic turns to the best road to victory. Everyone seems to have a view of what Democrats are doing wrong: too moderate; too immoderate; too cowardly; too shrill; too much emphasis on economics; not enough emphasis on economics; bad candidates; bad framing. And the world is complicated enough that anyone committed to taking one of these positions can find some evidence to support their case.
Still, there is a common feature in almost all these views: If Democrats would just make different strategic or tactical choices, they?d win. We think this is one of the reasons for the recent infatuation with George Lakoff?s arguments about framing. If frames are so powerful, then all Democrats have to do is improve their ?story? and presto, no more GOP hegemony.
We?re very skeptical. We don?t deny that framing matters, but Democrats face a lot of structural hurdles to formulating a long-term strategy not just for winning office but for keeping it?challenges that are rooted in the institutions of contemporary American politics, the social bases of the two parties, and the changing meaning of being in the minority (even if by only narrow margins). We want to briefly describe some of these difficulties here, before turning in another post to the implications for political strategy.
First, Democrats have to overcome the big GOP advantages in the House and Senate that we?ve already described. In neither chamber is it enough to win 51 percent of the vote nationwide.
Second, Democrats have a far harder time achieving unity than Republicans do. Sixty-two percent of senators, after all, reside in states that went ?red? in the 2004 presidential race, even though Bush got only 51 percent of the vote. That means Democrats have a bigger challenge when they try to bring together members of their coalition who face very different local electoral conditions. Moreover, this problem is exacerbated because GOP agenda control can and is used to create wedge issues for Democratic politicians. Without an ability to control the agenda, it is far more difficult for Democrats to return the favor.
Critics of the Democrats urge them to fight fire with fire?to match Republican unity with Democratic unity. But these critics need to remember that just because the majority party has used the tools of government and an extensive network to create a parliamentary-style party, it doesn?t logically follow that the minority party can do the same. On the contrary, a politician like Joseph Lieberman or John Breaux often gets (thoroughly undeserved) plaudits for defecting.
Third, there have been a big shift in organizational and financial resources that has disadvantaged and divided Democrats. The last few decades have witnessed a dramatic alteration in the balance of power between labor and business, a vast increase in economic inequality, and a tremendous expansion in the significance of political money. The profound imbalances created by these huge but gradual changes is often lost in the discussion of personalities and tactics that dominate reporting on politics. All of these trends have helped the GOP, while creating cross-cutting pressures on Democrats and sapping the party?s strength.
Most of these features can?t be changed in the short run. So, in the end, one is led back to a discussion of electoral and political strategy. But any discussion of strategy is bound to short-circuit if it doesn?t acknowledge these deeper features of the political terrain, and in the longer-term, broader political reform is a must. There are lots of easy answers floating out there. There just aren?t any good easy answers.
Still, we?ll offer the best answers that we can in an upcoming post.