Notwithstanding the current glee in Republican circles, we are increasingly confident that President Bush can be beaten next year. If Democrats run the right campaign in 2004, Bush's high-flying poll numbers since the war will land with a thud on the deck of the U.S.S. Economy.
But that's a big If. For all the talent in the field of Democratic candidates for president, none of them will succeed without bucking conventional wisdom about the winning path to the Democratic nomination.
As we begin another presidential primary season, it's worth shattering the five most dangerous myths about the Democratic nominating process:
Unlike Gov. Howard Dean, we never forget to give the late Sen. Paul Wellstone credit for coining the phrase, "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party." We often disagreed with Sen. Wellstone on the issues, but we always knew he was fighting for the little guy.
But the great myth of the current cycle is the misguided notion that the hopes and dreams of activists represent the heart and soul of the Democratic Party. Real Democrats are real people, not activist elites. The mission of the Democratic Party, as Bill Clinton pledged in 1992, is to provide "real answers to the real problems of real people." Real Democrats who champion the mainstream values, national pride, and economic aspirations of middle-class and working people are the real soul of the Democratic Party, not activists and interest groups with narrow agendas.
Under Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Clinton, the Democratic Party built the middle class, fought for social justice, defended America's freedom, and promoted democracy and free enterprise in the world. The broad prosperity generated under these Democratic presidents has defined the central difference between the two parties, which is that Democrats believe in opening the doors of opportunity for real people everywhere.
What activists like Dean call the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party is an aberration: the McGovern-Mondale wing, defined principally by weakness abroad and elitist, interest-group liberalism at home. That's the wing that lost 49 states in two elections, and transformed Democrats from a strong national party into a much weaker regional one.
The real tradition of the Democratic Party is grounded in expanding opportunity and economic growth, increasing trade, standing up for a strong national defense and for America's interests in the world, and strengthening community at home. Don't take our word for it: Take a look back at old Democratic Party platforms.
Roosevelt's 1932 platform called for "reciprocal trade agreements with other nations, and an international conference designed to restore international trade and facilitate exchange." At home, it promoted "an immediate and drastic reduction of governmental expenditures by abolishing useless commissions and offices, consolidating departments and bureaus, and eliminating extravagances to accomplish a savings of not less than 25 percent of the cost of the Federal Government." Roosevelt's last platform, in 1944, said that Democrats had "saved our system of free enterprise" and built "the best trained and equipped army in the world, the most powerful navy in the world, the greatest air force in the world, and the largest merchant marine in the world."
Kennedy's 1960 platform put national security first, and went on for 19 sections before even getting around to the domestic agenda. It accused the Republicans of losing America's position of military pre-eminence and pledged to restore it.
Not only is the activist wing out of line with Democratic tradition, but it is badly out of touch with the Democratic rank-and-file. In 1996, a survey by the Washington Post compared the views of delegates to the Democratic convention to those of registered Democratic voters. The delegates perfectly mirrored the Democratic electorate in terms of race, ethnicity, and gender. But they could not have been more different when it came to class and education. Democratic delegates were nearly five times more likely than Democratic rank-and-file to have incomes over $75,000, three times more likely to have a college degree, and over four times more likely to have done postgraduate work. No wonder that when the New Yorker recently asked Karl Rove to describe the Democratic base, he said, "somebody with a doctorate."
On most of the issues in the 1996 Post survey, Democratic activists and rank-and-file might as well have come from different parties. On every social and economic issue, registered Democrats' views were closer to those of all registered voters than to those of Democratic delegates. Almost two-thirds of Democratic delegates wanted to cut defense spending; most registered Democrats did not. A majority of Democratic delegates opposed a five-year time limit for welfare benefits; two-thirds of registered Democrats supported it. Democratic delegates were split on the death penalty; registered Democrats favored it by more than a 2-1 margin. These weren't delegates to the Green Party convention; they were delegates committed to re-electing Bill Clinton, who had sided with rank-and-file Democrats on each of those issues!
Clinton understood what too many others are prone to forget: most Democrats are doers, not ideologues. They don't vote to make a statement; they vote in hopes of getting things done. They want social progress, but they're not on a social crusade. Most Democrats aren't elitists who think they know better than everyone else; they are everyone else. They don't swoon when they hear a candidate say it's time for Democrats to dream again. What they want is the American Dream, where everybody who works hard and plays by the rules has the chance to get ahead.
Wrong. The last time the most liberal candidate won the Democratic nomination was George McGovern in 1972. Diehard liberals have been losing ever since. In 1976, Jimmy Carter beat a pack of candidates to his left -- Udall, Humphrey, Bayh, Shriver, Harris, Church, Brown. Carter beat back Kennedy's challenge from the left in 1980. The 1984 race pitted Mondale, the establishment candidate, against Hart, the reformer, with Jackson, McGovern, and Cranston on their left. In 1988, Dukakis won with Jackson, Simon, and Gephardt on his left. The 1992 nomination came down to the two most centrist candidates, Clinton and Tsongas. In 2000, Bradley ran to Gore's left and lost.
Wrong again. We're the first to warn that Democratic activists are out of sync with the country. That's why party caucuses like Iowa are such a poor test of potential success in the general election. It's also why the decision by states like New Mexico to save money by switching from primaries to caucuses is cause for alarm. We wouldn't put it past Karl Rove to recognize that bankrupting the country and the states with big tax cuts has the partisan side-benefit of giving liberals a louder voice in choosing the Democratic nominee.
But in the end, the Democratic nomination will be won in primaries, not caucuses. In the past 30 years, the only nominee to get a real bounce from Iowa was the previously unknown Jimmy Carter. While that win put Carter on the map, in order to gain the nomination he had to win a grueling set of close primaries. After winning in New Hampshire, Carter beat the leaders of every faction in the party: the conservative George Wallace in Florida, the liberal Mo Udall in Wisconsin, and the party regulars led by Scoop Jackson in Pennsylvania. Other hopefuls who needed a lasting Iowa bounce (like Hart, the surprise runner-up in 1984, and Gephardt in 1988), watched it fade as soon as the primary calendar heated up.
There's even a case to be made that presidential candidates run the wrong way in Iowa. By definition, the caucuses are dominated by activists. But even in Iowa in 2000, 51 percent of caucus participants identified themselves as moderate or conservative compared to 49 percent who described themselves as liberal.
No matter what happens in Iowa, the first make-or-break test will come in New Hampshire. Here's a shocker that every presidential candidate needs to understand: There's a good chance that more independents will vote in the 2004 New Hampshire Democratic primary than Democrats.
Sound impossible? You can look it up. In New Hampshire, more independents are registered to vote (37.5 percent of registered voters) than Republicans (36.5 percent) or Democrats (26 percent). According to exit polls, about 155,500 self-identified independents voted in the 2000 primary, compared to 140,550 Republicans and 92,800 Democrats. Inspired by John McCain's Straight Talk campaign, 60 percent of those independents voted in the Republican primary. This time, with no GOP contest and a heated Democratic one, those numbers could easily be reversed. If 60 percent of independents vote on the Democratic side, that would mean more than 93,000 independent voters in the Democratic primary, slightly larger than the number of Democratic voters in 2000.
The increased number of independents will moderate the Democratic primary electorate. In 2000, the New Hampshire electorate was less mainstream than in the past: 54 percent identified themselves as liberal, 38 percent as moderate and 8 percent as conservative. With more independents voting on the Democratic side, the primary electorate will be more like it was in 1992: 43 percent liberal, 42 percent moderate, and 14 percent conservative.
After Iowa and New Hampshire, the candidates will have to compete in South Carolina, Arizona, and Oklahoma -- all states that tend to be more moderate. In the 2000 Democratic primary in Oklahoma, for example, 30 percent of voters were liberal, 45 percent moderate, and 25 percent conservative. Like New Hampshire, South Carolina has an open primary in which independents can vote. Unlike New Hampshire, it also has a significant African-American vote -- another potentially moderating influence. Except during Jesse Jackson's historic run in 1988, Southern black voters have been a consistent firewall for more moderate candidates, including Carter, Clinton and Gore.
OK, so maybe that's not entirely a myth. But it is a myth to suggest that Democrats will make that feeble reputation go away by boldly telling activists exactly what they want to hear.
Every primary season unleashes the pander virus. Dick Gephardt's $2.5-trillion health care plan is the latest case in point. While Gephardt is right to base his candidacy on "big ideas," his health plan only underscores the folly of appealing to Democratic activists instead of the Democratic rank-and-file. When activists think big, they always do so with the rank-and-file's money.
By all means, Democrats should have the courage to tackle big problems and take on entrenched interests. The Bush years have created a long list of challenges the country must address -- restoring an ethic of responsibility in Washington and in corporate America; asking more Americans, especially young Americans, to serve; championing the values and economic interests of the forgotten middle class instead of protecting wealth and privilege at every turn.
The way for Democrats to recapture the high ground and the White House is not to talk big, but to be genuinely bold. We don't need another president who is willing to give away money the country doesn't have. We don't need another president whose idea of a new tone in Washington is to put his party's special interests first. We don't need another president who tells people only what they want to hear, instead of asking them to do more and giving them the chance to do better.
At its best, the real Democratic Party has called America to a higher purpose. FDR saved the world from fascism and saved capitalism from itself. Roosevelt and Truman helped build the largest middle class in history with the GI Bill. JFK got America moving again with challenges, not promises. Clinton saved progressive government by expanding opportunity and demanding responsibility in return.
The greatest myth of all is that George W. Bush can't be beaten. America has too much potential, and his administration too little.
Right now the President looks strong, but his high poll numbers after the Iraq War are lower than his father's ratings after the Gulf War a dozen years ago. Bush's numbers, like his father's, show chronic weakness on the economy that could endanger his re-election prospects if it persists.
Incumbents are always difficult to beat, but this President -- like his father -- will be more vulnerable than we can imagine today. A year from now, the Presidential race will look a lot different. The President's numbers, inflated by his success in Iraq, will return to pre-war levels. The Democrats will look stronger. Fringe candidates who devalue the Democratic Party's currency will be long gone. The cacophony of candidate voices will be reduced to one. When the nominee goes head to head with the President, Democrats will have the clarity of message for which we now long.
Democrats can take back the White House in 2004, but only if they live up to their party's true traditions, and stand up for the values, aspirations, and security of the decent, hard-working, God-fearing people that made this country and the Democratic Party great. The winning path may not be easy, but it runs straight.
