DLC Memo
TO: Fellow Democrats
FROM: Al From and Bruce Reed
SUBJECT: How Democrats Can Win in 2004
With the 2004 election just 15 months away, Democrats have one big advantage:
Every pundit in America expects them to lose it.
The gap between political perceptions in Washington and the underlying
conditions in the country is greater than in any election since 1948.
The economy is rocky. The world is full of peril. On the domestic front,
the horizon is dark with clouds. And the White House is too confident
for its own good. Yet with the right battle plan, Democrats can turn the
next 15 months into a perfect storm.
That's no small task. But it can and must be done.
The Stakes
The 2004 election isn't just a choice between two parties; it's a choice
between two centuries. The outcome next year will tell us whether the
21st century will be another American Century, blessed with broad prosperity
and an expanding middle class at home, and the projection of American
strength and democratic values abroad. Or it will tell us we're returning
to an America of privilege and exploitation like the latter part of the
19th century.
Some Democrats have echoed Ralph Nader's argument that there is little
difference between the two parties -- Bush and Bush Lite. They could
not be more wrong. The differences between the parties are not just their
programs; they are profound differences of principle and purpose.
In the last seven decades of the 20th century, America began to realize
its full promise. Under a framework of Democratic Party leadership, America
built what Benjamin Franklin dreamed of: the first mass middle-class society.
Democrats reduced privilege, honored the values of hard work and responsibility,
and brought tens of millions of citizens into the economic and social
mainstream through the civil rights movement and policies to expand opportunity
for all. Throughout the 20th century, America defended freedom in the
world from great evil. Today, our country is the only superpower with
the ability to be the greatest force for promoting democratic values,
prosperity, and opportunity in the history of the world.
In large part, we finally realized Andrew Jackson's credo, which is the
animating principle of the Democratic Party: equal opportunity for all,
special privileges for none. The 2004 election will determine whether
we will build on that foundation of progress or reverse it.
Domestically, the Bush administration has actively pursued policies that
would undermine, even undo, that progress. Its tax and budget policies
reward privilege, not hard work, allowing those who have it to protect
it and making it harder for those who work hard and aspire to join the
middle class to get there.
President Bush's political guru, Karl Rove, talks about idolizing William
McKinley. As president from 1897 to 1901, McKinley protected privilege
and allowed the robber barons to run free. Bush's 21st-century America
more closely resembles McKinley's America, which put privilege first,
than the egalitarian America of the Clinton era a century later.
On foreign policy, too, America's pre-eminent role in the world is threatened.
The issue is not whether we will be the strongest nation in the world;
we will. The question is how we will use our power. The Bush administration's
chronic unilateralism and dependence on military force will diminish our
power to promote democracy and market economics in the world.
So the stakes in the 2004 election are enormous. We're not just choosing
a president. We're choosing a century.
The Battle Plan
At a recent DLC meeting, Bill Clinton -- the last Democrat to beat
an incumbent president -- outlined a three-part strategy for how a candidate
could do it again: 1) reassure voters that he'll keep what they like
about George W. Bush's policies; 2) tell them some things they don't know
about George W. Bush -- and wouldn't like if they did; and 3) show that
he'll give them what a second Bush administration won't.
Clinton remarked, "This is not rocket science. In 1992, I said:
'Look, I'll have a strong America, we'll represent your values, we'll
be strong on crime, we'll be for preferring work over welfare. By the
way, we'll bring the American economy back, we'll do it in a way that
preserves the environment, we'll move more poor people into the middle
class. ' The message was, we'll give you what you like about the other
guys, and we'll give you these things that they won't give you. This is
not complicated."
Here's how to turn the Clinton formula into a winning battle plan
for 2004.
STEP # 1: Match Bush's Strength on National Security
What voters like about President Bush is that they think he'll keep the
country strong and safe. By huge margins, they trust Republicans over
Democrats on fighting terrorism and strengthening national security.
Democrats may not win those issues in 2004, but they must at least neutralize
them. They need to convince the American people that they can be trusted
with the nation's security and that they will keep our country safe. That
will require more than me-tooing the president on national security and
fighting terrorism. Democrats will have to engage that debate and offer
ideas of their own. The first job of the president is that of commander
in chief; in times of danger, that responsibility becomes a threshold
issue.
The war against terrorism is likely to be as defining a political experience
for the next generation of voters as the Vietnam War was for the baby
boomers. For example, national security and domestic defense have recently
emerged, for the first time, as top concerns among women. As TIME
magazine wrote recently, soccer moms are becoming security moms. Until
further notice, security will be a threshold issue in American politics.
Democratic candidates certainly have plenty of good ideas for keeping
the country safe. They include strengthening and reorganizing our intelligence
capacity; modernizing the military; increasing cooperation with our allies
in the war against terrorism; increasing support for local law enforcement,
fire departments, and first responders; and building the capacity of public
health agencies to combat chemical and biological attacks.
Thus, Democrats have plenty to tell voters about what a Democratic administration
will do to make America safe. In the 2002 midterm elections, Democrats
looked weak trying to change the subject. This time, they have to address
it head-on.
STEP #2: Make Bush Run on His Record -- It's Worse Than People Think
Here at home, the White House's biggest worry should be the yawning gap
between the president's poll numbers and his record. There's a great deal
that Americans don't know about the Bush presidency and won't like when
they find out.
Most Americans know the economy is weak, unemployment is up, and the
stock market is down. But in the constant swirl of events since 9/11 -- two
wars, repeated terrorism alerts, and a spate of corporate scandals -- they
haven't had a moment to step back and decide what to think. That's why
the Bush White House is working so hard to keep voters (and the Democratic
Party) off balance. They know the president may not do so well when the
music stops.
By any objective standard, Bush's record on the economy is the worst
since Hoover's. Indeed, Bush is about to become the first president since
Hoover to preside over a net loss of jobs in his first term. The record
that cost his father re-election even looks good by comparison. Congress
has given Bush everything he asked for, and none of it has worked. Jobs
continue to vanish, and Bush is reduced to whining that he wouldn't be
losing them if Clinton hadn't created so many of them.
At the same time, Bush has abandoned the one economic certainty that
voters expect from Republicans: that they will keep government spending
in check. The president has presided over an $11 trillion swing from surpluses
to deficits; he offers no plan to reverse it; and as the leading fiscal
offender, has no one else to blame but himself.
That leaves the president one issue -- tax cuts. If Democrats take
the bait and mount a crusade to take away middle-class tax cuts, Bush
will prevail. But if Democrats turn the issue around, and come out for
lowering the middle-class tax burden instead of helping the wealthy, Bush
will have nothing left to say. He can't rest on his laurels, because most
of the middle class will be paying as much or more in taxes as before,
while their portfolios are down and their incomes have stopped going up.
For all its political savvy, the Bush White House fails to understand
that voters don't keep track of how many times Congress cuts their taxes.
They look at what's left of their paychecks, and whether their after-tax
income is heading up or down.
By that measure, the Bush record looks poor indeed. After the longest
economic boom in history, middle-class incomes are flat. And because states
and cities have had to raise taxes and fees to pay for schools, cops,
roads, and college, many middle- and working-class families are actually
being stuck with a net tax and fee increase.
Since the beginning of the Bush administration, because of revenue shortfalls
and cuts in federal support, 32 states have been forced to raise taxes
and fees. More increases are on the way: Twenty-two governors have already
submitted budgets proposing to raise taxes again this year, and more will
do so next year.
The Progressive Policy Institute reviewed the impact of state tax increases
and university tuition hikes in seven states. In all cases, the study
found that state tax and fee hikes were greater for many middle- and working-class
families than Bush's 2001 federal tax cuts.
Then there's the cop crunch. In the 1990s, after decades of neglect,
by hiring more cops we finally began to reverse the ratio of law enforcement
officers to crimes committed. But since Bush took office, police hiring
has come to a standstill. A survey we recently conducted found that, compared
to the 1990s, hiring at big-city police departments is down 90 percent,
even though crime rates are on the rise and the threat of terrorism continues
unabated. The reasons: The economic slowdown has cut local revenues and
the president has cut the successful COPS program and refused to provide
aid to state and local governments to tide them through their hard times.
This situation will only grow worse in 2004. Even now, cities across
America are slashing police budgets, shrinking police forces, and scaling
back successful crime-fighting programs. Even if the economy miraculously
were to turn around by the end of this year, or if the Bush administration
were to reverse course and finally support giving local police departments
a boost, it might be too late. By next year, most Americans will have
been touched by the cop crunch.
As we detail in this magazine (see "Philadelphia
Story"), the list of Bush's shortcomings and broken promises
is long. The voters won't like it when they find out.
STEP # 3: Tell America What We'll Do Better
In the end, the key to a Democratic victory next year will be what Democrats
offer voters that they won't get from President Bush. Democrats need to
offer a plan that will do what Bush has proved he won't.
Like the bill of particulars against Bush, the agenda of what Democrats
can do better is considerable. Bush has no agenda for the forgotten middle
class. But Democrats do: grow the economy, create jobs, raise incomes,
and give the middle class a piece of the rock.
That's why the agenda we outline in "The
New Democrats' Declaration" is so important. Democrats will never
outraise or outspend Republicans. But Democrats can outthink them.
With the electorate split down the middle, a candidate -- particularly
a Democrat -- can win the presidency only if he convinces the voters
he's better than his party. That's because neither political party is
a majority party. In fact, when asked their party preference, more voters
routinely choose independent than either Democratic or Republican.
With American politics in flux and the parties at parity, each election
starts from scratch. Not so long ago, enough voters had a history with
one party or another that a nominee could concentrate on getting his voters
to the polls. Today, a candidate has to perform a more difficult feat:
to inspire his party base and hold his own among swing voters who have
shunned that party for a reason.
There is only one winning formula in today's politics: A presidential
candidate must prove that he is better, and bigger, than his own party.
In 1992 and 1996, Clinton won by showing voters that, contrary to what
they may have believed about Democrats, he was willing to reform welfare,
fight crime, and balance the books. In 2000, George W. Bush sneaked in
by persuading voters that, in contrast to the harsh, slashing conservatism
of Newt Gingrich, he was a Republican who welcomed immigrants and cared
about education.
Of course, President Bush turned out not to be a different kind of Republican
at all. He reverted to type -- protecting privilege with tax cuts for
the wealthy, taking conservative stands on social issues, trying to starve
government, and pursuing a unilateralist foreign policy.
Bush will have a harder time showing he's better than his party this
time around. That's a real opening for any Democrat who can rise above
the Democratic stereotype. A different kind of Democrat has a chance
against a this-is-your-father's-Oldsmobile Republican, a conventional
Democrat does not.
That's why the Bush White House desperately hopes that Democrats will
make the 2004 election an ideological contest between liberals and conservatives.
That is the one battle Republicans know they can win. In such a battle,
they will never have to answer for the worst economic record of any administration
since Hoover's.
Democrats don't have to compromise their principles to win back America's
trust. On the contrary, they need to live up to the Democratic Party's
best traditions: Jackson's belief in equal opportunity for all, special
privileges for none; Roosevelt's passion for bold reform; Truman's tough-minded
internationalism; Kennedy's ethic of civic obligation; Johnson's commitment
to equal rights; and Clinton's insistence that opportunity and responsibility
must go hand in hand.
Fidelity to those traditions offers the best platform for winning over
a country that remains skeptical of both parties. A Democrat who is
not afraid to use American power in dangerous times, who wants to reform
government rather than just expand it, and who offers a plan to grow the
economy and increase middle-class incomes, not the middle-class tax burden,
can beat Bush in 2004. A Democrat who fails to overcome America's lingering
doubts about security, or who raises new doubts by promising to increase
government as dramatically as conservatives hope to shrink it, will not.
STEP # 4: Be Patient -- A Year Is a Lifetime in Politics
Here in the dog days of 2003, Democrats need to remember the election
is next November. Despite the early polls favoring President Bush, Democrats
have good reason to be optimistic. This election will move their way.
To be sure, President Bush is a solid favorite in the current re-election
betting. That's why he can raise $200 million so easily: Every Republican
is certain he will win. Unfortunately for Bush, there are some things
money just can't buy. His campaign war chest can't change the fact that
in the most recent Gallup Poll, more than one-half of those asked are
dissatisfied with the direction of the country and nearly three-quarters
believe the economy is in the tank. Unless those numbers change, they
could spell trouble for the president.
The American people rightly credit the president for his strong response
after 9/11 and for the victory in the war in Iraq. His approval rating
in the latest Gallup Poll stands at a strong but not spectacular 61 percent.
Meanwhile, his Democratic challengers are struggling to survive a grueling
and often unruly primary process that always makes their party look confused.
Democrats are lucky the election isn't this November.
By next summer things will look different. The president's job approval
has been slipping since the end of the war, and it could slip even more
over the next year. His father's approval rating, by comparison, was higher
at this same stage of the political cycle -- a lofty 72 percent in the
middle of 1991. Thirteen months later it was 31 percent.
Now, we're not saying that President Bush will suffer the same kind of
precipitous fall as his father. The point is that, as a recent Gallup
study concluded, polls taken this far from Election Day have no bearing
on a president's prospects for re-election.
A year from now, the opposition will crystallize. Instead of a political
cacophony, the nation will hear the single voice of a Democratic nominee,
poised to go one-on-one with the president.
Voters will learn things about President Bush and his record that they
don't know and won't like. So far, Bush has been able to duck responsibility
for the negative consequences of his policies, but next year he may run
out of maqanas.
STEP # 5: Let Hunger for a Better President Trump Anger Toward This
One
Even as the Democratic candidates do fierce battle for the favor of Democratic
activists in the primary season, they need to keep in mind a simple reality:
The Democratic faithful aren't the only people who vote; independents
and Republicans will make up about two-thirds of the electorate next fall.
In some early primary and caucus states, there's a visceral dislike of
George W. Bush among many Democratic voters. But as polls show, even among
Democrats there are more moderates and conservatives then liberals. And,
no matter how angry they are at Bush, there are simply not enough Democratic
faithful to send the president into early retirement.
Most polls show nearly two-thirds of the American people say they like
George W. Bush. So Democrats can't count on the disdain they feel toward
him alone to get them far next year. Anti-Bush fervor will get core Democrats
to the polls, but it won't beat Bush. To do that, Democrats need to convince
a quarter of the voters who like him personally to reject his politics
and hire someone else.
That will be no small feat. But it can be done.
The key to victory is to keep those angry Democrats energized and
to appeal to swing voters -- moderates, independents, and even some
Republicans -- who like President Bush but could be convinced to replace
him with a Democrat.
Most Democrats, like most Americans, don't want a party that speaks for
organized interest groups. They want a party that tackles problems with
practical solutions, and speaks with a clear sense of national purpose.
With so much at stake in this election, we're convinced that Democrats
will keep their eyes on the real prize: all the good they can do for country,
and the ill they can prevent, by electing a new president in 2004. The
middle class is up for grabs next year. If the party that built the middle
class welcomes them back into the fold, Democrats and the country will
prove the doubting pundits wrong once again.
