For the fourth national election in a row, Democrats failed to win the
U.S. House of Representatives. In the bargain we lost the White House
and didn't recapture the U.S. Senate. Pundits and party officials have
found a plethora of reasons to explain why: We were outspent, there was
"Clinton fatigue," there was the Nader factor, Gore was simply
a bad candidate. Instead of trying to spin our way out of this defeat,
however, we should critically analyze its causes, then make the necessary
changes to take back the majority and advance the policies that are best
for our country.
I believe we lost because party officials, interest group leaders, and
national campaign consultants pushed a message that didn't work, especially
in the suburban swing districts that are the battleground for control
of Congress. After four consecutive losses to the likes of Newt Gingrich
and Tom DeLay, we need to improve our message -- and our policy agenda
- if we are to regain the majority.
The national message has four fatal flaws: It is far too reliant on the
role of government; it does not recognize the changing economic and social
realities in our country; it is too partisan; and it is excessively loyal
to interest groups.
This national message is based on a promise for more government and a
promise to fight Republican cuts in government. In 1994, the Democrats
lost their congressional majority to Republicans who promised to dramatically
shrink the size of the federal government. In 1996, the Democrats attacked
the Republicans for those government cuts, primarily in health care, education,
and environmental protection. Despite the often horrible public policy
that was pushed by the Republican congressional majority, Democrats still
didn't take back either house. In 1998 and 2000, we simultaneously attacked
the Republicans for cuts to government programs and advocated more government.
Democrats pushed for more regulation of health care through a "patients'
bill of rights" and regulation to protect our privacy. We argued
for more government spending for prescription drugs, universal preschool,
education, skills training, school construction -- the list goes on.
This was the national Democrats' message in 2000. The people in charge
of that message urged all Democratic candidates to adopt it and spread
it themselves through television, mail, free media, and speeches on the
floors of the House and Senate. This big-government message could not
have been better presented than it was in 2000. It had popular issues
like privacy protection and access to prescription medication for seniors.
The various Democratic organizations raised more money than they ever
had in previous elections. The party united around the message and, for
the most part, articulated it with great enthusiasm and clarity.
It didn't work. We lost.
It wasn't that the people opposed access to prescription medication,
privacy protection, more funding for education and health care, or a patients'
bill of rights. The failure occurred because the Democratic Party didn't
even begin to address the objections voters have to our party's message,
the ones that caused them to toss us out of power in the first place.
Once again Democrats made it painfully easy for our Republican opponents
to sum up the race as a choice between bigger government and smaller government.
When that is the choice, Democrats will lose.
While voters support programs like those mentioned above, they continue
to worry about government's being too big and too inefficient. They're
concerned about high taxes, a lack of fiscal responsibility by government,
government programs that produce dependence instead of personal responsibility,
and regulations that show no concern for how they affect the ability of
businesses to create good jobs and a strong economy. Nowhere in the national
Democratic message were any of these issues addressed. The people will
not put Democrats back in power, no matter how badly the Republicans perform,
until these issues are addressed.
Bill Clinton understood this. That's why he promised to end welfare as
we knew it, to balance the budget, to cut taxes, and to stand up to traditional
Democratic Party interest groups when necessary to advocate this agenda.
He also talked about education and health care and more traditional Democratic
programs, but he knew he had to address the core concerns the public had
about Democrats. He did, and he won twice. Some combination of this approach
must become a central part of the national Democratic Party's message
in congressional elections if we hope to mirror President Clinton's success.
Our national message also fails to recognize the changing face of America.
More people than ever invest in the stock market, believe in opening markets
overseas, and understand the New Economy. Our policies must reflect this.
More Americans want a "trampoline" to help them rebound when
out of work than a "safety net" to simply catch them when they
fall. People are looking for government to provide opportunity, not by
simply creating government programs, but by setting the stage for a strong
economy and creating the tools people need to help themselves.
Although at least a third of the electorate is essentially nonpartisan,
the national Democratic message is too focused on finding "contrast"
with Republicans and emphasizing partisanship. Yes, politics is about
choices and differences, but our message has focused on partisan differences
at the expense of common sense and problem solving, thereby alienating
the independent voters who decide elections. The popularity of Jesse Ventura
and John McCain, politicians who will "tell it like it is" regardless
of party affiliation, has been lost on the Democratic political operation.
While the Republican leadership is as partisan as they come, George W.
Bush and his operatives seized on the American people's frustrations with
partisanship and used it to great effect with swing voters.
Penn's Poll in this issue demonstrates this. George W. Bush's promise
to end partisan bickering and bring a new tone to Washington had the greatest
resonance with voters. Seventy-nine percent said this message would make
them more likely to vote for a candidate, and 46 percent said it would
make them much more likely to do so. This message resonates particularly
well with independent voters, voters earning from $30,000 to $50,000 (a
group Clinton did well with and Gore did not), and the voters who made
up their minds right before the election.
This leads to the fourth fatal flaw in the national Democratic message:
a degeneration into interest-group politics. Swing voters still see Democrats
as too often being a collection of interest groups to be coddled and kept
happy instead of a party with a clear vision for the future of our entire
country.
Control of Congress rests in the suburban swing districts, which can
only grow in number and importance after the 2001 redistricting. That's
where Democrats have been losing elections. But it doesn't have to be
that way. I come from one of these districts and I beat a Republican incumbent
in 1996 -- and have since won re-election twice with more than 60 percent
of the vote. I did this by running on an agenda that didn't just promise
more government. I ran instead on the broader agenda outlined in this
article. I focused intensely on showing voters that I was one Democrat
who understood that government could get too big and should be more efficient,
responsible, and effective.
Other Democrats have done the same: Reps. Ellen Tauscher of California,
Darlene Hooley of Oregon, Tim Roemer of Indiana, and Dennis Moore of Kansas
have all worked hard to offer the right Democratic message in their swing
districts and have been successful. The 2000 victories of New Democrats
such as Brad Carson in Oklahoma, Jim Matheson in Utah, Adam Schiff in
California, and Rick Larsen in Washington demonstrate that the future
of our party is in the candidates who embrace this message. They showed
their constituents that they have a common sense agenda that focuses on
promoting responsibility, expanding opportunity, and building community.
While expanding Medicare to include prescription drugs and investing in
education is critically important, fiscal responsibility and government
efficiency must also be cornerstones of our agenda. Support for more local
flexibility in education, charter schools, tax cuts to help family-owned
businesses and middle class Americans, and promoting the New Economy are
also elements that many successful centrist candidates use to demonstrate
to swing voters that they are not reflexively partisan and will seek common
sense solutions to problems.
Despite the success of these candidates, it's clear from the 2000 election
that our party as a whole hasn't yet learned its lessons, while the Republicans
are obviously starting to learn theirs. Republicans who very recently
ran on eliminating the Department of Education or slashing government
have now become "compassionate conservatives." They say they
care about prescription drugs and education just as much as Democrats
do. Republicans are starting to rid themselves of the monkey on their
back -- intolerance and a reflexive opposition to government. But we Democrats
have not done the same. And if we've been losing to a Gingrich-dominated,
ideologically conservative Republican Party, how will we do when faced
with a kinder, gentler Republican Party (even if only in its message)?
Losing can be cathartic. Democrats need to learn from the successes
of these congressional races and the failures of Al Gore and our national
message; we should adopt more of these New Democrat ideas and policies
as a part of our national message. It is my fear that there will be heavy
pressure to drift further to the left and adopt the Green Party's anti-business,
anti-capitalist approach and insist on party unity to oppose any and all
Republican proposals. While this may be the easiest thing to do and will
provide the "contrast" with Republicans that some in our caucus
and party prioritize, it would also cause Democrats to go the way of the
British Labour Party in the 1980s. The American public simply does not
agree that our nation needs to bash corporations and expand the government,
and the American public is absolutely right.
We need to come to grips with the changes that have occurred in this
country. We must learn how to harness the power of both the private sector
and the government to offer our people the opportunity to have the best
quality of life possible. I want to see our party successfully governing
again, so that we can solve problems and provide opportunity to all Americans.
I fear that without dramatic changes, we won't ever have the chance to
do so.
