America is undergoing profound lifestyle and demographic changes -- the
kind that materially affect voters' outlook and potentially the nation's
political alignment. These changes represent an opportunity for Democrats,
but not a fixed destiny. As the electorate changes, the party that does
not change accordingly will fail to connect with the most dynamic elements
in the electorate.
As John Judis and Ruy Teixeira show in their optimistically titled book,
The Emerging Democratic Majority, Democrats made great gains in
dynamic elements of the electorate during the 1990s, most notably in upscale
suburban families and Hispanics. But these gains are already in danger
of receding. Republicans are making substantial inroads among Hispanic
voters by appealing to their strong entrepreneurial spirit. And while
Democrats were successful during the 1990s at increasing their appeal
among suburban women, their appeal among suburban men is notably weaker
and shows signs of becoming weaker still.
Moreover, by looking only at voting trends rather than at party identification,
Judis and Teixeira inherently overstate the durability of Democratic gains.
The overriding reality of politics today is that Americans are increasingly
not members of any party. Self-described Independents are 37 percent of
the American electorate and these voters, not the party faithful, decide
who wins America's elections. Between 1950 and 2001, Democratic Party
identification fell from 47 percent to 38 percent, while the number of
self-described Independents rose from 25 percent to 37 percent (Republican
identification has been more stable -- it was 28 percent in 1950 and
26 percent in 2001).1 With "no party" becoming the plurality
party, Democrats must earn a majority in each election and can only build
a majority by gaining voter loyalty among emerging segments of the electorate
over time.
For Democrats to build a true majority coalition, they must develop a
message and policy agenda that consolidates earlier gains among suburban
women and minority voters while capturing a much larger percentage of
suburban men -- all in a politically sensitive context of changing issue
priorities, ever-greater voter independence, and aggressive competition
from Republicans.
The key to the development of this successful message and policy agenda
is to understand the two big crosscutting changes under way in American
society -- and their political implications. The first is the country's
growing diversity, which is generating a equally impressive growth in
social tolerance; the second is the dramatic spread of higher education
and affluence.
Rapidly increasing national diversity is driven by immigration and birth
rates. Between the 1990 and 2000 census, the African-American portion
of the population remained steady at just over 12 percent of all Americans
while the Hispanic population grew from 9 percent to 12.5 percent. By
2050, the Hispanic population is expected to reach 24 percent of all Americans
and by that year the Census Bureau estimates that Asian-Americans, who
were 3.6 percent of Americans in the 2000 census, will represent 9 percent
of all Americans.
With the rise in diversity has come a rise in tolerance. Seven in 10
Americans (70 percent) believe there should be harsher penalties for "crimes
motivated by hate of certain groups," while just 25 percent oppose
such as law.
Today, 51 percent of Americans say they feel that homosexuality should
be considered an acceptable alternative lifestyle. This is a dramatic
increase from 34 percent in 1977. Similarly, while 56 percent of Americans
in 1977 said that homosexuals should have equal rights in terms of job
opportunities (33 percent opposed), by 2002 the number had risen to 86
percent (11 percent opposed). And it's no accident that the religious
right is rapidly declining in political importance. Increasingly, Americans
are gravitating toward leaders who unite Americans -- not toward those
who divide them along demographic or cultural lines.
The second big trend is the spread of higher education and affluence
and a corresponding increase in voters who demand a government that is
focused on creating private-sector economic opportunity.
In the past two decades alone, there has been a dramatic rise in college
entrance and graduation, which in turn produces higher income. In 1980,
33 percent of all Americans had a complete college education, and 61 percent
had at least some college. By 2000, 42 percent had a full college education
and three-fourths (74 percent) of Americans had at least some college.
These changes correspond with an increase in affluence in America and
a rise in stock ownership. The median income for a family of four has
risen from $41,451 in 1990 to $62,228 in the year 2000. In our polling
more people now say they own stock than have a full-time job -- 66 percent
own stock while 53 percent have a full-time job. Most Americans now have
a personal stake in the success of the stock market and in the growth
of the U.S. economy.
Americans no longer believe government is the answer to their problems.
In December 2001, 54 percent said their thinking about the proper role
of government is that "government should help people equip themselves
to solve their own problems," while 23 percent said that government
should stay out of people's lives so they can solve their problems and
20 percent said the proper role is to "solve problems and protect
people from adversity."
Even Hispanic and African-American voters strongly support an opportunity-oriented
approach to solving problems. Among African-Americans, 50 percent said
the proper role of government is to help people to solve their own problems.
Only 27 percent said they believe the government should solve problems,
while 23 percent said that government should stay out of people's lives.
In a recent survey of Hispanic voters, 39 percent preferred opportunity-oriented
solutions while 36 percent preferred government-based solutions.
Democrats have won steadily increasing support from voters primarily
motivated by the first big trend -- diversity and tolerance. But they
have been losing support since 2000 among voters primarily concerned with
economic opportunity. While Democrats are seen as the party better equipped
to make corporate executives play by the rules, Republicans still receive
equal if not higher performance ratings -- especially from swing voters -- than
do Democrats on the issue of getting the economy growing again. This is
especially true of the large voter category we call "office park
dads" -- suburban men between the ages of 25-64 -- who are otherwise
attracted to the Democratic message of cultural tolerance.
Office park dads are not the downscale conservative men that unions have
been pursuing. They are socially tolerant but entrepreneurially-minded
and oriented to economic opportunity. On social tolerance, 58 percent
of office park dads in a recent survey said they are either strictly pro-choice
(36 percent) or pro-choice but opposed to "the partial birth procedure"
(22 percent).2 In the same survey, 51 percent of rural men consider themselves
strictly pro-life.
Office park dads currently prefer the Republicans to the Democrats in
a generic test of congressional strength by 42 percent to 31 percent3,
even while suburban women support Democrats by 46 percent to 29 percent.
Rural middle-aged men prefer Republicans to Democrats by an even higher
margin -- 42 percent to 26 percent. Despite their current Republican
preference, these voters can be won by Democrats with the right message.
Democrats made inroads in the 1990s with suburban women by developing
an agenda that spoke to their socially moderate inclinations on issues
such as abortion and spoke to the challenges these voters face in their
daily lives. President Clinton offered a series of policies that appealed
to women who were struggling to take time off of work for a health emergency
or parent-teacher conference, shield children from unwanted media influences
while working a second job, and protect children from school and gun violence.
As a result, suburban women moved from an initially unfavorable (lukewarm)
voter group into a reliable Democratic support group.
What To Do. To keep their current levels of support among suburban
women and success-oriented Hispanics while winning a majority of office
park dads, Democrats need to move beyond their traditional safety net
agenda to offer voters an opportunity agenda. It should express an understanding
of the changes taking place in America and stress the need for growth
and fiscal discipline to expand opportunity. While voters demand accountability
from corporate America, in the long run the Democrats' challenge is to
make sure voters understand that their priority is to stand on the side
of families, not to stand against the businesses that employ them.
This pro-growth, pro-fiscal-discipline message is especially critical
during the current tax debate in Washington and around the country. Voters
generally are much more likely to fear that Democrats want to raise taxes
than that Republicans want to slash funding for popular social programs.
In a recent national survey we read voters a series of statements to
see which one represents the most compelling portrait of the Democratic
Party (see chart below). In overall terms, the profile that most successfully
appeals to the American electorate is one that stresses that Democrats
"understand the future" and that in a rapidly changing world,
Democrats offer new approaches to the problems we face. This message was
the only one tested that had strong overall appeal and that appealed to
both suburban and rural men. After hearing that message, suburban men
said they favored that type of Democratic congressional candidate 52 percent
to 36 percent over Republicans.
Alternately, a more "populist" message may take advantage of
corporate misconduct, but it also focuses on a negative view of the U.S.
economy rather than a positive agenda for growth and opportunity. It identifies
with the needs of those who consider themselves victims of the economy,
not people who count themselves among its beneficiaries.
A populist message -- or even a "kitchen table" message that
promotes specific economic proposals rather than a broad agenda for opportunity -- has
strong appeal among voters who believe the economy is headed in the wrong
direction and among rural middle-aged men. But it does not appeal to voters
who are generally satisfied with the economy or to opportunity-oriented
voters such as the office park dads.
As the table below shows, a message about opportunity and the future
brings Democrats even with Republicans among people who are optimistic
about the economy while also winning the support of three in four voters
who believe the economy is headed in the wrong direction. The populist
and kitchen table messages are relatively less appealing among "wrong
track" voters and also fail to attract Democrats, even among those voters
who are satisfied with the economy. As such, the "future" message
is the only one of the three that works in economic good times as well
as bad. Just as important, the future-oriented message appeals to the
growing segments of the electorate while the other messages appeal primarily
to declining segments.
Taking advantage of long-term national demographic trends has often been
difficult for Democrats. Sometimes they have simply gotten them wrong.
When President Lyndon Johnson announced his War on Poverty he predicted
that 95 percent of Americans would one day live in cities. Instead, our
suburbs have grown at the expense of both our urban and rural areas.
Today's demographics are delivering a clear message. Trends towards voter
independence, diversity, tolerance, and affluence, as well as support
for private-sector opportunity, can produce a long-term Democratic majority.
But the positive Democratic trends of the 1990s did not happen automatically;
they were the product of a carefully thought-out political strategy and
a bold national agenda to promote it. In an ever-more-complex society
of the 21st century, it will take the same kind of political shrewdness
and policy innovation to produce victory.
