The national Democratic Party has been timid in recent years. The Party's loss of command over the House, Senate, and White House in a period of ten years (from 1994 to today) has left it shell-shocked and risk-averse. A Party that once dominated the national debate on every issue, including national security, is now a shadow of its former self. Inept strategies have led to crushing electoral defeats, and have bruised the Party's confidence. As a result, the Party's higher-ups have started believing that since the Republican Party has been successful, the best way to win elections is by sliding slowly to the right, and mirroring the Republican stance on "common sense" issues: national defense, abortion, gay marriage, and deficit reduction.
This panicky positioning can be seen in the refusal of Senate Democrats to back Senator Russ Feingold's proposal to censure President Bush for domestic spying. Even though most Democrats have said that they are concerned about the spying program, they declined to stand with Feingold, because they feared that Republicans would paint them as soft, America-hating, pro-terrorist lefties who were collaborating with the French.
A fear of losing has sunk deep into the Democratic psyche. So traumatized are Party leaders that they refuse to attack a president who has unpopular policies (the Iraq War and domestic spying), along with a 39 percent approval rating. Politically, no one could ask for an easier road. The Democratic Party currently has a perfect opportunity to offer a clear contrast to Republican stances, and to offer strong criticisms of the president without it backfiring. Unfortunately, the current Democratic leadership is too skittish to try.
From the aftermath of World War Two to the mid 1960s, the Republican Party had a similar confidence problem. From 1933 to 1969, Dwight Eisenhower was the only Republican president to occupy the White House. Though conservative, Eisenhower took care to reflect Democratic stances on "common sense" issues at the time, such as the preservation of Social Security and labor unions. This don't-rock-the-boat mentality was the answer to Democratic dominance, and was the accepted method for political positioning until Barry Goldwater, running for the presidency in 1964. Offering voters, in the words of conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly, "A Choice, not an Echo," Goldwater was pulverized in his bid for the presidency. Nonetheless, as his followers began to fine-tine his message, it began to resonate more with voters. Although Goldwater did not immediately benefit from his stances, he changed the political orientation of the Republican Party, and helped usher in an era of Republican dominance. Now, Goldwater is revered as the forefather of the modern brand of American conservatism.
No better time exists for a similar revival in the Democratic Party than now. In a midterm election year with a collapsing Republican Party and the public disapproving of the president's job performance, Democrats would risk little by being adventurous. If the Democrats wish to dominate the political debate as they once did, then soul-searching and courage are in order.
Many voters are disaffected with what they view as self-interested, do-nothing political parties that care nothing about making the nation better, and only about consolidating power. In 2006, voters dissatisfied with the status quo will most likely reject Republican leadership. Democratic control of Congress is possible. However, the cowardly approach that Democrats have taken in 2006 will not work again in 2008, when voters will re-evaluate the state of the nation.
Disenchanted voters only go to the polls when they see their votes making a difference. The Democratic Party has a golden opportunity to capture many of these turned-off, frustrated voters, particularly anti-war activists. If the Democrats can succeed in doing this, then they will be able to push the Republicans into the minority. However, any change in political orientation requires leaders with new vision, who understand that a left-of-center message, if properly argued, is not a political death sentence. The status quo is not the answer, and true change takes courage.but do current Democratic leaders have enough of it?
Robert Idlett is a sophomore in the School of Public Affairs, and a liberal columnist for the Eagle.
