The main portion of the column recaps a survey by Galston and Kamarck, in which the veteran Democratic strategists paint a picture of Democratic weakness inconsistent with the idea of America as a "50-50 Nation." The basic idea is that Democratic strategists believe that the party's strength is bigger than it actually is, based on several myths - for example, the idea that Hispanic immigration and other trends will hand Democrats a long-term majority. I can't help but agree with that; from what I've seen, Democratic strategists at both the top level and the grassroots seem overly obsessed with short-term political tactics and not concerned enough with the re-application of liberal ideas for the new century.
Galston and Kamarck also notes the presence of a liberal "elite" within the Democratic ranks, whose values and ideas strongly conflict with the mainstream of American opinion
Along a number of dimensions, liberals differ not only
from other Democrats but from the country as a whole...61 percent of liberals
oppose displaying the Ten Commandments, versus only 22 percent of all Americans.
A remarkable 80 percent of liberals favor gay marriage; less than one third of
their fellow Americans agree...In the area of defense and foreign policy, 67
percent of liberals believe that the pre-emptive use of military force is rarely
or ever justified, 65 percent favor reducing the federal budget to cut the
deficit; again, only 35 percent of the electorate would go along with them.
(Hold on a second...65 percent of liberals favor cutting the budget and reducing the deficit? I though that was supposed to be the main goal of the conservative movement...!!!)
In any case, technicalities aside, what Barone takes from the report is that the liberal core of the Democratic Party is preventing the party from gaining electoral dominance. Barone must agree with this, because he concludes his column with an anecdote from an Iraq correspondent named "Major E.", who writes for the conservative blog Power Line. Major E. seems to think that the Democrats have have succumbed to fringe ideologies that have lost them broad popular support:
Yet, until the rank-and-file Democrats start choosing leaders who represent
America's values and genuinely support American troops, I fear they may continue
to be a party that even die-hard Democrats from the Greatest Generation will
find themselves unable to support.
Barone tacitly supports this notion of Democratic marginalization, and uses the Galston and Kamarck report as "evidence."
But is he right? The Democratic Party lost the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections by only the barest of margins, winning the popular vote in 2000. Now, a plurality of voters would favor switching to a Democratic-controlled Congress. This does not sound like the support profile of a fringe party to me.
What about issues? The nation continues to be pro-choice by a small but constant margin. Support for the Iraq war continues to slip. Americans continue to support strong environmental protection. To me, these issues do not paint the picture of a Democratic Party whose policy stances are out of the mainstream.
Barone is looking at Galston and Kamarck's report and hearing what he wants to hear, but it's not true. The idea that Democratic strategies are too short-term is a good one. The idea that the idea of liberalism needs to be redefined and re-argued for the modern age is a good one. But the idea that the very presence of liberals in the Democratic party is keeping the Democrats out of the mainstream is total bunk.
PS - check out this poll.
0 comments:
Post a Comment