Can Dems Do It? (New Yorker)

[Dover]

Issue of 2006-05-29

This week in the magazine, Jeffrey Goldberg writes about the battle within the Democratic Party over how to take advantage of the President’s low approval ratings. Here, with Amy Davidson, he discusses the Party’s prospects.

AMY DAVIDSON: Your article this week is about where the Democratic Party is headed. The big test coming up is the midterm elections. Do the Democrats have a chance of gaining control of one or both houses of Congress?

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: I think the Democrats have a reasonable chance of regaining the House. The Senate is a little tougher, partly because only a third of the Senate seats are being contested in any year. The House is hard, though—because of gerrymandering and the general powers of incumbency, it’s difficult to shake loose some of these seats. That said, the Democrats have the wind at their backs right now. Bush’s poll numbers are almost inconceivably low; he’s heading into Truman territory. Combine that with a general disgust for Congress, due in part—but only in part—to the Abramoff scandal, and you have an atmosphere which might translate into a “throw the bums out” moment.

But that’s all about negatives—the President’s negatives, the congressional Republicans’ negatives. Can the Democrats win on the negatives alone, or do they need to have a positive program to offer?

The Democrats can probably win on the negatives for the 2006 elections, but those who think they can go negative and win the White House in 2008 are kidding themselves. For one thing, George W. Bush won’t be running in 2008; it could be someone like John McCain. Even now, it’s not the easiest thing to be solely negative. Americans are optimists; they want to hear positive solutions to problems. The Democrats don’t have one stellar spokesman for the party, or an overwhelming unified message.

You write in your article that the Democrats want to win back the Reagan Democrats and rebuild the Roosevelt coalition. Can they do this without a Reagan or a Roosevelt?

It’s hard without a Roosevelt to rebuild a Roosevelt coalition, that’s for sure. By “Reagan Democrats,” what I mean are the Catholic, working-class, white suburbanites who have gradually left the Democratic Party. Since the McGovern period, there has been a feeling among many people in this country, particularly in those states that are not situated in the northeast or along the Pacific Coast, that the Democrats have a family problem, a God problem, and a national-security problem.I talked to Democrats from red states, Democrats who are popularly elected officials in states that have been going Republican in the Presidential race. They all say the same thing: part of their problem is policy—they need the Democratic Party to convince the voters that they, too, will stand up for American national security...cont'd

http://www.newyorker.com/online/content/articles/060529on_onlineonly01

[Drum]

1. Thanks, I'm gonna read that.

As a longtime subscriber of the New Yorker (who frequently gets behind in the reading) I must comment on how infrequently they do interviews in the mag (their "Q&A".) I wonder why they don't do interviews a little more often.

Thanks for the tip!

[AX10]

2. Thanks.

[Conker]

3. Interesting and good read.Thanks for the information and the link.

[yurbud]

4. I read it and the author falls for the DLC presentation of themselves

as plain-speaking centrists rather than the empty platitude mouthing, Bush-enabling, corporate hacks that that they are.

Part of why people aren't taking Democrats seriously is the self-designated centrists are trying not to offend the corporations that are screwing us like the health insurance industry, pharm, and big oil (though some are risking talking tough about oil now).

Progressives are the real problem solvers because they are looking out for regular people not just the chamber or commerce, which the GOP is already capably doing.

I would have more respect for these guys if they used "divide and conquer" tactics on corporate America, like telling the rest of the business world they are being screwed by the oil industry and health insurance. But that would take a) some balls, b) some actual conviction, and c) a willingness to forgo donations from the industries attacked.

They would also do well to attack trade agreements that hurt jobs, but again "centrist" Democrats care more about Wall Street than Main Street, even though those NAFTA profits end up in the Cayman Islands, not here.

[jackbourassa]

5. I totally agree the author has been talking to DLCers

It would be political suicide to try to "recreate" the New Deal Coalition. WE HAVE TO BUILD A NEW COALITION. Consider this: a 21 year old (legal voting age then) voting for Roosevelt in 1932 will be 95 years old in 2006. A 21 year old who voted for Roosevelt the last time he ran for President, in 1944, will be 83 in 2006. It seems to this poster to be the dumbest strategy on Earth to try recreating the New Deal Coalition. The DLC can't seem to grasp the obvious, which is that the population has changed dramatically since the 1930s - 1960s.

I keep hearing the same talking points (this is the Washington Democrats hedging its bets in case they lose) where the House will be hard to win because of "gerrymandering" and the Senate will be even tougher. If they can't win this election, then they never will. Shit, the Republicans were able to win 9 seats in 1992, and 54 seats in 1994 (63 seats in two years) after decades of Democratic gerrymandering. These guys think like losers and act like losers. Is it any wonder why Democrats always lose with them in charge?

Also, this here is exactly the problem with the DLC strategy of targetting districts. Not only is it shortsighted and small minded, but they choose the wrong seats to challenge. Sometimes I worry that winning in 2006 is not as sure of a thing as I think it should be, and it has nothing to do with gerrymandering.