State of the Democratic Party

Who said Bizblogger doesn't present various viewpoints? This week I had a chance to interview a knowledgeable senior staffer for a prominent Democratic Congressman about his views on the Democratic Party. Although I might not agree with all of his points, he certainly has some interesting insights. By way of background, he is no Democrat-In-Name-Only; he is a true-blooded Democrat. My initial take from his answers is that the Democratic Party still has a reasonable infrastructure, but it needs a drastic overhaul of its policies. Unfortunately for him, an overhaul will likely require at least one more big loss at the polls before that happens.

1) What are your views on the current leadership in the Democratic Party (Pelosi, Dean, Reid)?

The current leadership of the party probably has less to do with the direction of the Democrats than most people realize. I think both parties are being directed by knee jerk reactions derived from activists than ever before, witness the decision by the Republicans to have a vote on Schiavo or the Democrats anointing Dean as Chair. That being said, here is a quick and dirty analysis of the current Dem. leadership:

Harry Reid- While not smooth on TV, he is probably the single best political operative in the Democratic Party. His pro-life positions and generally pro-business record are salves for many moderate to conservative Democrats that realize that the path back to power is through a rejection of the McGovernite philosophies that led to the current Democratic Party's demise. He is from the Harry Truman wing of the Democratic Party, a faction that has largely been forgotten since 1972, and like HST is pragmatic and tough as nails.

He almost single-handedly orchestrated the switch of Jim Jeffords, and as leader has organized a rapid response and media outreach that was completely missing under Daschle. It also doesn't hurt that he recently dressed down Sen. Kerry when the Senator questioned Reid's ability to embolden the Democratic Party.

Howard Dean- I am no fan of the 2004 circa Howard Dean. I found him to be overly arrogant, and when coupled with wrongheaded policy prescriptions and loony Deaniac staffers, that arrogance breached the threshold into asininity. That being said, the '05 incarnation of Dean seems to be moving back to what made him a good governor. Many of the Blogosphere andthe Democratic party activists who anointed him Chair wanted to elect a President of Blue America, rather than have a traditional CEO of the party. Well, they got their guy in the seat, however, he has turned out to be a pragmatic CEO. I am pleasantly surprised.

He hasn't made many comments on policy. What comments he has made have been really moderate, much like the fiscally conservative pro-gun Governor would have. In fact, rather than staffing the DNC with his freaky activists he has hired people who, from all indications, will be among the new generation of Democratic wise-men. In fact, his chief policy advisor is Sen. Lieberman's former chief policy advisor. Dean also recruited pro-life Bob Casey into the PA Senate race, tried to get pro-life Rep. Langevin to challenge Sen. Chaffee, and he has visitedthe states where he is most reviled and got positive reviews.

Pelosi- probably the only true weak link in the Democratic Party leadership. She is not up to thejob, except the Baby Boomer McGovernite leadership is still far more enamored by her gender than to question her ability as a leader. Essentially she manages the House without regard to politics or pragmatism. She is lousy on TV, not only for marked inarticulateness but also because years of Botox and plastic surgery may her look like a deer perpetually caught in a pair of headlights.

She reactively takes up policy positions of the moment, without any judgment as to their perception in the wider political environment. When the initial exit polls showed the "faith gap" between the parties she started spouting Biblical verse in her floor speeches. When some members of the party questioned the 120,000-vote margin that Bush won by in Ohio, she allowed for electors to be challenged for the first time since 1876. Never mind that it was four years too late, and embarrassed the vast majority of Democrats. In the end a dozen Democrats voted against accepting the Ohio vote...the rest of the caucus was embarrassed.

She also runs the caucus out of a prism from her victory over Steny Hoyer in the Whip race in 2001. If you voted for her then you carry weight with her. If you are one of the 100 Democrats that voted for Hoyer, you are essentially part of an unheard minority within the minority. Coveted committee assignments are doled out to her supporters rather than on political need (as DeLay does). Democratic policy is controlled not be a broad base of a diverse party, but rather by a troika of her closest allies. These folks are substantially more liberal than the party as a whole, and have repeatedly handicapped any cohesion we might find as a caucus. I could go on for a few pages more, but I think your readers get the idea. As leader we have lost seats in each of her years in power, if we lose seats again a change might occur.

2) What are the Democrats strongest and weakest points?

The strongest point is probably its unity. Minority status breeds unity. The weakest is probablyour lack of ideas. While I have respect for Reid and growing appreciation for Dean as chair, most of the leadership is enamored with the concept that simple marketing changes will change our status. That is bogus. We are simply not relevant to the vast majority of Americans. We aren't even relevant to me, and I'm a dyed in the wool Democrat.

The problem is not that the liberalism is dead. It’s that the Baby Boomer McGovernites in charge of the party for the last thirty years have been fighting the same battles without realizing the world has changed. This leadership lives in a world where the following are true: 1) The use of American power abroad is dangerous; 2) Households that make $75k are wealthy; 3) If you're not a corporate executive you are a factory worker; 4) The only thing African Americans need to do is vote and then everything else will work out; 5) All senior citizens are poor; 6) Each abortion is a triumph for feminism.

With those basic precepts in mind is there any reason our policies haven't changed since 1972?

3) If you were Howard Dean (or whoever else might really be pulling the strings), what would you change about the Party?

I would take on the interest groups that refuse to change (Planned Parenthood, Sierra Club, NEA). I like the industrial unions so I'm okay with most of them. But as far as the ones mentioned above, the Democratic Party spends its time kowtowing to these folks and what happens in the end is that we become so compartmentalized as to not appeal to anyone. Conversely, the GOP forces its interest groups to kowtow to them this is a much better model because it forces compromise among its interest groups.

4) Who are the rising stars in the party?

Obama, Evan Bayh, Russ Feingold, Rahm Emmanuel, Kendrick Meeks, Artur Davis, Mayor John Hickenlooper of Denver, Harold Ford Jr., Jennifer Granholm, Bill Richardson. There is no real dearth of talent, only a dearth at the top.

5) What are your predictions for the 2006 elections? Optimistic or pessimistic?

Much too early to tell. Probably there will be no real change, maybe Dems pick up a seat in the House and lose one in the Senate (the GOP will pick up Sarbanes seat, believe it or not.)

6) Early pick for 2008 Presidential Election? Who will it be and who should it be?

Still way too early to tell on 2008 as well. Republicans would be wise to nominate Chuck Hagel, he has McCain appeal with Conservative creds. Hillary is wearing well, but I bet that it will be the liberal wing of the Dems that will sink her not the centrists. At this point the dark horse candidates that will surprise folks are Feingold for the Dems and Brownback for the Republicans.

7) Any suprises we can look forward to this year?

DeLay will be indicted; there will be no budget; ANWR drilling will pass and be signed into law with wider margins than would be expected; Iraq will increasingly stabilize and dovish Dems will look a lot like they did following Gulf War I.

_____________

So there you have it – from the mind of a true Democrat. I think the GOP might fare slightly better in the 2006 elections than this person believes. I recall this person also predicted a couple-seat Senate Democratic pickup in the 2004 election about a year before the vote. I’m also grateful that Hagel really doesn’t have much of a chance in the GOP primary; Brownback would be an interesting choice.