By Jack A. Smith
After a dozen years of steadily moving to the political center of American politics, virtually eliminating its left wing in the process, the Democratic Party has succeeded in losing control of all three branches of the U.S. government -- the executive, the judicial and now the legislative.
Undoubtedly, the Bush administration's fiction that the United States is "under attack" in the aftermath of Sept. 11 created support for Republicans in the mid-term elections Nov. 5 that was hardly earned by their legislative record. But by opportunistically wrapping themselves in the red, white and blue bunting of patriotic support for many of President Bush's policies, combined with the absence of a political program to address the serious economic and social problems confronting working people and the poor, the electorate punished the Democrats by restoring control of the Senate to the Republicans and increasing their existing majority in the House.
The lack of a serious choice between the two major parties again resulted in an exceptionally low voter turnout of 39.3% of the registered voters and about 32% of all voting-age adults. Out of this latter category, somewhat more than half voted for the Republicans and several hundred thousand fewer voters selected Democrats. The greatest proportion of nonvoters were members of the working class, minorities and the poor -- the very constituency that once conceived of the Democratic Party as representing its interests. Young people distances themselves from the voting booths in huge numbers. Even so, most of the Democrats who lost tended to support the Bush administration's war plans and tax cuts for the rich.
Clearly the centrist policy guiding the Democrats since the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) assumed jurisdiction over the party's direction is an important factor in its slumping fortunes today, regardless of the two narrow victories that placed arch-centrist Bill Clinton in the White House for eight years. All it took was for the Republicans to adopt centrist language, while putting forward right and far-right policies, to erode the Democratic gains, even in the midst of a serious economic downturn. The Democrats, by contrast, employ centrist language and put forward centrist programs while pledging allegiance every morning to the "wartime" Republican president. A left worth its name no longer exists in the two-party system.
Though battered, the DLC is still influencing the Democratic course. The day after the election debacle, the DLC announced "the party needs a bigger, bolder, clearer agenda and message" but not "by moving to the left.... The majority of Americans are still moderates.... There is an urgent need for Democrats to return to the task that occupied them during much of the 1990s: creating a message and agenda based on broad values and policy goals rather than government programs, [an agenda] aimed at building new majorities rather than tending to old coalitions...."
A week later, the DLC was arguing that "Democrats need to appeal to all Americans, not just to narrow interests." Those "interests" presumably refer to working people and the elderly in particular. "The harsh reality is that there are more conservatives than liberals in America, and more moderates than either.... That's why moving left is counterproductive.... Democrats need to get the big things right. That means national security and the economy. Our nominee must convince voters that he'll keep them safe.... Trimming the [Bush] tax cut makes sense, but as part of a comprehensive Democratic alternative that includes their own tax cuts...."
Finally, on Nov. 18, the DLC declared that "bending to the centrist impulses of the national electorate isn't just important in presidential elections; it is also critical in the dwindling number of swing districts that hold the key for any hopes of Democrats retaking Congress this decade. A sharp turn to the left would likely doom Democrats in contests for control of both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue."
The DLC is evidently blaming congressional Democrats for not being centrist enough, as though it wasn't the party's middle-of-the-road politics in the recent election that already lost them "control of both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue."
Clearly a "sharp turn to the left" -- meaning in the DLC's opportunist framework a return to the compromised liberalism of a Johnson or a Truman, though hardly a Roosevelt of the early New Deal -- is not in the cards. At issue is whether Democrats are prepared to assume the semblance of an opposition party, articulating a politics that will tilt somewhat toward the interests of workers, minorities, the elderly and the poor.
It is probably too much to ask that the Democratic Party as a whole entertain the notion of opposing Bush's "war on terrorism" -- a misnomer for military aggression abroad, the constriction of civil liberties at home, and the shoveling of tax revenues down the Pentagon's bottomless pit of "defense" expenditures while pleading poverty when it comes to financing social programs for the people.
Al Gore, a leading DLC voice with impeccable centrist leanings at the time of his vice presidency and in the 2000 presidential campaign, is the one key Democrat and contender for the top nomination who is at least mumbling, though not yet shuffling, in the direction of inching "left." He has been given lately to a certain populist rhetoric -- and recently suggested he now supports universal healthcare -- but he will drift wherever the opportune winds blow in the years leading up to the 2004 contest.
Democratic progressives have put a certain store in the election of liberal San Francisco Rep. Nancy Pelosi as minority leader in the new Congress. Pelosi, who has represented one of the country's most liberal congressional districts since 1987, is undoubtedly one of the more "left" of the current crop of Democratic members of the House, which means she is a trifle left of center in broader terms. Liberals point to the fact that she voted against the Homeland Security Act when it first came before Congress in July and that she voted against the resolution granting President Bush war powers in October.
At the same time, however, the new Democratic leader voted with the 87 members of her party to support the final Homeland legislation Nov. 13. "It was time to move on," she explained. "All the Democrats and Republicans want homeland security," she declared, stating the obvious while ignoring the 114 Democrats (including Mid-Hudson Rep. Maurice Hinchey) who opposed the specific bill in question.
Four days later Pelosi went out of her way to stress that she would support Bush if he decided to declare war against Iraq, even if he did not obtain backing from the UN Security Council. After describing Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein as a "menace" to the United States, without explaining her reasons for arriving as this absurd conclusion, Pelosi announced "I will certainly support the action of the president" if he utilizes -- evidently for any reason -- the very powers to launch a new war on Iraq that she voted against. This does not seem to differ substantially from the centrist leadership displayed by her predecessor, Rep. Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.), who resigned his post after the Democrats lost the elections, in part to prepare for seeking his party's presidential nomination.
Since her election to the leadership, Pelosi has repeatedly stressed her moderation and desire to serve as a party unifier and consensus builder. On Nov. 13, she named conservative-centrist Rep. John M. Spratt Jr. as assistant Democratic leader. Spratt is an important member of the centrist New Democrat Coalition. According to the DLC, he "is very well equipped to remind Pelosi of the persistent weakness of congressional Democrats on issues of national defense and managing the federal budget." In other words, Pratt will help the Democrats become even more like Republicans.
Most left analysts, while welcoming the advent of the first woman congressional leader, do not believe she -- or any others in the Democratic leadership at this point -- are prepared to assume the political stance required to measurably nudge the party to the left. Nothing is ever certain in politics, of course, but it looks like more war and fewer programs for the people over the next years.