The Anti-Party
On Tuesday, a New York Times/CBS poll reported a curious phenomenon. While the American public prefers Democratic policies, it is voting Republican. Despite being anxious about putting all power in the hands of one party, Americans were so disgusted with the Democrats that they would not even use them as a useful check on President Bush.
If the Democrats want to reverse their decline, they need to appeal to me. By all rights, I should have voted for them in the mid-term elections: I am 22 years old, live in a Blue State, and voted for Al Gore in 2000. I am opposed to Republican environmental, fiscal, and cultural policies. But three weeks ago, I voted Republican.
I am, to say the least, ambivalent about the Republican program. But at least the Republican Party has a program. The Democrats have nothing. They have become the anti-party.
Many Democrats complain that they are constrained by the political environment, in which criticism of a wartime president is dangerous. Instead, they fight a rearguard action, criticizing Bush’s policies on the margins. But on foreign policy matters, it is this very cautiousness that is costing them. Americans will respect a Democratic Party that proposes a serious foreign policy, but how can we entrust a party whose foreign policy amounts to no more than cautious, and often contradictory, criticism?
If Bush emphasizes the hunt for Bin Laden, he is accused of focusing too much on one man, but if the Administration maneuvers the UN into supporting a tough stand on Iraq, he is accused of losing focus on Bin Laden. The same people who once attacked the "Axis of Evil" for lumping together three very different countries now criticize the Administration for inconsistency in dealing with North Korea through diplomacy and with Iraq through the threat of force. So why should the American people hand the Democrats the reins of foreign policy? All we know is that they think that whatever Bush does is flawed. Well, I am not looking for perfection, I am just looking for a policy.
The Democrats’ weakness for meaningless opposition becomes even more apparent when it comes to domestic policy, where Democrats feel less constrained about attacking Republican positions, but no more inclined to develop their own message. Great Society programs are failing: the country’s health care system is in shambles; public housing has trapped people in a new ghetto; welfare has not solved poverty; and Medicare and Social Security are heading towards bankruptcy. Yet the Democrats have no solutions to these problems. Say what you will about the Republican policies of rolling back welfare, maintaining the health care status quo, and privatizing Social Security - at least you know where they stand.
Even on civil rights issues, where the Democrats should naturally lead, the party looks thoroughly befuddled. "Mend it, don’t end it" and "Don’t ask, don’t tell," are catchy slogans but mealy-mouthed policy. Either affirmative action and gay rights are worthwhile, or they are not. There is no need for a party that believes in progressive values, but won’t fight for them.
Sadly, the only time Democrats speak up about civil rights is when it is most self-serving. They criticize the Republicans for not being diverse enough. Then, when the Republican Party brings in minority voices that are - surprise! - conservative, Democrats accuse them of being "tokens." Shamefully, the Democrats remain silent about their own lily-white Senate make-up. Apparently they believe that the old boy’s network must be dismantled, unless the old boys are Frank Lautenberg and Walter Mondale.
In the past 3 weeks, there has been much discussion about whether the Democratic Party needs to move to the left or towards the center. I do not know the answer to this question. All I know is that if the Democratic Party wants to attract me and voters like me, it must stand for something.