Late at night, on Election Day in 1980, I called my father, whose interest in politics and own effective political activity spurred my own. (My first campaign was for my Dad’s race for a Councilman in the Town of Liberty, NY, in 1963. Ever since, I have thought of Councilman as one of the most distinguished political titles.)
As the returns came in, and Reagan and a Republican Senate were elected, I complained to my Dad about the tides of politics. “You’ve lived through a period of Democratic dominance, during which you at least had some hope that politics might head in the right direction,” I said. “I’m looking at twenty years of Republican dominance.”
Now we have some hope that the next twenty five years will look very different.
Dashed Hopes in 1992
I had some, but not very much, hope in 1992 that the tide had turned much sooner than twenty years. But it seemed to me then that the Democratic Party had not recovered from all the problems that had plagued it since 1972. The party lead by Clinton was, I thought, not ready to articulate an economic justice agenda that could convince the vast majority of Americans that a creative and innovative government could play a central role in making their lives better. It was not ready to embrace the movements of the sixties and seventies—for racial justice, feminism, and gay liberation—in a way that showed Americans that they were expressions of our deepest moral and religious ideals. It was not ready to bring a global environmental perspective to every aspect of public policy. And it was not ready to distinguish between the common good and the interests of the factions that comprised it.
Why the Balance of Power Changes
Today I am a little more hopeful that the tide might be turning. As usual in American politics, changes in the balance of power in Washing don’t occur because of a tectonic shift in political alignments or in the ideological stance of our citizenry. Transitions in power mostly occur because Americans want to throw out the party that has mucked things up—as we did to Republicans in the wake of the Depression in 1932, the Democrats in the wake of the Korean War in 1952, the Democrats in the wake of Vietnam in 1968, the Democrats in the wake of the Carter Malaise in 1980, and the Republicans in the wake of a serious economic downturn in 1992. We won yesterday mostly because of the failures of the Bush presidency in Iraq and the corruption of the Republican Congress.
Tectonic Changes In Our Favor
However these changes in the balance of power do provide an opportunity for larger tectonic changes to assert themselves. Democratic analysts for a long time have said that the future of our party is in the suburbs that surround major cities in the Northeast, Midwest, and West. Those areas have been voting Democratic in state and federal elections for some time. As the suburbs become more settled and congested, educated middle class suburbanites recognize that their communities will not be livable without government direction and planning. And they are fleeing from the radical rightwing religious and moral agenda. The revulsion against Bush finally provided the impetus for many voters in these areas to turn out long time incumbents, thus making it possible for people like Patrick Murphy and Joe Sestak to win and Lois Murphy to come close. Much the same is happening in state legislative races where Democrats Rick Murphy and Brian Lentz joined Mike Gerber and Josh Shapiro as suburban representatives. This same transformation is occurring in suburban areas everywhere in the country.
Can We Articulate a Governing Agenda?
The second tectonic change that will consolidate Democratic control is for our party to articulate a governing agenda that can actually make our lives better and find broad support among voters. Here I’m still worried about whether the Democratic Party can avoid blowing this new opportunity. The Congressional leadership did not articulate such an agenda during the election. And individual Democratic candidates went in very different directions. Looking at our what local candidate did not does inspire me. It seems that Bob Casey got elected despite what he said not because of it. Governor Rendell did, to his credit, campaign on a record of government activism. But, as ever, Rendell seemed allergic to painting his approach to government with broad, thematic strokes. And while Joe Sestak did have attractive ways of talking about what security means today, it is difficult for congressional candidates to provide this kind of agenda setting leadership.
Most often in American politics, it is Presidential candidates who articulate a new path for their party to follow. So that is what I will be looking for in a Democratic presidential candidate in the next two years. In the meantime, those of us who scribble need to get busy to help put the public policies that will make this country more progressive and just into a thematic package that resonates with the public.