Study Reevaluates Dems’ Approach

The co-authors of a study that shaped Bill Clinton’s platform in his 1992 presidential victory released another study on Thursday that reevaluates the Democratic Party’s current approach and stresses the urgent need to appeal to swing voters.

Elaine C. Kamarck, a lecturer at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, and William A. Galston, the director of the University of Maryland’s Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy, served in the Clinton White House and helped frame his centrist campaign approach with their 1989 study, “The Politics of Evasion.”

In their current study, “The Politics of Polarization,” Galston and Kamarck urge the Democrats to focus on winning moderates’ votes.

“[The study] is written not so much to dictate a strategy, but to say to the candidates, ‘Here is the American political landscape that you are walking into,’” Kamarck said.

In what the authors refer to as the “great sorting-out of the electorate,” politics have become more polarized, with liberals and conservatives more likely to vote along party lines.

But the electorate is ideologically very similar to the way it was 30 years ago—21 percent liberal, 34 percent conservative, and 45 percent moderate, according to the study, which was sponsored by Third Way, a political organization that helps progressive leaders.

The study argues that many moderate Americans have been alienated as the two parties have begun to narrowly define their platforms in opposition to each other, so there is an opportunity for a Democratic candidate to win over the center.

Kamarck and Galston also outline four myths they believe have hindered the progress of the Democratic Party: the myth of mobilization, of demography, of language, and of prescription drugs.

They warn against the belief that the Democrats must mobilize the base of liberals.

“Because conservatives are one-third of the electorate and liberals are only one-fifth, the strategy of trying to create a liberal majority by going left...will not work as well for the Democrats,” Galston said.

The authors also disagree with the idea that demographic changes will favor Democrats. For example, Hispanics now represent a greater proportion of the population, yet, as Kamarck said, the Hispanic vote “simply is not materializing” for Democrats.

In addition, they argue that Democrats cannot simply change the language they use, which was an explanation offered for Sen. John F. Kerry’s 2004 presidential loss. Their rhetoric will fail if campaigns do not address voters’ real concerns, the authors write.

The final myth of prescription drugs refers to the Democrats’ tendency to focus on domestic issues such as drug policy or job security. Instead, Galston and Kamarck argue that in a post-Sept. 11 society, national security and moral issues are key deciding factors at the ballot box.

“There is a constant debate around the presidential race [that]...we should fight this race on domestic policy, but this does not work when we have soldiers abroad,” said Kamarck.

The authors argue that, by focusing on domestic issues over foreign policy, Democrats are losing their hold on groups such as married women and Catholics that have historically supported the party.

According to the study, the Republican Party has been weakened by the ongoing war in Iraq, the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and the resulting strains on the government’s budget—leaving an opening for Democrats to win over voters if they can present a clearer platform.

“In [the 2006 congressional elections], the major question will be, ‘Who is responsible for the mess, the mess at home and the mess overseas?’” Galston said.

“In [the 2008 presidential elections], we believe the question won’t be so much who is responsible for the mess, but what is the best way forward?” he added.

To address these concerns, the Democratic Party will have to evaluate its strategy, Galston said.

“It’s hard to predict the future but...what the Democratic Party needs over the next three years is a really robust internal dialogue about the way it works. It is not a problem that you can sweep under the rug,” he said.

Gregory M. Schmidt ’06, president of the Harvard College Democrats, said college students could benefit from the study’s application of past lessons to the present.

“College students who are concerned with politics should definitely read it. It offers some good perspectives....We don’t have the same 30-years perspective [as the authors],” Schmidt said.