Moving On

This column, now in the hearse on the way to its burial, has been lucky.

Except for those few appearances before last November’s Bush victory (in which it proved itself blessedly prescient)—and except for a couple unexpected detours along la rue Larry Summers—its subject has been the future of the defeated, demoralized Democrats.

And what a time to talk about that. No White House. No Congress. A minority on the courts and in statehouses. Really, for an unqualified college kid who likes to lecture his party, America’s loss is commentary’s gain.

In this jungle—as Teddy Roosevelt once said—I have not been the only one killing lions. Partisan liberals, many of whom spent 2001 to 2004 zapping the Republicans, now attack one another. And most of those criticisms (Democrats have organization and discipline problems; there was something lacking on national security; why the hell did we nominate John Kerry?) are broadly accepted—and broadly repeated.

Having twice been beaten by a strain of Republicanism that we believe is hurting America, the challenge is where to go from here. How to move on without going the myopic, unproductive route of Moveon.org—a group whose Bush-hatred is so blinding that its leadership actually opposed toppling the Taliban.

The only honest answer is that nobody fully knows. No pundit or political scientist has yet convincingly argued everything that Democrats should do to reclaim confidence in their leadership. But, like intellectual potluckers, thousands of people are serving their favorite home-cooked ideas. And, as at any potluck, some of the offerings are wonderful, and some will make everyone sick.

So—culled from the cornucopia before us—I’d like to focus on three particularly prominent contributions, two of which will help the party, and one of which should have been thrown out long ago.

First: Getting serious about foreign policy. Since 9/11, too many professional Democrats have viewed national security as a threshold to quickly cross before moving to domestic policy, rather than what it really is: their most important governing responsibility. Bill Clinton wrongly campaigned on the idea that the 2004 presidential election was a choice between “two strong men who’ll protect you” one of whom happened to be right on domestic issues.

Well, if one side has a national security strategy (mistaken though it may be), and the other side says nothing but “me too,” who is going to win? The correct argument was twofold: one, Bush has actually made the country less strong (on homeland security, and on the fight against al Qaeda); and two, here is what Democrats will do to better protect our people in a dangerous world.

Any serious analysis of 2004 yields one inescapable conclusion: It is time for liberals to put national security back at the center of what it means to be a liberal. Because it is Democrats—who believe in public diplomacy, anti-proliferation, “nation-building”, and foreign aid—who are better equipped to win the war on terror, and have a rich history of tough-minded, idealistic foreign policy success.

Second: Fixing the machine. As I’ve argued before, Democratic analysts are “TV weathermen” next to the Republicans’ “investment bankers”—anecdotally describing trends they don’t particularly comprehend, rather than acting based on a methodical and measurable understanding of the electorate in an information age. Of course the party shouldn’t substitute a poll for a moral compass—but it is malpractice to make ignorant and outmoded decisions. I am sick of all the campaign innovations—from advertising on gym cable feeds to sponsoring drive-time traffic reports to energizing new voters on the Internet—coming from Republicans. I am sick of Democrats failing to understand the quantifiable fact that millions of Americans vote for president based on character, not issues. And I am sick of Democrats getting out-professionalized.

Third: “Energizing the base.” Oh, how this dream shall never die. Unfortunately, it has become a quadrennial mantra for defeated Democrats. If only we had fully excited “the base”—by which proponents mean liberals and minorities, or the proletariat masses that never vote—the Democrats would have won. Well, no. Elaine Kamarck’s “The Politics of Evasion” about 1988 showed the same result as Mark Penn’s “Analysis of Voting Patterns” about 2004: neither party’s core is a big enough group to win 50 million votes in a presidential election. And, in any case, Democrats have enjoyed extraordinary “base” turnout for 20 years. Successful candidates marry mobilization with persuasion—and, like Bush last year, are able to win because they have done both.

Finally, let me say thanks for reading these columns. Writing them has been among the most challenging and rewarding experiences of my life. My favorite columnist, William Safire, once wrote that his job was “never to assume that the obvious is true.” Your e-mails have taught me never to assume that idealism is lost.

Brian M. Goldsmith ’05 is a government concentrator in Lowell House. His column appears regularly.