2.20.2005
Letter from Washington
LETTER FROM WASHINGTON
To Democrats Abroad
February 18, 2005
Tom Fina, Executive Director Emeritus
With the the seating of the 109th Congress on January 4, inauguration of the President on January 21, his State of the Union address on February 2, the submission of his budget on February 7, and the February 12 election of Howard Dean as Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, a fierce political struggle has begun that will mark the entire Bush second term.
Both parties have serious problems although those of the winner may seem easier to manage than those of the loser. I will leave details of the growing problems of the winner to another letter.
The Democrats face the most obvious difficulties. There is widespread demoralization and some finger pointing after losing an election that they had good reason to expect to win. The loss of the White House and diminished power in both the Senate and House weigh heavily on the ability of the party to defend the principles for which it stands. Deprived of a clearly acknowledged national spokesman-leader, Democrats are unable to match the ability of the President to drum his message into the public consciousness - not only from his own bully-pulpit but from the enormous Federal bureaucracy that echoes his arguments. And, Democrats are without a concise unified message defining what they stand for as contrasted with the Bush Administration which has perfected “message control.”.
The first step in Democratic regrouping has now been taken with the election, by acclaim, of Howard Dean to be the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. This was a significant departure from past practice. He was elected despite the opposition of the Democratic congressional leadership, of much of the Democratic establishment, some big donors and some of the trade union movement. He comes to office, in short, with few obligations to traditional Democratic power centers. Those who elected him were actually the 447 members of the Democratic National Committee rather than the usual power-brokers. While the members of the DNC are somewhat to the left of the Democratic establishment and the Democratic congressional delegation, they are probably more representative of the grass roots of the Democratic constituency. In that sense, Dean assumes his position with greater legitimacy than many of his predecessors.
As his campaign for the job rolled along, one competitor after another dropped out because Dean aggressively went after the individual DNC members who were sold on his charisma and his approach. Above all, it would appear that they wanted someone who would be a clear-spoken opponent ready to go toe-to-toe with George Bush. In the end, the establishment embraced him. President Clinton called for party unity behind him and Senator Kerry and outgoing Chair McAuliffe laid on their hands as well. Only Senator Minority Leader Reid and House Minority Leader Pelosi were slow to come aboard.
The Democratic congressional leadership wants to keep policy formulation in its hands rather than have a competing power center in the DNC chair. Dean, obligingly, has assured it that he will leave policy up to the elected members of Congress. But, even if this is his intention, the political dynamics of the contest between the Administration and the Minority may dictate another scenario.
Dean comes to the DNC with the potential for real power that none of his predecessors within recent memory could command. He is his own man, beholden to no one but the 447. He inherits a national party organization that, if not rich, is not in debt and which comes with a greatly improved small-donor fund-raising system as well as a degree of direct contact with activists and voters that no previous chair has ever had. Moreover, Dean has already proven that he knows how to use the new internet world not only to raise money but also to rally supporters.
This is especially important since the various state parties are relatively weak links in the federal election process. They are underfunded, often poorly organized and led. Yet, they are also jealous of their independence. The Republican solution to this problem some years ago was to get control of its state parties by paying for their Executive Directors - a promise made by earlier Democratic chairmen but never kept. And not kept, in part, because state parties want the money but are very jittery about the inevitable conditions that must accompany it.
Now, there is general recognition that one condition for a Democratic come-back is to build the party from the grassroots up. That idea resonates among Democrats like motherhood and apple-pie. Dean has promised that this will be his approach. It will be a Herculean task because it will mean a profound change in the culture of the state parties as well as costing big bucks.
Dean also arrives on the scene with a new set of powerhouses that have been in competition with the old powerhouses - the trade unions and the state parties. MoveOn, American Coming Together and the Media Fund, plus his own Democrats for America, for example, have shown that they can raise significant money and organize significant numbers of activists and voters across the entire nation in support of Democratic candidates. To the extent that he can work with them, he will have added new muscle to the Democratic coalition.
Right now, Republicans are salivating, and worried Democrats are fidgeting, as they await what they are sure will be one Dean gaff or another that will rocket launch the Republican calumny machine (it learned at the skirts of Don Bazilio). So far, Dean has disappointed the vultures. But, if he fails to provide the red meat they expect, it can always be invented.
In substantive terms, Democrats are already rethinking their message on issues that have cost them votes. Senator Clinton has made a much remarked first move by trying to shift the political debate from defending legal abortion to reducing recourse to it by emphasizing the prevention of unwanted pregnancies. That will never win the right which is mostly hostile to contraception, but it could make sense to swing voters. There is also rethinking of terminology and how to show that Democratic goals are not only consistent with religious values but derive from them. Another perceived problem is Democratic “softness” on national security. That is a much harder nut to crack. It was fear of looking weak that led so many Democrats to vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq. Should Democrats now rattle louder swords, be more confrontational with our allies, demand a bigger ABM program, demand intervention in Iran, Syria and North Korea, beard China on Taiwan and embrace laws punishing flag burning? Can, should, must Democrats be more hawkish than the Bush Administration? Don’t envy Reid, Pelosi and Dean trying to get this part of the message right.
Both parties have serious problems as they face 2006 and 2008. But the Democrats have now taken a major step to overcome theirs.
Thomas W. Fina
Executive Director Emeritus
Democrats Abroad
Comments: demsabrd@bellatlantic.net ¶ 10:25
To Democrats Abroad
February 18, 2005
Tom Fina, Executive Director Emeritus
With the the seating of the 109th Congress on January 4, inauguration of the President on January 21, his State of the Union address on February 2, the submission of his budget on February 7, and the February 12 election of Howard Dean as Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, a fierce political struggle has begun that will mark the entire Bush second term.
Both parties have serious problems although those of the winner may seem easier to manage than those of the loser. I will leave details of the growing problems of the winner to another letter.
The Democrats face the most obvious difficulties. There is widespread demoralization and some finger pointing after losing an election that they had good reason to expect to win. The loss of the White House and diminished power in both the Senate and House weigh heavily on the ability of the party to defend the principles for which it stands. Deprived of a clearly acknowledged national spokesman-leader, Democrats are unable to match the ability of the President to drum his message into the public consciousness - not only from his own bully-pulpit but from the enormous Federal bureaucracy that echoes his arguments. And, Democrats are without a concise unified message defining what they stand for as contrasted with the Bush Administration which has perfected “message control.”.
The first step in Democratic regrouping has now been taken with the election, by acclaim, of Howard Dean to be the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. This was a significant departure from past practice. He was elected despite the opposition of the Democratic congressional leadership, of much of the Democratic establishment, some big donors and some of the trade union movement. He comes to office, in short, with few obligations to traditional Democratic power centers. Those who elected him were actually the 447 members of the Democratic National Committee rather than the usual power-brokers. While the members of the DNC are somewhat to the left of the Democratic establishment and the Democratic congressional delegation, they are probably more representative of the grass roots of the Democratic constituency. In that sense, Dean assumes his position with greater legitimacy than many of his predecessors.
As his campaign for the job rolled along, one competitor after another dropped out because Dean aggressively went after the individual DNC members who were sold on his charisma and his approach. Above all, it would appear that they wanted someone who would be a clear-spoken opponent ready to go toe-to-toe with George Bush. In the end, the establishment embraced him. President Clinton called for party unity behind him and Senator Kerry and outgoing Chair McAuliffe laid on their hands as well. Only Senator Minority Leader Reid and House Minority Leader Pelosi were slow to come aboard.
The Democratic congressional leadership wants to keep policy formulation in its hands rather than have a competing power center in the DNC chair. Dean, obligingly, has assured it that he will leave policy up to the elected members of Congress. But, even if this is his intention, the political dynamics of the contest between the Administration and the Minority may dictate another scenario.
Dean comes to the DNC with the potential for real power that none of his predecessors within recent memory could command. He is his own man, beholden to no one but the 447. He inherits a national party organization that, if not rich, is not in debt and which comes with a greatly improved small-donor fund-raising system as well as a degree of direct contact with activists and voters that no previous chair has ever had. Moreover, Dean has already proven that he knows how to use the new internet world not only to raise money but also to rally supporters.
This is especially important since the various state parties are relatively weak links in the federal election process. They are underfunded, often poorly organized and led. Yet, they are also jealous of their independence. The Republican solution to this problem some years ago was to get control of its state parties by paying for their Executive Directors - a promise made by earlier Democratic chairmen but never kept. And not kept, in part, because state parties want the money but are very jittery about the inevitable conditions that must accompany it.
Now, there is general recognition that one condition for a Democratic come-back is to build the party from the grassroots up. That idea resonates among Democrats like motherhood and apple-pie. Dean has promised that this will be his approach. It will be a Herculean task because it will mean a profound change in the culture of the state parties as well as costing big bucks.
Dean also arrives on the scene with a new set of powerhouses that have been in competition with the old powerhouses - the trade unions and the state parties. MoveOn, American Coming Together and the Media Fund, plus his own Democrats for America, for example, have shown that they can raise significant money and organize significant numbers of activists and voters across the entire nation in support of Democratic candidates. To the extent that he can work with them, he will have added new muscle to the Democratic coalition.
Right now, Republicans are salivating, and worried Democrats are fidgeting, as they await what they are sure will be one Dean gaff or another that will rocket launch the Republican calumny machine (it learned at the skirts of Don Bazilio). So far, Dean has disappointed the vultures. But, if he fails to provide the red meat they expect, it can always be invented.
In substantive terms, Democrats are already rethinking their message on issues that have cost them votes. Senator Clinton has made a much remarked first move by trying to shift the political debate from defending legal abortion to reducing recourse to it by emphasizing the prevention of unwanted pregnancies. That will never win the right which is mostly hostile to contraception, but it could make sense to swing voters. There is also rethinking of terminology and how to show that Democratic goals are not only consistent with religious values but derive from them. Another perceived problem is Democratic “softness” on national security. That is a much harder nut to crack. It was fear of looking weak that led so many Democrats to vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq. Should Democrats now rattle louder swords, be more confrontational with our allies, demand a bigger ABM program, demand intervention in Iran, Syria and North Korea, beard China on Taiwan and embrace laws punishing flag burning? Can, should, must Democrats be more hawkish than the Bush Administration? Don’t envy Reid, Pelosi and Dean trying to get this part of the message right.
Both parties have serious problems as they face 2006 and 2008. But the Democrats have now taken a major step to overcome theirs.
Thomas W. Fina
Executive Director Emeritus
Democrats Abroad
Comments: demsabrd@bellatlantic.net ¶ 10:25
