Why am I writing this column?
I'm not your standard American Prospect material. I'm a New Democrat, and I wrote a book called Reinventing Democrats: The Politics of Liberalism from Reagan to Clinton, the first and only history of the rise of this upstart party faction.
Reinventing Democrats didn't exactly tear up the best-seller list. Its readership centered mainly on those who personally have met Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) founder Al From or who attended my bar mitzvah. Yet my positive take on the subject put me clearly on the New Democratic side in this intraparty fight.
However, when one considers all that has happened since 2000, this offer to join The American Prospect's regular stable of online columnists is not that shocking. Rather, this small gesture is part of the larger movement toward reconciliation and greater understanding between liberal and New Democrats -- and the shared quest to craft a post-Clinton Democratic Party that is relevant to the issues the country faces today.
There is evidence of this growing synthesis all around the Beltway. Recently, the DLC's Progressive Policy Institute and its main ideological rival, the labor-backed Economic Policy Institute, have begun to meet regularly to hash out a Democratic agenda. In their widely read book, The Emerging Democratic Majority, whose new edition was just released, John B. Judis and Ruy Teixeira, both leading labor-liberal intellectuals, argued that any new Democratic majority must include professionals living in suburbs across the nation.
And in the world of politics, one has only to look at the party's presumptive nominee, John Kerry. He is socially liberal, yet he supported welfare reform, voted to open markets abroad, and brags that he is a hunter. Kerry is relying heavily on the political might of organized labor and aggressively courting Howard Dean supporters while making a muscular, liberal internationalism the center of his foreign policy.
To be sure, this reconciliation has its roots in fear and loathing: a visceral hatred of George W. Bush and the fear of what he would do with a popular mandate and without the worry of re-election. But the movement to bridge the divide between Old and New Democrats is built upon more substantial things than simply a hatred of Bush.
First, many of the contentious issues that divided the party in the 1980s have gone the way of Duran Duran and leg warmers. Bill Clinton ended welfare as we know it, deracializing and defusing one of the most divisive intraparty issues while at the same time reinvigorating liberalism's emphasis on the responsibilities citizens have to state and society. Clinton's decisions to "mend and not end" affirmative action drew the line against quotas and drew to an end the intraparty debates about the virtues of this policy and any flirtations that New Democrats had to abandon it.
In economic policy, Clinton reoriented the Democratic Party away from economic redistribution and toward economic growth. Environmental protection was recast as a potential catalyst for growth and not a desirable obstacle to it. And Clinton's decision to "save Social Security first" solidified liberal support for fiscal conservatism by using it in defense of a valued entitlement.
At the same time, the social issues that threatened to tear apart the party no longer do so. Democrats aren't afraid to talk about the virtues of family anymore; very few politicians miss an opportunity to invoke its sanctity and centrality to American life. Alongside that, Democrats are almost entirely united in their defense of personal freedom, be it their choice of religion (or lack thereof), sexual partner, or decisions about their body. Truly conservative Democrats who saw the New Democratic movement as a safe haven have either accepted this from their party or have left its fold.
Second, this new consensus is being reinforced by a new generation of Democratic operatives who came of political age in the Clinton era and absorbed both his political philosophy and the strategy implicit in it. They instinctively understand the need to reach out to suburban swing voters and recognize the importance of being able to speak to and in the words of middle America. While an earlier generation internalized the soaring rhetoric of John F. Kennedy, this generation has been weaned on the conversational style and understandable sound bites of Bill Clinton.
But make no mistake: Those in this younger generation are not DLC ideologues. They have a realistic and acute understanding of the importance of the Democratic base -- activists, blacks, and, especially, organized labor -- in winning elections. After all, while their role model, Clinton, was the first Democratic candidate since 1964 to win a plurality of white men and independents, his most intense support was in congressional districts in which minorities, liberals, and the elderly predominated. These Clinton-era politicos understand, as Jesse Jackson once said, that "it takes two wings to fly."
Have we entered a new Democratic golden age in which the lions have laid down with the lambs?
Not quite yet. The political terrain has shifted beneath the Democrats' feet. The job dislocations of an increasingly global economy and the attacks of September 11 have brought the issue of America's role in the world to the fore, and Democrats have not yet offered a coherent response.
Resolving these differences will be difficult, but it is absolutely critical for any Kerry administration to succeed. A fratricidal war will wound a Kerry presidency much as intraparty battles hurt Clinton during his first two years in office. It's vital that liberals and New Democrats agree on more than "Al Gore won" -- and it's the only way we can roll back the tide of Republican red and win the election this fall.
Kenneth S. Baer, former senior speechwriter for Vice President Al Gore, runs Baer Communications, a Democratic consulting firm.
