In less than two weeks, Senate Democrats will gather to vote on a replacement for Tom Daschle as Senate minority leader. Hours after Daschle was drummed out of office, Harry Reid of Nevada stepped forward to say that 30 fellow Democrats were on board to support him for that position. Reid is a smart, tough Democrat with an intriguing biography and a couple of policy positions that could demonstrate that the Democratic Party can be a big tent for those who like voting “moral values”-- for example, he is anti-abortion. But if the Democrats automatically elect Reid for the job, they miss a tremendous opportunity to steel themselves for the political fights ahead. They should choose John Kerry instead.
It's time for Democrats to learn what Republicans learned some eight years ago: Fame and popularity trump institutional admiration when it comes to national politics. When, in the '90s, George W. Bush's name floated to the top of Republican surveys asking who should be the presidential nominee in 2000, Republicans did not wring their hands and say, “The man has little experience,” “People are only reacting to the fact that he shares his famous father's name,” “We need a candidate with more gravitas.” Of course not. What they wanted was a candidate who could serve as spokesman for the party's values. A front man. Someone who could do for the Republican Party what Ronald Reagan did for the Republican Party and GE.
They chose Bush and what they got was two terms in the White House and majorities in the House and Senate.
Kerry is now without question a national figure, no matter the Monday-morning quarterbacking (or in this case, Wednesday-morning hand-wringing). Karl Rove trumpets Bush's historic victory, but even Kerry won 1.5 million more votes than the previous high total, which Reagan notched in 1984. The only other high profile Democrat is Hillary Clinton, and, unfortunately, she stirs up feelings that are as strongly negative as positive.
Instead, the Democrats need an articulate, feisty, well-known advocate for the party's core beliefs. Kerry is the perfect person to fill the job. Maybe he would not actually win fights due to the Democrats' minority position on the Hill, but he could help the party define what it is to be a Democrat. That way, in the midterm and the next presidential election, people will know why they would pull the lever for a Democratic candidate.
What's more, Kerry has the best education in what the Democratic agenda should be. He has been on a two-year tour of the party's base (not to mention the nation as a whole), and, therefore, knows the Democratic heart and soul better than anyone else. He knows which issues are critical and popular and which are merely chaff. He can set a legislative plan that will excite Democrats and earn the respect of swing voters. In post-election surveys, Bush voters are expressing little visceral dislike for Kerry. They simply felt a greater personal and moral connection with Bush and thus gave their vote to him. This is important. Anyone who was the target of the Republicans' most brilliant strategist in a couple of decades should be as loathed as Saddam Hussein. But Kerry managed to retain a level of general respect, if not quite love. He is not the object of visceral hatred that Bill Clinton became for core Republicans. He would be an appealing voice for Democrats in the mass media.
As a spokesman, Kerry learned on the job, going from being one of the windier Democrats to one of its most articulate. It is telling that a record number of people, 62.5 million, watched the first presidential debate, and polls show they gave the victory to Kerry.
He is also motivated and energized. Judging from his concession speech, he is geared up for a next chapter in his political life. And he has nothing to lose: Massachusetts voters aren't going to turn against an outspoken Democratic Senate leader as South Dakota voters did to Daschle. Republicans would have a hard time bringing Kerry down in his home state.
One could say that the slot should be saved for fresh Democratic blood, someone who could one day run for president and would use the position to gain national recognition. But maybe it's time to face facts that the Senate is no longer a stepping stone to the White House; the last Senate minority leader to make it to the Oval Office was Lyndon Johnson. And even if the position did provide a forum for presenting new national candidates, Reid is not the most likely figure to proceed there.
Perhaps it sounds cynical, but the fact that Bush “reached out” to Reid since the election, in anticipation of the need for bipartisan cooperation, could indicate that the Republicans would be only too happy to see him as minority leader; they are making the Democrats' choice seem like a done deal. But the man often described as “soft-spoken” might not be the best person for the job. Democrats should use the minority leadership position as a bully pulpit for the Democratic Party, a continuous advertising stream for the issues that matter most. Maybe that way, the next Democrat to run for the White House will have a fighting chance of making it there, and out of two men's misery -- John Kerry's and Tom Daschle's -- can come hope for the Democratic Party.
Elizabeth Mitchell is the author of W: Revenge of the Bush Dynasty and the former executive editor of George magazine.
