For a few weeks before the holidays, there was a school of thought that embraced and promulgated the idea that, at this particular moment, the choice of a new chair of the Democratic National Committee was an inconsequential event. The argument was that the party was so confused at this juncture, embroiled in so many contentious debates, that whomever got the job now would likely no longer have the job two years from now, in the run-up to the next presidential cycle. Therefore, the new chair would have little influence on the most important thing the party can do: to win presidential elections. This, in other words, was to be a caretaker chairmanship until a heavy-hitter is revealed.
The adherents of this view were, if small in number, boundlessly determined not to care about the exercise of choosing a new party chair. The retreat was a common response to the horrible losses in November.
“Who cares?” declared one activist, still bitter from the last brutal days of a losing senate campaign. But with the chair's election a month away, things have changed. One former Kerry staffer compared the intraparty maneuverings to the Iowa caucuses: “These DNC members want to see the candidates for themselves, and they want to see them over and over again,” he says.
Comparisons are always nefarious, of course, but this election will not be decided by regular trudging through the Midwestern night to stand with the choice but in a banquet hall at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel in Washington, DC -- not far from the National Zoo --and it resembles nothing so much as a study in curious animal behavior or a Rorschach test for the party. It doesn't take much to be interested in how it'll all turn out.
Ten weeks after another drubbing at the polls -- and with 198 weeks before Election Day 2008 -- the Democratic Party is reflecting again, searching its soul, reconstituting itself. Some are worried the party will careen to the left. Others worry it'll tack right and begin to look like a neo-GOP. Howard Dean is on the march again. Tim Roemer has a lot of people intrigued and a lot more shaking their heads in rage at his conservative (read pro-life) credentials. Martin Frost, fresh off a defeat caused by a Tom DeLay redistricting in Texas, is betting it'll come down to him and Dean. Frost is positioning himself as the “responsible alternative” to the screaming Yankee from Burlington. OK, so it looks a little like Iowa.
At the start of his current media blitz to clang the bell on behalf of a “progressive agenda,” Senator Ted Kennedy, who is running for neither DNC chair nor president, warned his party faithful to stay Blue: “We cannot become Republican clones. If we do, we will lose again and deserve to lose,” he said this week at the National Press Club.
There is little agreement, however, on what ideals hold this progressive coalition together, and there is a lot more concern these days about what could pull it apart. Even Kennedy, the Defiant One, was urging a little self-reflection. “There's no doubt we must do a better job of looking within ourselves and speaking out for the principles we believe in and for the values that are the foundation of our actions.”
As an aside, it is worth noting that these battle cries are coming from the senior senator from Massachusetts -- not the junior senator, John Kerry, who, despite a his decisive loss in 2004, has given every indication that he intends to seek the Democratic nomination again in 2008.
All the soul-searching has produced little so far, except a new chorus of voices, urging the party to resituate it self on abortion, and a general agreement that they have to pick a fight with George W. Bush. But it is difficult to see how or on what issues they can fight AND WIN! And a larger concern is the lack of consensus on what to fight for:
To save Social Security? Yes.
To stop judges who want to overturn Roe v. Wade? Yes.
Yet what if the judge disagrees with Roe but says, “It's the law of the land.” Maybe not protest so much?
Tort reform? Maybe, maybe not!
Immigration reform? Probably not!
One emergent theme in the recent discussions about where the party should go is the outreach to Red State voters. And here the message seems to be: “We are not so different from you! Please don't be so over-determined about voting against us ALL THE TIME!”
Democrats have been consistent in asserting that the problem with the voters is not the message but the messengers and the mode of delivery. There is now a movement to have Red-state Democrats carry the banner for a while, which is why some people love the fact that the new Senate minority leader, Harry Reid, is pro-life.
“I think it was good for the party after [former Democratic leader Tom] Daschle lost; America woke up to see that the Democrats had elected a leader who is pro-life,” said one Reid acolyte.
This tactic of anointing new, moderate messengers has led to an interesting development. The candidacy of former U.S. Representative Tim Roemer (D-IN), completely implausible a few weeks ago, has now grown full-fledged legs. Nobody should not be surprised if the next chair of the Democratic Party is a smooth-talking, Catholic, anti-abortion, budget hawk with a PhD from Notre Dame. Whether or not they admit it, Democrats care.
Terence Samuel is the chief congressional correspondent for U.S. News & World Report. His column about politics appears each week in the Prospect's online edition.
