How Democrats Can Win in 2018 and 2020
I do not claim to have a magic cure-all for everything that ails the Democratic party. I leave that to more experienced pundits and analysts. Rather, I want to share an average American’s perspective on what courses of action seem promising.
To start, I think it’s fair to point out that Democrats have been hashing this out for some time now. It started with Hillary Clinton’s loss in the 2016 presidential election and four out of the five special elections that have followed in Kansas, Montana, California, Georgia, and South Carolina. None of these special elections resulted in a partisan changeover (could you imagine if CA-34 had gone red?) and Democrats seems to have found the loss in GA-6 particularly demoralizing.
In between all of that soul-searching, though, Shaun King shared his own analysis on March 9 in the New York Daily News.
King’s main point, given available polling at the time, is that Democrats were more unpopular than Republicans, VP Mike Pence, and even President Trump. Part of this may be driven by what King implies is one of the party’s main flaws, namely, that it “doesn’t listen well and struggles to hear the truth about itself.” In practical terms, it has no definable strategy or message to attract constituents and win elections at any level. Sound familiar when reviewing the special election results for all but CA-34?
The Democrats are trying, sort of. Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chair Tom Perez attempted a unity tour a couple of months ago with mixed results. Even the DNC’s leadership structure appears to project unity, with Bernie Bro Keith Ellison as the party’s deputy chair. I hate to break it to you, Democrats, but the mere symbolism of sharing power between the establishment (Perez) and progressive (Ellison) wings of the Democratic party isn’t enough. Heck, I’m not even convinced that Perez is part of the establishment in the truest sense of the word. He’s simply not centrist enough. If that’s true, how does the current DNC leadership represent the interests of conservative, liberal, centrist, and libertarian factions of the party?
It can’t. Which leads me to my main message for the DNC and the broad spectrum of Democrats across the country:
Stop trying to be all things to all people, at least in the way you attempt to do it today.
It’s a lofty goal, one that may have originated with the Apostle Paul who shared a similar message in his first letter to the Corinthians. In the New International Version of 1 Corinthians 9:22, Paul said: “To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some.” To date, I think Democrats have defined this position in a singular way: we must protect and advance all human rights with the same level of resolve. Admirable? Absolutely. Practical? Not so much. Why do I believe this?
According to a recent Pew Research survey, Americans hold increasingly liberal views of many moral issues. Here is a sampling of some of that data:
- 57% support doctor-assisted suicide
- 58% oppose the death penalty
- 62% say it’s okay to have a baby out of wedlock
- 63% support the equality of same-sex relationships
- 91% favor birth control
On the flip side, there is a data point that will likely give Democrats significant heartburn: only 43% of Americans support abortion.
Abortion is not the only flash point (think guns and immigration, for example), but it’s an important one that helps illustrate my point about not trying to be all things to all people. Anyone who pays attention to the Democratic platform knows it is 100% pro-choice. In the party’s own words, “every woman should have access to quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion.” Admirable, but not always practical, especially if Democrats want to win elections in swing districts, whether at the local, state, or national levels. Democrats have already shown they are willing to prioritize an idea (construct) over an election win (reality). Omaha mayoral candidate Heath Mello, who lost, campaigned as a Democrat who believed in reasonable restrictions on abortion rights. Establishment figures, including Perez, were indignant, prompting Perez to say “every Democrat, like every American, should support a woman’s right to make her own choices about her body and her health. That is not negotiable…”.
When Democrats lock their candidates in non-negotiable stances on social issues like abortion, guns, and immigration, they are forcing the electorate into an impossible choice. Which party do they support? The one that mirrors nearly all their personal values but gets it completely wrong on the one social issue that matters to them most? Or do they choose the party whose message on that one overriding moral issue is spot on, even if the other values are a mismatch? Cognitive dissonance research suggests voters are more likely to make a choice that reinforces, rather than contradicts, their beliefs, ideas, and values.
Where is all of this leading, in my perhaps unfortunate rambling way? To remind us that all politics is local. National party platforms are great for articulating a big-tent message. However, not everyone wants to rush into the middle of that tent. Not all of them are ready to step into the ring and use a megaphone to shout out party platitudes. Some people want to hang on the fringes, taking a tentative step toward greater inclusion but without the full-on commitment. That’s okay. Inclusiveness means we accept these people, wherever they may be on a given political or social spectrum. It also means we give local and state-level candidates the freedom to speak to the electorate in a way that resonates most with them, not what matters most to national establishment figures. If a Democrat in Nebraska wants to promote an abortion ban at the 20th week of pregnancy and that message resonates with the electorate, let it be. If a Democrat in Texas wants to tighten border security and deport violent criminals who have no legal status in the United States because that is what the constituents want, let it be. If a Democrat in West Virginia supports the Second Amendment because the majority of likely voters are packing heat, let it be.
In summary, if we want to expand the tent, we have to first win elections. To win elections, we have to make sure the tent fits (it is not one size fits all) by tailoring messages to voters in specific areas. Only then can we ensure that the party’s broader message of inclusion can be heard through the din of political partisanship.
