The Future Electoral Fortunes of the Democratic Party
We’re hearing a lot these days about the Republican Party. We hear/read about where they’re were. We hear a lot about where they’re supposedly going. Then we hear a lot about where they should be going, which is different depending on your exact political views. It’s all exciting debate, and one that is necessary to ensure that the party is successful in the future.
What we don’t hear a lot about these days is the fortunes of the Democratic Party. The assumption seems to be that there needs to be no discussion of this party’s future because they’re currently in power. Yet, the actions of those inside the party, especially of those in positions of power, could have reverberations that affect the electoral success of the party come next year. The only thing that is possibly more important than actions themselves is the response to those actions.
So far, the response to some of the scandals by party members has been pretty awful, and it could harm the Democrats in 2010.
Officially, the general rule of thumb of politics in America is that every politician is out for himself or herself, and that the actions of one member do not spell doom for their whole party. This is said to be different from European parliamentary systems where misdeeds by one politician could determine the fate of the whole party. As such, politicians in America enjoy a great deal of political freedom to vote in whatever way they determine to be correct, even against the interests of their party, and are not bound by party loyalty.
In practice, the story is much different. The actions of several people in Congress (or one at the presidential level) can have sweeping implications for that person’s party. The Republicans lost Congress in 2006 partially because of weariness from the Iraq War, but also partially because of some reported transgressions from members of Congress, such as former Rep. Tom Delay. In 2008, Republicans in Congress were again in trouble, and while the races in Congress were in large part distinct from the race for the presidency, where Democrats led races for Congress, so did Obama. So yes, what happens in one branch of government can influence the fortunes of another branch.
Thus, not only do Republicans need to learn lessons from 2006 and 2008, but so do Democrats.
Yet, it doesn’t appear that the Democrats are actually learning these lessons. The two biggest scandals I can think of are those affecting Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Dodd, of course, has been embroiled in several scandals. The first was last year’s receiving favorable terms on the refinancing of his home by Countrywide Financial prior to that institution’s collapse. In his capacity as Chariman of the Senate Banking Committee, Dodd has been slammed for his failure to forsee the financial crisis, being involved in an attempt to retroactively limit bonuses of executives at banks that are receiving federal money. There are others as well. The latest Quinnipiac poll, from April, has Dodd 16 points behind Republican Rob Simmons.
Pelosi, meanwhile, has most recently been involved in a battle with the CIA regarding what she knew about the waterboarding of Iraq War detainees. Like Dodd, Pelosi’s approval ratings are dropping.
It is things like these that could hurt the Democrats. However, as I indicated in the article introduction, what may be worse than the actions themselves is the response to them. The problem is that political parties have a tendency to protect their own (with certain exceptions). This is nothing new, of course. The Republicans have done this before, and usually only an indictment got them to change their minds (see Ted Stevens in 2008 or Tom Delay in 2006). It now seem that the Democrats are following suit with Dodd and Pelosi.
Although they’re not moving to publically support Dodd or Pelosi, neither are the Democrats criticizing them either. While this may seem like a silent disapproval to the Democrats, to the public it will seem like silent acceptance. The perception would be rightly deserved, since in politics, this is what silence usually means.
This cannot be the course Democrats need to take if they wish to hold on to Congress in 2011. They must demand their leaders to come clean, in Dodd’s case his involvement with Countrywide and other scandals, and with Pelosi her knowledge of the torture of detainees. If they don’t, it may not be only Dodd and Pelosi losing seats in the next Congress.
Silence is simply not acceptable. If the Democrats think that saying nothing will protect them, they are dead wrong. While the cases involving a few members may not be enough to lose them their overall majority (this year), they would lose any hope they had of maintaining a supermajority. However, if more scandals are uncovered (and it is inevitable that they will be), the Democrats could find themselves in the minority again very quickly. It will be worse if it appears the party is trying to cover up these scandals, or at least say nothing about them.
Honesty and an adherance to ethical standards is going to be important for the Democrats in the coming years. The party has a chance to remain relevant if they fully investigate the scandals that come before them, including those in their own party. However, if the party does nothing about these transgressions, it will be back to the wilderness for them.
The American political center is not very forgiving.
The Democrats are doing the same thing that the GOP did. Obama is much like Clinton. His personal popularity will most likely remain high thru 8 years even though his party could well lose their majority in 2-4 or 6 years.
I wished congress would listen to me.
WE or at least I elect someone to be a steward not an activist. Someone to be a caretaker of the nation and not an enforcer. A politician that realizes that left right and center all make up America. Not a bully to beat the opposition into submission.
If he or she turns out that way. I dont vote for them again.
According to what one surely far-right commenter on another site said the other day, we’re actually apparently malleable sheep.
The far-left thinks we’re far-right and the far-right thinks we’re far-left.
You make very good points, but if I may I’d like to add a few. The key to the future of the Democratic Party is hubris, plain and simple. In both the executive and legislative branches, there is this assumption of agenda that was in many instances unheard during the election.
Each week there seems to be a new “czar” appointed to something…an indication to me that the government is going full tilt in inveigling itself ever deeper into the private lives of citizens….for our own good, of course. One might say that Imperial Russia at least had only one czar (ozarina) at a time.
I believe that over time, many (like myself) who voted for Obama will be increasingly horrified by an agenda that goes in directions never anticipated. Obama seems to be suffering from what a Japanese general called “the victory disease” at the beginning of World War II. That is, so accustomed to winning everything that came along that defeat on anything rattled their entire program.
Currently what I find most disturbing among my liberal friends is the sad amnesia that a president is an employee. He is supposed to work for us, not rule. Same goes for the “leadership” in congress. That in itself is the greatest scandal.
Michael Linn Jones.
It is good to hear squeaks from Obama supporters. I do not think Obama is a bad guy. I think his party and his base are people that see the opportunity to have every thing they ever wanted right now.
I hope more of them begin to squeak. The GOP earned their beating in the polls. The Democratic mandate is not a mandate for what he is doing because none of this was proposed in the campaign. This president is turning out to be the most dishonest president we have had in a long time.
Campaign promises mean nothing because they are all turning out to be lies. The problem America has today is the MSM has turned into Obama cheering sections and the Blogshpere is way more left then it is right.
Our only hope is that the GOP can make some gains in the polls in 2010. AS I said before in my many travels I find the people whom I talk to about politics are unaware of what Obama is doing because after the election they went back to work and trusted that the guys that went to DC get it right in their stead.
The caretakers we sent to congress are bullies who are shoving around 45 percent of the nation to get their lunch money. Its the tyranny of the majority we all fear.
Doomed: This is something I wrote several weeks ago. I do NOT profess to be an Obama supporter, but one who voted for him. There is a difference, or at least I claim one.
Sorry for the length but it should be longer. And over the next few years I am sure I won’t be alone.
Those interested in current events, in politics and governing, generally fall into one of two camps. One is for preserving that which already exists, and the other is for changing that status quo we’ve endured for so long.
Last year I voted for Barack Obama twice; in both the primary of my state and in the general election. Granted, I wasn’t deeply enamored of the man. At my age one looks at their tattered posterior and realizes that believing political promises is like reclining upon a chainsaw. A painful disappointment to say the least.
A great motive for voting for Obama was Senator McCain and especially his running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin. To me, they represented a status quo that was a greased toboggan headed for the abyss. After 8 years of the Bush administration, fear and doubt were put up against the “audacity of hope” promised by the senator from Illinois.
While many have analyzed President Obama’s first 100 days, I’ve been thinking over the 20,000+ days I’ve traveled around the sun. After many mistakes and good decisions; after planned adventures and unplanned disasters, I’ve reached the conclusion that Karl Marx was sort of right about the masses. Something acts as an opiate. Marx said religion, but many things have evolved that keep the eyes of the masses wandering from that which is being done to them. Like that song from O Brother Where Art Thou?…”Go to sleep little baby”…is being sung as a lullaby to put us all back to sleep for another four years.
As during the short tenure of JFK, the Best and the Brightest have come to Washington. They have much more intellectual vigor than did the Bush people. Plus, the Democrats as a whole have become the party of answers….even for questions not being asked.
Let’s be honest, if that’s possible. Barack Obama was elected to the presidency out of hope (for a better-run government) and fear (to avoid an economic catastrophe). One could list many things he was NOT elected for. But, suddenly “mandates” take on a weird cloak of having been obvious to the voters while at the same time they were quite invisible.
To this particular voter, President Obama was sent to the White House for that hope for a better tomorrow. NOT for gay marriage. NOT to rescue a handful of greedy, spoiled, stupid, and incessantly demanding bankers. NOT to pay for the largesse to Wall St. on the backs of those whose Social Security has been daily stolen from them ever since the Greenspan Commission in 1983. NOT to completely devastate an already weakened economy by a vainglorious experiment known as “cap and trade.” NOT to provide middle class health care benefits for children on the backs of the poorest quintile of income earners in the nation.
When running for his second term in 1936, Franklin Roosevelt said in a speech, “Let it be said that in my first term the forces of greed met their match. Let it be said that in my second term they met their master.” Barack Obama is no enemy of the forces of greed. He, unlike FDR, will not be a “traitor to his class.” He is a chameleon; he appears to be whatever people think they want to see. And sadly, like many other politicians, one must not pay too much attention to his words, but his deeds.
Ms. Pelosi, and Mr.’s Waxman, Reid, Durbin, et al will succeed over time in doing more to help the fortunes of the Republican Party than anyone else. President Obama is in there with them, more concerned with the Democratic Leadership Council than the average Joe/Jane Slob who trudged down to the polls to perform that sacred duty of voting. For hope. For change. Yes, this time…this time….we can.
God help us all.
He is a chameleon; he appears to be whatever people think they want to see. And sadly, like many other politicians, one must not pay too much attention to his words, but his deeds.
Exactly and well said. He is whatever you want him to be. As long as his teleprompter is working. Will he be found out? Most likely but when that happens Im afraid it will be too late.
Tyranny is an easy road to walk. It involves a willing press and a complacent people. With Obama we have both.
“I have sworn . . . eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man” (Thomas Jefferson).
I think the word you are looking for is “populist”. I’m still waiting for a chance to vote for that most elusive of minorities – a wonk.
So you want a third Clinton term?
But…don’t you know that as promised…this is the “most ethical congress in history”?
Boy..are we in trouble.
The Democrats have actually thought about the future and have shown that they understand demographics. As the U.S. becomes less white, the Democratic Party become more powerful. With the redistricting in 2010, the Democrats should be able to create many more safe districts. The Demcoratic Party will soon be in a position to ensure that more than half the seats in Congress are safe districts.
In addition, the Democrats will be able to dominate more states. The Republican party is irrelevant in all states north of North Carolina. There are no Republican Congressmen in New England that there will soon be no Republican Congressmen from either New York or New Jersey. California, Oregon, and Washington state are also lost to Republicans.
Another problem is the number of swing voters is decreasing. Less than 15% of the voters in the U.S. will split their ballot between the two parties and that number is decreasing.
The Democrats are smart enough to know that in most states, the Democratic primary is the real elections and the general election is just a rubber stamp. The Demcoratic Party is also smart enough to know that corruption, policy failure, or bad economic conditions do not affect the voting habits of non-white voters. As the non-white voters grow as a percentage of voters, the Democratic Party leaderships knows that they will be the one, dominate party.
I presume you’re the same SD from TMV, given your predictions of an imminent one-party state.
First, on New England. The loss of the Republican Party there is not completely ensured. They still have Collins and Snowe. And if things keep going as they are, Rob Simmons from Connecticut will join them in the next Congress. So the party’s fortunes there are dim, but not completely put out.
Do you have a source for that 15% of voters splitting votes? I can only speak for my state, but despite the loss of national-level Republicans, we frequently split votes in this state. Republicans in my town took over a couple years ago after a couple decades of Democrat control. Our governor is Republican and maintains high approval ratings, even among Democrats.
I think you have a point about demographics, but I still think mounting numbers of scandals will trump any of that if it gets too bad.