It is said that the first step in solving a problem is recognizing there is one. Democrats have a major problem. But I’m not sure they fully recognize what it is.
Yes, obviously, they understand that the physical manifestation of all their anxieties currently occupies the White House, and that the House and Senate are controlled by factions hostile to their agenda. They know that much of the legacy of President Obama will be undone in the coming months, and that many of their key issues are on hold for at least four years. Panic is not the problem. There’s plenty of that going around.
The problem is that they see this situation as temporary, an aberration. After all, Hillary won the popular vote by millions. Many Democrats are also quick to point out that if it weren’t for those meddling Russians and that no-good FBI Director Comey, she’d be in the White House.
But this myopic focus on the Presidential election ignores the massive, long-term flaws in the party’s fundamentals, a structural deficit that has put Democrats in their weakest position nationally in at least 100 years.
It is unquestionably true that Russia interfered with our elections, and all Americans should be alarmed at the implications for our democracy and for international relations. And Director Comey’s timing in releasing information about the ongoing e-mail investigation undoubtedly caused harm to Clinton’s candidacy.
Without dwelling on Clinton’s own culpability in her loss – completely ignoring the Midwest, having an e-mail system that necessitated an FBI investigation in the first place, failing to put away an historically unpopular and (by popular opinion polls) unqualified opponent, etc. – let’s accept that these interventions hurt Clinton’s standing with voters. Even accounting for these outside factors, and the fact that Independent candidates pulled a sizable chunk of the Presidential vote, in the ten states that were expected to have competitive Senate races – Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin – Clinton still outperformed the Democratic Senate nominee in six, and was within a point in two others. She also carried the Presidential vote in two dozen House districts that Democratic candidates failed to win.
In other words, Clinton, carrying all of her baggage and the weight of outside interference, was still a stronger candidate than almost every Democrat in a competitive state or district. While it is possible to make excuses that justify her loss, these down-ballot failures are much harder to ignore or explain away. This is particularly true if you take a longer-term view.
Below is a chart of party control of the House, Senate, state legislatures, and governorships over the past 20 years. With the exception of a four-year period that coincides with the worst days of the Iraq War and the collapse of the financial markets, Republicans have dominated control these offices. This down-ballot strength has only grown in recent years.
The implications here are ominous for Democrats. It means they basically have not been able to win majorities in the absence of a major national catastrophe.
It means that for whatever success Democrats may have in racking up popular vote totals nationally, their supporters are not dispersed in a way that is conducive to building and maintaining governing majorities. You can make an argument that this is unfair, and that densely-packed urban voters are underrepresented because of the ways in which power is disbursed. But that is the system we have, and it is the system we have had for generations. Fair or not, it is the system in which the party must compete. Because even if they want to change it, they can’t do so unless they win power first.
Above all else, it means that the Democrats’ approach to politics is not working. And that’s where the real dread should set in.
If the definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over and expecting different results, then the party’s early responses to the Trump Administration have been insane. Senators questioning Cabinet nominees have largely focused on the same tired tropes that have gotten the party exactly where it is today. Instead of finding new ways to grow their numbers and expand the tent, leaders and activists have increasingly turned inward to further rev up their excitable base.
The challenge is, and will continue to be, that the base simply is not enough. These are people who already oppose Republican priorities, who already are engaged, who already vote. Their numbers don’t get you where you need to go.
Until the party can find ways to grow and bring back voters who have fled to the GOP, Democrats will remain mired in the minority. Instituting this change will require new messaging, new messengers, and an enthusiasm for bringing in a group of people who probably do not align with party orthodoxy on all issues.
Of course, this effort only becomes harder as the party’s ranks are thinned. Republican success has largely come at the expense of Democratic moderates, leaving only the deepest blue members in control the party’s future. This helps perpetuate a self-defeating cycle of righteousness and conformity, making it harder and harder to win outside base areas.
The current state of affairs, with Democrats at an historic ebb in governing power, could serve as a wake-up call that allows the party to refresh and find a new path forward. They could take a fresh look at their outreach and find ways to get voters to buy in to the key elements of their agenda.
Doing so will first require a full recognition of the depth and breadth of the party’s challenges in the current political structure. It will then require trade-offs that staunch liberals may find unappealing. But you can’t make policy without a majority, and you can’t build a majority on an ideological base.
Or, I guess, they can hope another crisis hits and voters will turn on the GOP again. But that is not a means to building the kind of sustainable, winning majority over time. As they’ll soon see, without solid and continued support, legislative achievements can be fleeting.
The early reactions to Trump do not give me confidence that this is the direction Democrats will choose, or that they appreciate the hole they’re in. But it is early, and most are still reeling from a defeat they did not expect. Perhaps with time, a more sober reality will set in, and the hard work of building a broad coalition outside of coastal areas and cities will emerge. We’ll see.
lousypundit 