Alternative Insight
The Fate of the Democratic Party
The decline of the two-Party system
President Clinton's globalization agenda gained the Democratic Party new constituencies and discouraged some of its traditional constituencies. Now, the Democratic Party faces a Republican Party that attracts the Democrats' previously solid constituencies of young voters and women. It also faces a pre-emption of its socially progressive image by a Bush administration that has introduced social legislation in education reform and benefits for Medicare prescription drugs. On the liberal end of the political spectrum, the Democrats clash with the single issue groups that have no faith in the electoral system. Neither of the major political Parties can claim a solid majority of the voters. Each of them can only expand at the expense of the other. The stalemate gives a progressive Third Party an opportunity as a bargaining power in the political system.Shifting constituencies
A political Party represents the interests that control the Party apparatus. The Democratic Party represents patronage, providing finances and lucrative jobs for those who shoulder its efforts. The Republicans represent big business, proposing tax breaks and favorable legislation for those who guide its organization. The constituencies contain the mechanism by which a political Party maintains its power. An effective political Party shifts positions as constituency strengths wax and wane.American political Parties have changed their programs and followers throughout the history of the Republic. The 19th Century anti-federalist Democratic Party has evolved into the 20th Century Democratic Party that actively supports a federal government role in the economy. The Republicans of Lincoln's Unionists have become the "states-righters" of modern time. From a 19th Century identification with pro-slavery elements, the Democrats have become the 20th Century leader in promoting Civil Rights legislation. The South, composed of America's most ardent segregationists, held a commanding role in the Democratic Party until President Truman, in 1948, enacted a Civil Rights platform that prompted South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond to leave the Democrats and form the Dixiecrat Party before joining the Republican Party. The early 20th Century Republican Party based its support on an alliance between Eastern businessmen and Midwestern farmers. Non-union workers and Blacks also regularly supported the Republican Party.
The 1929 depression changed the American political scene. A post-depression Democratic Party had as its constituencies: organized labor that wanted union protection, Black groups that found representation for their grievances, seniors seeking social security, women desiring more attention to education and health issues, economically and socially disadvantaged who wanted their share of the American pie, and politically radical activists who welcomed progressive changes in the economy.
At present, the African-American community, pro-choice women, those benefiting from globalization and reluctant unions provide the main support for the Democrats. Membership losses have occurred primarily from workers who have drifted from their union ties, women who are less activist, and the radical activists who have become disappointed with Democrat support for aggressive foreign policies. Democratic Party policies have also reduced its followers. Its support for NAFTA has angered union leaders. Its failure to enact legislation to regulate national health costs and to resolve education problems have led many women to vote for the G.O.P. The contradictory alliances within the post-depression Democratic Party--Northern liberals and Southern conservatives, trade unions and sunbelt strikebreakers, urban planners and corrupt city administrators--have been dissolved.
And that isn't all! The Democrats gained financial and organizational strength from local Party machines, Prendergast in Missouri, Tammany in New York, Curley in Boston, Daley in Chicago. The Party machines manipulated voting patterns in the large American cities and steered votes to a patronage loaded Democratic Party. The machines are gone. Political power is disbursed from new power centers in California, Florida and Texas. Party bosses have lost control of their foot soldiers to competing armies of PACs and lobbyists.
And there is more! The Democrats also benefited from social and economic programs that distributed huge sums of money to a myriad of hurriedly formed organizations. The programs convinced much of the populace that the Democratic Party was the Party of the less fortunate, the Party to feel good about. The organizations and individuals receiving disbursements willingly declared allegiance to their benefactor. These organizations competed with single issue organizations that depended on government and other funds for their survival. The competition for funds alienated the single issue organizations from the democratic process and from the Democrats. The programs, intended to distribute more equitably the country's enormous wealth and elevate the living standards of the less privileged, have not been entirely successful. Many of the programs, such as those of the Great Society, mainly enriched those engaged in managing the programs. The huge economic and social programs that once characterized Democratic administrations have lost their appeal.
Clinton Changed the Democratic Party
The function of a political Party is to win elections. Bill Clinton understood the message. He supported globalization and its constituencies and modified the direction of the Democratic Party. The former president realized he had to react to the possibility that social and economic advances could result in more prosperous minorities and workers, college graduates, and women disengaged from activist feminist issues favoring the G.O.P. Clinton brought the Democratic Party closer to moderate Republican thinking. His actions indicated he did not fear that the disadvantaged minorities, women partisan to feminist issues, organized labor, and those who considered the Democratic Party to be the Party pursuing social and economic equality, would leave their Democrat base arguments with the Party's policies. Clinton believed the Democrats had several safe constituencies, but they lacked sufficient constituencies. The ex-president used polling techniques to ascertain the electorate pulse and organize policies to satisfy its demands. He realigned the Democratic Party and achieved stunning electoral victories. At the same time, he betrayed the Party's signature identifications and led it to an uncertain future.The Republican Party Remains Alert
The Republicans have countered the Democrats thrust by adopting a similar approach. The G.O.P. knows it has its own steady constituencies that will not desert their Party--a conservative South that left the Democratic Party, the religious Right pacified by Bush's faith based agenda, conservative industrialists and extreme right groups. After Newt Gingrich's failures, a revitalized G.O.P. assumed a new countenance--still economically conservative, less socially conservative and more open to minorities--at least in words.Maneuvering Replaces Action
The Republicans seem more aware that the presidential election has long been a popularity contest and that it's preferable to nominate a person who is attractive to the electorate, with minimal attention to the candidate's intellectual capacity and grasp of the issues. Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan and now George W. Bush have exemplified the Republican philosophy of winning candidates. Adlai Stevenson, Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis and Al Gore have illustrated the Democrats failures to promote spirit over knowledge. History also indicates that administrations which engaged the country in major wars, in WWI, Korea, Vietnam, Persian Gulf and Yugoslavia, don't get re-elected. And lastly, except for the political Left, the American public is not interested in foreign policy issues (other than a major war) and those issues don't influence most voting patterns. Hopefully, although it doesn't appear likely, the president will listen to history and regard an electorate that does not vote for those who engage the United States in a major war.The constant maneuvering, engineered by political pollsters and public relations, which shapes the directions of the major Parties, have confused the electorate: What does each Party represent? The constant maneuvering has left both Parties exasperated. What should they do this year? The 2002 congressional victories by the Republicans created panic in the Democratic Party. Returning to the Party's roots, starting with the election of traditional a Democrat, Congresswoman Pelosi as minority whip, might be a delusion.
The Clinton administration's stress on globalization has disturbed Democratic Party followers who still fear that jobs, business and investment will leave the country. Inept foreign policies in the Horn of Africa, Balkans, and Middle East, and the recent acquiescence of congressional Democrats leadership with Bush's Middle East agenda, have disturbed the Democrat's Leftist constituency. The Democrats' roots have dried out. New trees are growing. Going back to its roots retrieves its disenchanted and alienates its enchanted, those who favor globalization. It leaves the Democratic Party still searching for an electoral majority.
Therein lies a major problem. If neither Party can be sure of obtaining a clear majority, then a strong political PAC or lobbyist group can supply the funds and voters to sway the election. The country has become open to negotiation between a large Party and a powerful special interest group. AIPAC (American Israel Political Action Committee) has recognized this situation and used it to advantage.
The 2002 national election proved the deadlocked situation can be resolved in another manner. In that election, the Green Party candidate, Ralph Nader, gained votes in Florida, which if they had gone to the Democrats, would have enabled Al Gore to win Florida and the electoral vote. Spurious analysis attributes the Green Party vote as a denial of votes to the Democratic Party and blame the Greens for the Democrats' loss. This has not been proven. The Greens' votes come from those who are disenchanted with both major political Parties. It is highly likely that if Ralph Nader had not been a Green candidate, few of his votes would have gone to either Party. It is also likely that votes for the major Parties might have been equally split. The Greens didn't fail the Democrats. The Democrats failed the Greens. If the Democratic Party had enchanted the Greens by giving more attention to their progressive programs, the close election might have gone to the Democrats.
The Fate of the Democratic Party
Where does that leave the two major political Parties? It leaves them in uncomfortable positions, less for the Republicans than for the Democrats.The Republicans can depend upon continuous support from its more extreme constituencies--the ultra-conservatives and Religious Right. Attempts by the ultra conservatives to form a challenging Party have failed. Perot's Reform Party started strong, quarreled over its direction, and finally ended with a dispute involving the unlikely combination of arch-conservative Pat Buchanan and arch-radical Lenora Fulani. The Christian Coalition expected it could translate its membership into a viable political Party. Its leaders learned that the agenda the Coalition members eagerly supported in public they didn't eagerly support in private and would not politically support.
The Democrats aren't as lucky. They have set a direction that demands new constituencies. Their agenda steers the United States into globalism, overseas production, high-tech exports, domestic service markets and free trade. They cater to those who benefit from globalism--financial institutions, international organizations, high-tech, travel, transportation, entertainment and media industries. The Democrats have forfeited some of their New Deal constituencies, those of local Party apparatus, and those pleased with the welfare programs that threw money into the system and those who caught it. The Democrats need to whittle away at the less conservative sector of the Republican Party to expand their base. At the same time, the G.O.P is whittling at the less progressive sectors of the Democrat Party.
The Decline of the Two-Party System
The political Left, organized labor, low paid workers, the dispossessed, those who live in the less desirable parts of town, constitute a large portion of the American electorate that have become disenchanted with the Democratic Party. These constituencies demand a political party that recognizes their needs, much of which conflicts with the shift of American industry from manufacturing to service, from skilled hands to skilled minds, from domestic production to foreign production, from import controls to free trade. The more radical Left bristles at the foreign policy initiatives that interfere in other countries and attempt to control vast portions of the world's continents.Several alternative political Parties exist. The Libertarians continue without gaining much support from the American electorate--and for good reason. The Libertarians are a philosophy, a way of life, rather than a political message to a conventional electorate.
New York City has The Working Families Party whose goal is to forcefully inject the issues of working, middle-class, and poor people --jobs, health care, education, and housing -- into the public debate, and hold candidates and elected officials accountable on those issues. At the moment The Working Families Party can be considered a grassroots community and labor-based political party attempting to expand its message throughout New York State.
The New Party began in 1992 and attempted to use fusion, which permits Parties to jointly run candidates, and endorse progressive candidates from other Parties. Since many states ban the political concept of fusion, the New Party is stymied. Although the New Party claims to have won many local elections, the Party has chapters only in seven states. Its principal thrust has been single issues, such as increasing the minimum wage.
The great hope of the progressive community lies with the Green Party. It has a recognized spokesperson in Ralph Nader and a dedicated membership that ardently embraces its objectives. The Green Party had 547 candidates in 40 states in 2002 elections. It had 70 victories in 2002, most of which were for city council positions. In the year 2000 national election, 500,000 voted for Green candidate Ralph Nader. The Party has shown a steady growth. As of August, 2002 the Green Party showed a total of 246,732 registered Greens nationwide:
The weak progressive challenge to the major political Parties isn't encouraging. However, the political world abhors political vacuums and assuredly some organized group will rise to fill the need of organizing the unorganized. It might be wise for present progressive political Parties to compromise some of their objectives to form a pluralistic Party that might not suit all with all, but will enable all to progress farther in many of their objectives than they can by acting alone. The combined efforts can lead a new political Party to win local and congressional elections in certain areas, similar to the manner in which Bernie Sanders became elected in Burlington, Vermont. Congressional victories will allow the Party to gain bargaining power in a deadlocked government. The Green Party has an established organization that can serve as the base for this stronger progressive Party. The Party may not win a national election but it can change the agendas of the major political Parties.
The Democratic Party's strategy to win elections has been to move towards the political center, regardless of the negative effects on its historical constituencies. The Democratic Party has reduced its commitment to these constituencies. The preferred strategy of these constituencies is to no longer assist the Democrats and instead assist in the development of a new progressive Party. Together, with the already disenchanted and independent voters and the impetus of the anti-war movement, a well-organized Third Party, preferably having the Green Party as its focus, could make a stunning entrance on the political stage.
alternativeinsight
December 1, 2002HOME PAGE MAIN PAGE 
alternativeinsight@earthlink.net
