What now for the Democrats?

The amazing and even hopeful fact about this American presidential election is that it was at all close. I say this as one who predicted a landslide for Bush shortly after John Kerry emerged as the candidate from the Darwinian struggle of the Democratic primary races. He proved the strongest and fittest to survive that process, but was clearly a terrible candidate to conquer the Red/Blue map of U.S. voters so clearly manifested in 2000.

I based my extreme pessimism on the lessons of the five previous Democratic candidates for president and who won (Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton) and who didn't (Al Gore, Michael Dukakis and Walter Mondale). This time the Democrats were trying to unseat an incumbent president during wartime, something never accomplished. And this time the enemy had killed Americans by the thousands on their own soil.

All the more crucial, then, that the Democrats choose the perfect candidate that a frightened, insecure populace could identify with.

Unfortunately, on paper, Kerry was a refutation of everything the Dems should have learned was necessary to get those all important cross-over votes in states like Florida, Colorado and Ohio. Was Kerry a Southerner like Carter and Clinton? No, he was from Massachusetts like Dukakis. And, like the hapless Mondale of Minnesota, Kerry had served as a senator for decades, piling up a liberal voting record conservatives could conveniently, and selectively, attack.

Did Kerry have a personal story that would resonate with working class populists like Clinton (the poor boy from Hope) or Carter (the down home peanut farmer)? Nope. He's a rich Ivy Leaguer married to mega-wealth. Did he have a military background to put Bush clearly to shame, something like Carter's service as a submarine captain? Yes. And no. Kerry was muddled on Vietnam (fought and killed there, protested fighting and killing there) and muddled on Iraq (voted against Bush senior's war, incoherent on this one).

Well, did Kerry at least have Carter's easy sincerity or charm like Clinton? Or was he even more stiff than Gore? Check the second box. Load on top of all this heavy baggage one more pricey satchel. In a country divided by gender politics and notions of family, Kerry expected Red State voters to welcome into the White House his wife, the mouthy, rich head of a liberal foundation. And they called Hilary a lightning rod.

As I say, the encouraging message of the election is that the Democrats almost won with such a lousy candidate. A fine man, no doubt. But a lousy candidate. As Bush presses his budget busting, go it alone in the world agenda, the basic Democratic issues of tolerance, international cooperation and a fair shake for regular folks is not likely to fade in its appeal. But picking the right candidate to communicate, and embody, the message is critical.

Next time around they would be wise to emulate what the Republicans did eight years ago. Handpick early a candidate who lines up very differently in all these categories, someone who can translate Democratic issues into homespun values, and who projects a personality Red Staters can identify with. John Edwards maybe?

More hindsight and advice for the Democrats, collected from the Web:

Camille Paglia, Salon.com:

The Democratic Party bureaucracy and A-list consultants need to be disassembled like matchstick men.

After Kerry's failure to win crucial states in the great red sea of the South and Midwest, it should be obvious that party strategists have lost the national war of ideas. First step: Fire DNC chief Terry McAuliffe, a shallow hack whose political expertise is at the Chamber of Commerce level. This is no way to pick the leader of the free world.

Democrats have got to go cold turkey on their tedious old rhetoric about the suffering masses in their World of Pain. The Democrats' condescending portraits of African-Americans and the poor are manipulative, patronizing and ultimately self-destructive. The humanistic vision of progressive liberal politics (which I subscribe to) needs to be projected in inspiring, poetic language.
Democratic principles should not just be a litany of complaints, a fracturing of the body politic into pockets of greedy self-interest. This is an energetic, creative can-do nation: Democrats must celebrate independence and individualism (the spirit of the 1960s) and stop encouraging infantile dependence on the government.

Rory O'Connor, Alternet:

If the Democrats can't blame Nader, as they have in increasingly vociferous terms for the past eight years – who can they blame?

Maybe they should start with themselves.

Maybe running as the Democrat wing of the Republican party isn't such a good idea after all. Maybe turning the convention into a four-day meeting of Securocrats was a bad idea. Maybe turning the conversation into a nine-month gabfest on strength and security, war and terror, terror and terror, only reminded people that they vote for Republicans in times of fear.

Maybe selling out to buy in was wrong. Maybe raising hundreds of millions from corporations means losing your soul.

Maybe being an anti-war hero who runs as a war hero was wrong. Maybe Howard Dean was right.

Maybe it's time for the democratic wing of the Democrat party. Maybe there really is a democratic wing of the Democrat party.

Maybe Kerry should have announced a plan to end the war. (After all, he seemed to have a plan for nearly everything else!)

William Saletan, Slate.com:

Go back to being the party of responsibility.

I'm not talking about scolding people. I'm talking about rewarding them. Be the party that rewards ordinary people who do what they're supposed to do—and protects them from those who don't.

If you think this kind of moral talk is anathema, you're the sort of person Karl Rove wants to be running the Democratic Party. Get out, or get a new attitude. Nearly 60 million people came out to vote for George W. Bush yesterday because they think that he represents their values and that you don't. Prove them wrong and you'll be the majority party again.

How? Start by changing the way you talk about pocketbook issues. Remember Bill Clinton's commitment to help people who "work hard and play by the rules"? Your positions on taxes and labor would be assets instead of liabilities if you explained them in moral terms. The minimum wage rewards work. Repealing the estate tax helps rich people get richer without risk or effort. Lax corporate oversight allows big businesses to evade taxes, deceive small investors, and raid pension funds.

Yes, Republicans will accuse you of waging a class war. I can see you cringing already. Get off your knees and fight. It is a war, but it isn't a class war. It's a culture war, and if you talk about it that way, you'll win it.

Some of you are dismayed by the emergence of a huge voting bloc of churchgoers. Stop viewing this as a threat, and start viewing it as an opportunity. Socially conservative blue-collar workers don't believe in the free market. They believe in the work ethic. Bush wins their votes by equating the free market with the work ethic. Show them where the free market betrays the work ethic, and they'll vote for the party of the work ethic—you—against the party of the free market.

Chris Sullentrop, Slate.com:

My take on the election: Vision without details beats details without vision.

President Bush put forward a powerful and compelling philosophy of what the government should do at home and abroad: Expand liberty. You can disagree with Bush's implementation of that vision, but objecting to it as a matter of principle isn't a political winner. John Kerry, on the other hand, campaigned as a technocrat, a man who would be better at "managing" the war and the economy. But for voters faced with a mediocre economy rather than a miserable one, and with a difficult war that's hopefully not a disastrous one, that message—packaged as "change"—wasn't compelling enough to persuade them to vote for Kerry.

Robert Reich, The American Prospect:

I don't think most Americans rejected John Kerry's policies. It was Bush's moral vision they found more compelling.

When politicians talk about having a plan for this or a policy for that, many eyes glaze over. But when they speak with righteous indignation -- with passion and conviction about what is morally right to do or morally offensive -- they can inspire the nation.

Republicans ran on a moral agenda -- God, guns, gays, and true grit in fighting the evils of Saddam Hussein and terrorism. Democrats ran on a policy agenda -- affordable health care, deficit reduction, and combating terrorism through stronger international alliances and a smarter strategy.

George W. Bush spoke about right and wrong in moral terms -- as matters of righteousness and faith. John Kerry spoke of right and wrong in pragmatic terms -- for example, saying he had the right way to get the economy moving again or to fight al-Qaeda, and George Bush was going the wrong way.

My recommendation to Democrats is not to become more religious. Religion is a personal matter. But perhaps Democrats need somewhat fewer plans and policies, and a bit more moral conviction. They also need to talk more about faith -- faith in what this great nation can accomplish if we work together.

Democrats used to talk in moral terms -- about fighting for civil rights, for example. What could Democrats say now and in the future? That it's morally wrong to give huge tax cuts to the rich while cutting social programs for the poor and working class -- especially when the gap between the rich and everyone else is wider than it's been in more than a century. That we have a moral obligation to give every American child a good education and decent health care. That it's morally wrong that millions of Americans who work full time don't earn enough to keep their families out of poverty.

My faith -- and yes, it is a matter of faith, a great leap of faith -- is that in all these respects, and many more, this nation can become a more just society.

I'm not saying Democrats have to adopt my particular moral positions. But unless or until Democrats return to larger questions of public morality, they won't inspire the American public. Plans and policies are important, of course. But there's no substitute for offering a vision of what we can become as a nation -- and giving citizens the faith we can get there.

Amy Davidson, The New Yorker Online Only:

Not to be flip, but Kerry lost because more people wanted the other guy to win.

A strong majority of people in the center of the country are more comfortable with Bush and the Republicans, especially on cultural issues. That is a strategic problem for the Democrats, one that can't be solved with tactical solutions like get-out-the-vote drives.

The divide is alive and thriving, but with a major change. We've spent the past four years thinking that the nation was divided more or less equally, but now it's clear that "red" America is bigger, more powerful, and in charge.

The obvious [Democrat for 2008] front-runner is Hillary Clinton—which is a major problem for the Democrats, because it seems inconceivable, to me, at least at this point, that she could make a dent in that sea of red in the middle of the country.

David Beers is founding editor of The Tyee.