The national Democratic party can not be truly competitive over the long term if it continues to under-invest in its state and local organizations. Although the party is in a relatively strong position on the eve of this fall’s elections, there is reason to question whether Democrats will blow this opportunity to dislodge the beleaguered Republicans.
It is accepted political wisdom among insiders that Republicans are believers in their party and sternly enforce party discipline. In contrast, look no further to find an egregious lack of party discipline among Democrats than the case of Sen. Joe Lieberman. Leading Democrats are treating Lieberman with kid gloves as he scornfully pursues his campaign against the Democratic party nominee, Ned Lemont, mouthing George Bush-like talking points and getting tacit Republican approval.
Republicans have over the years effectively built their organization from the grass roots to the top, while Democrats have relied on pet causes and favorite candidates, particularly in presidential years. However, total Republican dominance recently has led to some soul searching in the national Democratic party. This is reflected in the dispute, over the last few months, between Howard Dean, the Democratic National Committee chairman, and U.S. Rep. Rahm Emanuel, the leader of the party’s campaign committee in the upcoming House of Representatives elections.
Emanuel opposes Dean’s long-view approach – spending DNC money to create strong party organizations in all 50 states. Dean argues, correctly, that Democrats will not be truly competitive if their strength is limited to 18 or 20 blue states. Emanuel also has a compelling argument – this year, Republican failures and the public’s yearning for a change offer unique opportunities for Democrats to reverse their recent fortunes. He feels that Democrats could win one or both houses of Congress if they focus on key, targeted federal campaigns.
There is a need for a serious effort at both local and national levels. However, Democrats have to make tough choices, because they must deal with the sobering reality of their limited ability to tap again the wealthy donors who contributed heavily in the 2004 presidential campaign. On the other hand, Republicans can rely for the most part on groups that are better-financed and better-disciplined to provide them with huge amounts of funding, despite President Bush and the party’s diminished popularity. Recent Republican projects, like the effort to repeal the estate tax, sent the reminder that the Republicans are still the party of the very rich.
We have often expressed the practical belief that, in a two-party system, the national Democratic party is most often the best available choice to better support working-class and middle-class interests. Because these interests often intersect with the African-American community’s interests, an empowered national Democratic party is preferable to the current Republican domination of Congress and the White House, a domination that extends, critically, to the U.S. Supreme Court.
At the local level, there remains the perennial problem of whether the party is willing to treat its loyal African-American majority voter base equitably. Democrats need a united party if they hope to elect statewide and national candidates. The recent 4th District primary state Senate race is a case in point. The partisanship to one candidate shown by some of the city’s Democratic Central Committee officials undermines the party’s attempts to develop greater cohesiveness. This shortsighted pursuit of narrow political agendas encourages and helps maintain a divisiveness that thwarts greater confidence and interest in the Democratic party at all levels.