Democracy on the ground

Click on the image to view the New York Times interactive map of House election results.

Click on the image to view the New York Times interactive map of House election results.

This map of House election results from the New York Times dramatically conveys the state of democracy on the ground.  Because the entire House stands for election every two years, the results express the state of local sentiment better than Senate elections can.

The map does not correct for population density, so one must bear in mind that some of the vast red areas represent relatively few people.  Still, it’s sobering to contemplate the restricted appeal of a Democratic ethos.  Just think of all the Americans, living in all the varied settings pictured on this map, to whom Democratic party principles no longer appeal.  Democratic strength is extremely limited geographically, whereas, as David Brooks points out, it’s hard to deny that Republican conservatism represents the mainstream.  It’s ironic, because red regions contain many people who use and benefit from the sorts of programs and services that Democrats perennially champion and defend.  Well-being is not all that drives people to the polls.

The Democratic Party’s ethos no longer resonates with such voters culturally.  Instead, the party has become identified mainly with the coastal and urban regions where more educated people tend to gather.  Looking at this map, it’s easy to understand why ‘mainstream’ Americans resent the undue influence that urban elites exercise through the media.

Many Democrats I know, convinced of the morality and truth of their views, do not see a need to proselytize.  I once asked a liberal friend why she didn’t volunteer to canvas in Democratic campaigns, and she said, “I guess it’s because I’m right—and I think that, if other people can’t see that, there’s nothing I can do.”  It’s a shame, because the Democratic Party is becoming irrelevant to a huge natural constituency of small-town and working-class Americans who are just getting by.  In those broad regions where Democratic leaders are giving up, an important strain of political culture may one day die.

RELATED ARTICLES:
The Enduring Republican Grip on the House (NYT)

After the Red Wave: What Democrats Should Do

2014midtermcolorbar
Republican gains in Tuesday’s elections delivered a stunning rebuke to Democrats and their party.  The GOP is resurgent, despite having teetered after the 2012 election on the verge of disintegration and decline.

The Republicans achieved this gain primarily by telling voters that, under President Obama and the Democrats, the nation has fared badly.  Republican candidates attacked both the style and substance of the administration.  They assailed a government that they styled as autocratic, expensive, and ineffective.  They railed against government intrusion, and (in the case of illegal immigration) against governmental laxness, too.  They chafed against laws and constraints they don’t believe in.  Most of all, Republicans succeeded by denigrating what will surely be regarded as this era’s most significant achievements, such as the government’s success at bringing the nation back from the brink of all-out economic collapse and at passing a radical yet tenable and comprehensive health-care reform bill.

Strategically, the GOP also took care to marginalize some of the worst kooks seeking to work their way up in the party’s ranks.  The Republican National Committee under Reince Priebus encouraged and supported more electable candidates whose messages would still resonate with conservatives.  The policy also served the goal of producing a Republican Congress that is more homogeneous and governable.  Anyway, as campaign strategy, it worked.  Even weak candidates like Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas won.

Sadly, the Democrats were afraid to be identified with their party’s strengths.  They also failed to deliver a vision of government, that, if consonant with their recent achievements, was fresh and forward-looking.  As the president’s time in office wanes, Democrats should be thinking about how to catch the next wave.  What should the Democratic Party be about, once heavyweights like Obama and the Clintons are gone?  The Dems are notably short on galvanizing up-and-comers who could breathe new life into what has become a too-staid and centrist political party.

Chiefly, though, the Democrats have failed to accommodate and adapt to legitimate criticisms of Democratic governance and ideology.  In particular, they do not seem attuned to the people’s desire for a government that, if powerful, is deft and efficient.  They have not cared enough about the national mood to break with the president and demand Congressional debate on issues like our open-ended bombing campaign against the Islamic State.*  Nor have Democrats cared enough about the middle and lower classes to attack the glaring issue of corporate responsibility, favoring a rise in the minimum wage, yes, but remaining silent on a host of policies that work against working-class prosperity while benefiting corporations and the interests of global capital unduly.

Renew themselves: in short, this is what the Democrats must do.  Dare to be a more interesting, local, peaceful, green, and economical party.  Dare to think small, and find new ways to promote prosperity that rely less on government spending and more on shrewd uses of information and technology.  Scour the countryside for young, charismatic, ardent, and innovative political thinkers.  Restore pride in American citizenship and civic culture.  And move beyond the paradigm of the social-welfare state in trying to figure out how to give a stagnant, suffering America what it wants and needs.

* The president has since called on Congress to debate and authorize the bombing campaign.

A feather in her cap, or a fire in her belly?

hard-choices

A feather in her cap, or a fire in her belly:

Such are the twin engines of a possible Hillary run.

They won’t both fire, though; only one.

If appetite consumed her, she’d have made her decision.

If a feather is her motive, she’ll surely lose.

 

Mrs Clinton is on tour promoting her book Hard Choices
published by Simon and Schuster.

Kerry and Clinton in 2016

John Kerry Official Portrait 2013No, Kerry isn’t running for president, but he sure looks presidential these days.  The man who was so painfully awkward as a presidential candidate has come into his own as secretary of state, where his outstanding personal qualities shine to an almost dazzling degree.  I have enjoyed hearing his firm voice spell out American views fearlessly, and even call out Dick Cheney as dead wrong on the PBS Newshour the other day.  Kerry’s perspicacity, conviction, and personal power are more evident now than at any point in his distinguished political career.

More than that, he is palpably comfortable with leading.  The stiffness of his patrician face has finally softened into one that’s warm and even smiles sometimes.

Kerry between interviews at the State Department (Monroe Room)As Democrats contemplate an almost certain presidential run by Hillary, they may as well as themselves, why not Kerry?  Or some combination?

Kerry’s amazing grasp of foreign policy, forthright patriotism, and chops in the military, would beautifully complement Hillary’s more charismatic, everywoman style of leadership and politicking.  Both are broadly experienced and command wide respect in their party and beyond.  Moreover, concerns about Mrs Clinton’s health and whether she has the stamina for the top job are not going to go away.  Even I have my reservations, while wishing the best for her should she run.  Kerry’s evident vigor, intellectual maturity, and unquestionable fitness for the presidency make him an ideal running mate, one whose presence on the ticket would silence these qualms.

Text © 2014 Susan Barsy
Images: Courtesy of the US State Department; click on images to go to the source.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 151 other followers