Democrats Need To Get Back In Touch

Instead of looking bitterly at the past, they must shape a future that takes them away from the coasts and into flyover country.

FILE - In this July 28, 2015, file photo, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton gets fresh tomatoes at Dimond Hill Farm between campaign stops in Hopkinton, N.H.
AP Photo/Jim Cole
Charlie Cook
Add to Briefcase
Charlie Cook
Jan. 2, 2017, 8 p.m.

Pri­or to the Novem­ber elec­tion, there was con­sid­er­able talk about how the Re­pub­lic­an Party would need to put it­self back to­geth­er after Don­ald Trump’s ex­pec­ted pres­id­en­tial loss. Now it’s the Demo­crats who have to fig­ure out a strategy for the post-Obama and post-Clin­ton era. But they don’t seem much in­ter­ested in in­tro­spec­tion, which is sur­pris­ing con­sid­er­ing they had been ex­pec­ted to score a net gain of between four and six Sen­ate seats and win con­trol the cham­ber, and close the gap in the House by net­ting between 10 and 20 seats, in­stead of only six. And of course they came up 30 to 40 elect­or­al votes short of the num­ber they figured to win to keep the White House.

In­stead of plan­ning for the fu­ture, Demo­crats are look­ing bit­terly at the past. They’re driv­en to dis­trac­tion by hatred and con­tempt for Pres­id­ent-elect Trump, the ac­tions of FBI Dir­ect­or James Comey, hack­ing by Rus­si­an in­tel­li­gence op­er­at­ives, fake news, the alt-right move­ment, and even the short­com­ings of Hil­lary Clin­ton’s can­did­acy. While some of these con­cerns are le­git­im­ate and pos­sibly were de­cis­ive, fo­cus­ing on them has no con­struct­ive be­ne­fit for a party that des­per­ately needs a change in dir­ec­tion.

Demo­crats should start by re­build­ing their bench. Barack Obama’s two White House vic­tor­ies ob­scured dev­ast­at­ing losses in 2010 and 2014 on the state level in both le­gis­lat­ive and gubernat­ori­al races. An aging con­gres­sion­al lead­er­ship and little turnover due to high reelec­tion rates caused stag­na­tion in the House, prompt­ing many up-and-com­ing Demo­crats to leave be­cause they saw no near-term pro­spects for ad­vance­ment.

Those state-le­gis­lat­ive losses amoun­ted to des­troy­ing the seed corn for the fu­ture in the lower cham­ber, and gubernat­ori­al losses de­pleted the ranks of fu­ture Sen­ate and pres­id­en­tial as­pir­ants.

Scour­ing the coun­try like base­ball scouts look­ing for new and un­re­cog­nized tal­ent is something that the Demo­crat­ic Party hasn’t done in years. Rather than just re­cruit­ing for spe­cif­ic races, the party needs to find and groom pro­spects for fu­ture races. Many of the com­pre­hens­ive train­ing pro­grams that the Demo­crat­ic Na­tion­al Com­mit­tee sponsored in the 1960s and 1970s are a shad­ow of what they used to be, if they ex­ist at all.

Giv­en the vagar­ies of both con­gres­sion­al re­dis­trict­ing and pop­u­la­tion pat­terns, Demo­crats have little hope of re­cap­tur­ing a House ma­jor­ity in 2018 or 2020, but again they’re con­tent with curs­ing the dark­ness in­stead of plot­ting a bright fu­ture. They put too much blame on Re­pub­lic­an ger­ry­man­der­ing in the states, and no doubt that is part of their prob­lem. Sure, Re­pub­lic­an gains in the 2010 and 2014 elec­tions did boost GOP strength in the state cap­it­als. After all, the midterm elec­tion cycles are when the bulk of gov­ernor­ships and many state-le­gis­lat­ive seats are con­tested. The GOP is simply do­ing to Demo­crats what Demo­crats did to Re­pub­lic­ans for many years, draw­ing party lines to their be­ne­fit. With the won­ders of com­puter tech­no­logy and in­creased straight-party vot­ing, it just has a big­ger im­pact now than in the past.

The oth­er side of the coin is that Demo­crats have be­come an urb­an and coastal party. A glance at the red-blue na­tion­al maps of pres­id­en­tial and con­gres­sion­al vot­ing shows that the Demo­crat­ic Party has a very nar­row foot­print. Demo­crats are very highly con­cen­trated in urb­an areas and col­lege towns. Where do Re­pub­lic­an voters tend to live? Every­where else—small-town and rur­al Amer­ica and the out­er­most sub­urbs. Re­pub­lic­an voters are more evenly dis­trib­uted across many dis­tricts while Demo­crat­ic voters are piled up on top of each oth­er. The res­ult: The party wins a smal­ler num­ber of dis­tricts by of­ten as­tro­nom­ic­al mar­gins, wast­ing votes with big vic­tor­ies. My col­league Dav­id Wasser­man jokes that Demo­crats need to launch a massive voter re­lo­ca­tion pro­gram, ur­ging their sup­port­ers to move out of the cit­ies and in­to the out­er con­cent­ric circles of met­ro­pol­it­an areas, as well as to small towns and rur­al Amer­ica.

There was a time when many con­gres­sion­al Demo­crats, par­tic­u­larly those on the Ag­ri­cul­ture Com­mit­tee, would make a con­cer­ted ef­fort to bring their urb­an col­leagues to their South­ern and Mid­west­ern dis­tricts to help them un­der­stand the needs of rur­al Amer­ic­ans. Today, there are prac­tic­ally no Demo­crats in the House who rep­res­ent coun­try dis­tricts, so these vis­its by city folks are just a memory. For older urb­an Demo­crats, their view of rur­al Amer­ica comes from re­runs of Lassie, Pet­ti­coat Junc­tion, and The Beverly Hill­bil­lies.

Re­search shows that Demo­crats who live out­side met­ro­pol­it­an areas think that urb­an elites and people on the East and West coasts don’t un­der­stand them. They feel ig­nored or even dis­respec­ted. Demo­crats don’t seem to un­der­stand that they can fight for the rights of pre­vi­ously neg­lected groups and still pur­sue policies aimed at help­ing Joe and Jane Lunch-buck­et. These goals are not mu­tu­ally ex­clus­ive. The re­l­at­ively small share of in­fra­struc­ture spend­ing in the 2009 eco­nom­ic stim­u­lus pack­age is a good ex­ample of how Demo­crats failed to pur­sue a course that would have cre­ated well-pay­ing jobs for laid-off work­ers and people who choose not to go to col­lege or can’t af­ford to.

Med­ic­al-re­cords tech­no­logy and green-en­ergy pro­jects are not par­tic­u­larly ef­fect­ive in cre­at­ing jobs for people dis­placed by trade and en­vir­on­ment­al policies. If you are go­ing to throw coal miners out of work, you’d bet­ter take ag­gress­ive steps to find com­par­able jobs for them and their chil­dren and grand­chil­dren. Mak­ing ag­ri­cul­ture a more im­port­ant tool of for­eign policy, us­ing it to gen­er­ate good will in coun­tries that are in­creas­ingly hos­tile to the U.S., would bring be­ne­fits at home and abroad.

The im­me­di­ate ob­ject­ives are to keep Demo­crat­ic losses in the Sen­ate to a min­im­um and to start mak­ing in­roads in gubernat­ori­al and state-le­gis­lat­ive races in 2018. But mak­ing Demo­crats a na­tion­al party again re­quires a broad­er vis­ion. They need to define di­versity not just along the lines of race and sexu­al ori­ent­a­tion, but also in terms of geo­graphy and eco­nom­ic class. In short, they need to para­chute in­to “fly­over” coun­try and get back in touch with or­din­ary Amer­ic­ans.

What We're Following See More »
Litany of Allegations Against VA Nominee Jackson
57 minutes ago

"A document compiled by the Democrats on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee lists a range of allegations detailed by what they say are 23 current and former colleagues by Rear Adm. Ronny Jackson, President Donald Trump's pick to lead the Veterans Affairs Committee." They include "that he loosely handled medication, was intoxicated on the job and that he fostered a toxic work environment with 'abusive' behavior towards colleagues."

Carson to Propose Rent Increases for Public Housing
4 hours ago
Macron Tells Congress to Reject Nationalism
4 hours ago
Trump to Visit UK In July
6 hours ago

"US President Donald Trump will visit the UK in mid-July, according to Sky sources," with a formal announcement expected soon. "Mr Trump was due to open the new US Embassy in London in February but cancelled the trip saying the building was too expensive and tweeting that he was not a 'big fan' of the decision to move its location."

North Korea Testing Site Collapsed
7 hours ago

"North Korea’s underground nuclear test site has become unusable after a large part of it collapsed," say experts from the University of Science and Technology of China. "Their evidence comes just one week after a surprise announcement from leader Kim Jong Un that North Korea would stop nuclear tests." The finding contradicts the Trump Administration's claim that the closure was a major concession by North Korean leader Kim Jung Un, who is set to meet with him for talks with President Trump in May.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.