Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Nov. 7, 2003)
Newsroom: (541) 346-5511 Suite 300, Erb Memorial Union P.O. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403 E-mail: editor@dailyemerald.com Online: www.dailyemerald.com Friday, November 7,2003 Oregon Daily Emerald COMMENTARY Editor in Chief: Brad Schmidt Managing Editor: Jan Tobias Montry Editorial Editor: Travis Willse Democrats’ demise In a week where the Rock tire Vote debate and President Bush's signature on a dramatic but large ly symbolic anti-abortion bill were likely on the politically oriented college student's mind, the real political news is that Democrats are in trouble In Tuesday's elections, Republican Rep. Ernie Fletcher defeated Democratic state Attorney General Ben Chandler in the Kentucky guberna torial race, bringing the state's top office to the Republican Party for the first time in some 30 years. Meanwhile, Mississippi Gov. Ronnie Mus grove lost to Republican challenger Haley Bar bour — former chairman of the Republic Na tional Committee — and became the fifth Democratic governor toppled in the last year, in cluding Gov. Gray Davis' loss in October's Cali fornia recall election. Coupled with the first drop in Democratic seats in the Senate and the 1 louse in a midterm election under a Republican president in decades, the Republican Party now enjoys not only a command over 29 state governorships, but also control of the presidency and both houses of Congress. This trend draws my concern not because of any formal political attachments (I'm registered as an independent), but because of informal ones. Sheer figures speak to how Republican policies are resonating with many Americans. But, as a moderate, I worry when the success of one party (or possibly in this case, die follies of another) might presage unheathily partisan pol itics that, by virtue of numerical power alone, could eclipse important debate. Even after the 2002 election that disappointed Democrats, some found room for optimism. In remarks made shortly after the election (as tran scribed on http://www.demoCTats.org), Democ ratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe boasted that Democrats captured nine previously Republican governorships — includ ing those in swing states like Michigan and Ten nessee — helping form a base that would tip the scales back in Democrats' favor. A day later, an unnamed source close to a can didate then considering a Democratic presiden tial nomination bid agreed, telling CNN, "(Re publican successes in the 2002 election are) only good news for the '04 field (of Democratic pres idential nomination candidates). Bush now has an unchecked government. That means voters will hold only one party responsible for the state of play, in particular the head of that party." But recent polls suggest that McAuliffe's opti mism was likely unjustified, and that voters as a whole aren't displeased with said state of play. According to "The 2004 Political landscape," a survey released Wednesday by the Pew Research Center, the Democrats' lead in party identifica tion dropped by 5 percentage points from a 33 27 lead to a 31-30 lead between the 1997-2000 period and the post-Sept. 11 period. The change Travis Willse Rivalless wit was consistent among most of the delineated demographic groups (only blacks showed an in crease in support for the Democratic Party and even then by only 1 percentage point for the to tal category). The Republican Party made some dramatic inroads even in states where McAuliffe predict ed Democratic gains: Between the same periods as above, the Republican lead swelled by 7 per centage points in Tennessee and by 9 points in Michigan. Republicans made even stronger gains in traditionally right-friendly states: That number increased by 12 points in Texas, and by a remarkable 19 points in Idaho. What, then, is America's opposition party do ing wrong? Part of the problem is voters jaded about Belt way goings-on. In recent years, Washington has remained mostly out of favor with Democratic voters. In 2003, 76 percent of Democrats agreed that now is "time for Washington politicians to step aside and make room for new leaders," ac cording to the Pew survey. This evidently isn't due largely to dissatisfaction with Bush's per formance, though: That same figure has always been at least 62 percent since 1987. Meanwhile, Republican voters are presently very satisfied by comparison. In 2003, only 42 percent of them were dissatisfied with Washington's status quo. But the Democrats' real problem is largely one of identity crisis: Certain de facto Republi can policies, such as tax cuts and military hawk ishness, have helped solidify that party's mes sage, while the party has managed to appease party members on both sides of divisive issues like abortion. Meanwhile, during the last few years, Democ rats have mostly agreed that the education sys tem was underhanded and that Bush's land use policies aren't green enough. But they've been largely divided on economic, war and terrorism policies — the very three issues that voters see as the most important facing America today, ac cording to a CBS/New York Times poll taken in September and October. The problem doesn't lie with partisan voters who reject openness to a wide range of ideas, ei ther. The Clinton administration showed that ideological breadth need not preclude political depth or success. But whether through overex tending their rhetorical umbrella or simply be cause of disorganization, the Democratic Party has devolved from a lean, inclusive network un der former President Clinton into an immisci ble ideological diaspora. "Since Bill Clinton left, we don’t know who we are," Democratic consultant Dane Strother told CNN in the days following the 2002 elections. To be fair, this platform schizophrenia is partly the fault of circumstance: The intense patriotic fer vor following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks made it politically costly on both sides of the aisle to op pose terrorism-related legislature — even if those bills curtailed important civil liberties. (To wit the Patriot Act) Cooler heads have since prevailed in both parties — good news for said liberties — but Republicans have come out of the fray with a clear position. Democrats have not. As the months toward the 2004 presidential primaries wind down, it becomes more and more critical for the Dems to reformulate their game plan if they want to make any gains for the 2005-07 biennium. Making action all the more urgent, four Democratic senators — John Ed wards, N.C.; Bob Graham, Fla.; Ernest "Fritz" Hollings, S.C. and Zell Miller, Ga. — have an nounced their intentions to retire from the Sen ate after their current terms. This could prove es pecially dangerous for the party, as President Bush already enjoys a 48-40 lead in voting in tentions in the polls against an unnamed De mocrat in the South. Time is short for the Democrats, but if they want to make any gains in '04, they should do two things. First, they must establish a clearer platform; giving the electorate a better notion of what an official would do in office is better for candidates (in whom voters would invest more confidence) and voters (who are in general bet ter served by more information) alike. Democ rats should also select a moderate candidate for president if they want a chance at the White House. Since President Lyndon Johnson left of fice in 1969, the only liberal Democrats in the Oval Office have been on television (Martin Sheen) and in movies (Michael Douglas). And for good reason, too: Far leftist candidates alien ate moderates — myself included. Despite Bush's popularity, his conservative social poli cies might mean that a centrist candidate could capture enough of the political middle to secure a victory. Matching a far left candidate against someone with Bush's popularity would give the sitting president a landslide. My advice to the Republican Party, unsurpris ingly, is: Keep your policy focused, but work to attract centrist voters. Meanwhile, responsibly use the power your enjoy now for the next year, and voters may reward you accordingly. And finally, my advice to the American citizen is this: Stay informed, participate in the political debate, and most importantly, vote. Contact the editorial editor at traviswillse@dailyemerald.com. His opinions do not necessarily represent those of the Emerald. LETTER TO THE EDITOR Recent complaints revolve around foreign policy, not Tenet It is awesome that people can complain about the fact that they were not informed about a pri vate meeting. The issue here most likely has noth ing to do with CIA Director George Tenet's pres ence, but the general discontent around this school with our nation's foreign policy and the CIA Many high-ranking officials, both former and current, hold conferences and give private speeches, and since privacy is a liberty we at the university under stand so virtuously, it’s amazing how quickly we expea that to go away when it's to one's benefit. If his coming to this university were for answer ing questions or to hold a public forum, the stu dents would have been made aware. However, as a closed-door meeting with University officials, alerting the students to his presence would only serve the purpose for those who would wish to ha rass him, likely causing the reaction that University is so well-known for: protest. It is not the Universi ty’s job to alert the students every time a person is in town, especially when it's private. Ihe point is that as a university, we are going to have important people here and not every single meeting is pub lic, even if this is a public institution. Maybe it was his request that his presence not be made public you would too if you were head of an organiza tion, meeting with officials from a university whose students have the audacity to turn a private visit into a public berating, even after you leave. As to the rumor of $ 10,000 spent to spruce up campus for Tenet's visit — if it was even spent — his arrival coincided with the beginning of the ma jor possible student campus visits. So who do you think the money was really spent for one guy or the future payer of salaries for the University? Nathan von CoMHz senior, history Eric Layton Illustrator
