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