Mark Schmitt has an interesting post up discussing whether the left needs a figure like Grover Norquist, who acts as an extra-partisan co-ordinating office for ginger groups round the party.
Good timing on Schmitt's part, what with a recent New Yorker profile of Norquist by John Cassidy. (Link to an interview with Cassidy, as the New Yorker wants and should get your subscription money ... just my recommendation) Anyway, the New Yorker article made one feel if not warm and fuzzy about Norquist, at least with a mixed appreciation for the man, in the way that most New Yorker articles do. You're left to form your own opinion, and it can be drawn one way or the other.
But back to Grover. At least in the New Yorker article he seemed to be someone a little too focussed on the acquisition of power for the party, than what the party would do in power. Norquist seemed a little too blase about sublimating his own personal libertarian beliefs (economic and cultural) to maintaining the dominant coalition in the Republican party of economic libertarians and social conservatives. There seemed to be a tribal loyalty to the Republican party that precluded thinking whether the party stood for the right things.
All organized politics has this tension, between the pursuit and acquisition of power—which in democracies means coalitions of some form—and advancing policies, regardless of their public appeal. And all parties need a mix of operatives and idealists, a different mix to win power than to exercise it, and keep it at the next election.
If you're out of power there's a premium to be placed on operatives who focus on winning electorally. (Of course, a compelling vision never hurt parties either) Right now the Democrats' fixation on obtaining a Norquist-like co-ordinating figure is correct. When you hold none of the three centers of power in the federal government, a single-minded ambition to win would be a fine thing to have.
But Democrats need to realize a couple of things. First, the left/liberal/social democratic groups are often less easy to unite than the conservative side of politics. In general, there are more people in conservative politics who are happy to win and exercise power for its own sake, or for personal gain, than to achieve particular programmatic and legislative goals. Spread the federal dollars and positions around, and you'll easily satisfy some conservatives.
Second, the Grover-like-figure you need in opposition is a little different than the Grover-like-figure you need in government. Grover's been around a while, and it might do the Democrats better to look at his early (pre-1994) life than what he currently does. If they're going to look at all ...
Perhaps I am just reading the wrong things, but many Democrats seem to believe that if they study what Newt did in 1994, or what Tony Blair did in 1997, or what someone did in some other election with some parallels to today, they will find their way back to power. Perhaps. I'm all for historical examples and parallels, but they're not a template for action.
The Democrats have this peculiar 48% crisis of confidence at the moment. By coming close enough in the Presidential election, and close enough in the Senate races, there is a feeling abound that the solution to winning must be relatively small, and that there is only one missing element to get to 51%, be that a Grover-like-figure, something simple and programmatic like the Contract with America, or "framing" issues "correctly." (In the long run, saying what you mean and doing what you say is the best way to keep winning elections)
But what gets you to 51% is not necessarily the 48% you have now, plus 1/17 of the other side's voters. Changing the way things are done in the Democratic party, by having a Grover-like-figure, for example, might lead some of the voters you have now to defect, so you have to make up the deficit elsewhere.
For the Democrats to achieve a popular majority, in 2006 or beyond, requires that they look at their total situation in the here-and-now, from the bottom up. A search for the one thing that gets 3% more at the next election will not be a durable model for winning office more often than not.
Posted by robe0419 at August 4, 2005 03:09 PM | TrackBack