[Mb-civic] Winning Cases, Losing Voters By PAUL STARR

[Michael Butler]

 The New York Times
January 26, 2005
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Winning Cases, Losing Voters
By PAUL STARR

Princeton, N.J.

AS Republicans revel in President Bush's inauguration and prepare for his
agenda-setting State of the Union address next week, many Democrats would
like to consider almost anything but the substance of politics as the reason
for their defeat last November. If only John Kerry had been a stronger
candidate. If only the message had been framed differently. If only the
party's strategists were as tough as the guys on the other side.

The limits of candidates and campaigns, however, can't explain the
Democrats' long-term decline. And while the institutional decay at the
party's base - the decline of labor unions and ethnically based party
organizations - has played a role, the people who point to "moral values"
may not be far off. Democrats have paid a historic price for their role in
the great moral revolutions that during the past half-century have
transformed relations between whites and blacks, men and women, gays and
straights. And liberal Democrats, in particular, have been inviting
political oblivion - not by advocating the wrong causes, but by letting
their political instincts atrophy and relying on the legal system.

To be sure, Democrats were right to challenge segregation and racism,
support the revolution in women's roles in society, to protect rights to
abortion and to back the civil rights of gays. But a party can make only so
many enemies before it loses the ability to do anything for the people who
depend on it. For decades, many liberals thought they could ignore the
elementary demand of politics - winning elections - because they could go to
court to achieve these goals on constitutional grounds. The great thing
about legal victories like Roe v. Wade is that you don't have to compromise
with your opponents, or even win over majority opinion. But that is also the
trouble. An unreconciled losing side and unconvinced public may eventually
change the judges.

And now we have reached that point. The Republicans, with their party in
control of both elected branches - and looking to create a conservative
majority on the Supreme Court that will stand for a generation - see the
opportunity to overthrow policies and constitutional precedents reaching
back to the New Deal.

That prospect ought to concentrate the liberal mind. Social Security,
progressive taxation, affordable health care, the constitutional basis for
environmental and labor regulation, separation of church and state - these
issues and more hang in the balance.

Under these circumstances, liberal Democrats ought to ask themselves a big
question: are they better off as the dominant force in an ideologically pure
minority party, or as one of several influences in an ideologically varied
party that can win at the polls? The latter, it seems clear, is the better
choice.

Rebuilding a national political majority will mean distinguishing between
positions that contribute to a majority and those that detract from it. As
last year's disastrous crusade for gay marriage illustrated, Democrats
cannot allow their constituencies to draw them into political terrain that
can't be defended at election time. Dissatisfied with compromise legislation
on civil unions and partner benefits, gay organizations thought they could
get from judges, beginning with those on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial
Court, what the electorate was not yet ready to give. The result: bans on
same-sex marriage passing in 11 states and an energized conservative voting
base.

Public support for abortion rights is far greater than for gay marriage, but
compromise may be equally imperative - especially if a reshaped Supreme
Court reverses Roe v. Wade by finding that there is no constitutional right
to abortion and throws the issue back to the states. Some savvy Democrats
are already thinking along these lines, as Hillary Clinton showed this week
when she urged liberals to find "common ground" with those who have
misgivings about abortion.

And if a new Supreme Court overturns affirmative-action laws, Democrats will
need to pursue equality in ways that avoid treating whites and blacks
differently. Some liberals have long been calling for an emphasis on "race
neutral" economic policies to recover support among working-class and
middle-income white voters. Legal and political necessity may now drive all
Democrats in that direction.

Republicans are leaving themselves open to this kind of strategy. Their
party is far more ideologically driven and more beholden to the Christian
right than it was even during the Ronald Reagan era. This is the source of
the party's energy, but also its vulnerability. The Democrats' opportunity
lies in becoming a broader, more open and flexible coalition that can occupy
the center.

In the long run, Democrats will benefit from their strength among younger
voters and the growing Hispanic population. But the last thing the Democrats
need is a revived interest group or identity politics. As the response to
Senator Barack Obama's convention speech showed, the party's own members are
looking for an expansive statement of American character and national
purpose.

Secure in their own lives at home, Americans can be a great force for good
in the world. That is the liberalism this country once heard from Woodrow
Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy - and it is the only form of
liberalism that will give the Democratic Party back its majority.

Paul Starr is the co-editor of The American Prospect and the author, most
recently, of "The Creation of the Media."

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search |
Corrections | RSS | Help | Back to Top