The morning after this November's election, I waited for the Democrats to say something. Republicans were basking in the glow of victory, recapping a night filled with speeches that thanked God and George W. Bush as though the two were closely connected. When they spoke up at all, Democratic leaders just managed to sound depressed. Tom Daschle called the previous evening the worst of his life. Terry McAuliffe, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, had the nerve to suggest that Republicans could have done better. Missing were the speeches I had expected as a die-hard Democrat, the promises to continue to fight for liberal causes, to try harder in two years, to win back what the party had lost. Democrats, it seemed, had little to say for themselves the morning after the election. In that way, it was a lot like the campaign itself.
The mistakes made this election season were overwhelming. Political faux pas, like the horrendously partisan Wellstone memorial, were commonplace. Party leaders misallocated funds, diverting resources away from key Senate races to less crucial arenas like the Florida gubernatorial contest. But more important than all of that was the lack of a clear message from the left side of the aisle. At no point did Democrats articulate why American voters should trudge to the polls to elect them. The only reasoning they could offer was that they were not Republicans, that they could provide some kind of opposition, as if for its own sake. While the GOP was presenting a united front, the Democrats looked like a party unsure of what it believed and unlikely to provide effective government if granted a majority in one or both houses of Congress. American voters are a demanding bunch. They like to have actual reasons to cast their votes for one candidate or another. The Democrats never gave them any.
The most immediate blame needs to be laid at the feet of party leaders. McAuliffe, a brilliant fundraiser, has never held political office in his life, and it shows. The brashness that helps him extort millions from fat cat donors is a liability when it comes to political calculation. His lack of interest in the ideas and policies propagated by his own party is a roadblock to success. The party's leaders in Congress aren't much better. Dick Gephardt and Tom Daschle are hardly dynamic personalities. Gephardt has been running on the same issues since the 1980s, and Daschle has been so afraid of losing his majority in the Senate that he has refused to do anything controversial. Since the departure of Bill Clinton and Al Gore from the national political spotlight, no one has stepped forward to provide a rallying cry for Democrats across the country. To give the party any hope of victory in 2004, someone needs to stand up and take charge.
The party also needs to stop being afraid of its own ideas. Since Sept.11, Democrats have been hesitant to criticize the President, afraid of seeming un-American. The people of this country, in poll after poll, support Bush's efforts in the war on terrorism and his movements in Iraq. What no one points out is that they aren't being given any other options. Democrats have offered little constructive criticism and even fewer original ideas of their own when it comes to post Sept. 11 concerns. Where are the Democratic advocates of I.N.S. reform and the federalization of airport security? Even on the domestic front, the party has been quiet. At no point in this campaign did Democrats sound the alarms in the ways they should have about the economy, the environment, the threats to social programs, and the risks to the judiciary of a Republican controlled government. More disappointing, few Democratic candidates offered their own ideas for legislation or reform. Democrats need to realize that Americans like controversy and even partisanship, particularly if it means better policy.
The election of 2002 is over. While there are lessons to be learned, the Democrats must look to the future. Ours is a party mired in the past. When strapped for candidates, Democrats nominated a 78-year old and a 74-year old who had both retired from political life. Meanwhile, no one has emerged as a front-runner for the presidential nomination, and the frequency with which Al Gore's name is mentioned as a possibility ought to terrify anyone who remembers the 2000 election. Party leaders need to cultivate young talent, like that of Tennessee Congressman Harold Ford, now a candidate for House minority leader, and Senator John Edwards of North Carolina. They need to spend the next two years talking loudly about the dangers of deficit spending to Social Security and Medicare, the importance of balancing civil liberties with safety, and the need to scale back tax cuts in order to keep the economy afloat. For months, the Democrats have been too quiet. The morning after the election, they could not find any words of justification or solace. Now, the Democrats must find their voice. Katherine Reilly is from Short Hills, NJ. She can be reached at kcreilly@princeton.edu.
Read More
Calls for VP Calhoun's resignation mislead on free expression
Bill Hewitt“In joining a letter so firmly based on a questionable factual narrative, some 10 percent of Princeton faculty have rushed to condemn Vice President Calhoun for a “lie” and to demand her ouster.”
“In joining a letter so firmly based on a questionable factual narrative, some 10 percent of Princeton faculty have rushed to condemn Vice President Calhoun for a “lie” and to demand her ouster.”
Deciding disciplinary matters by popular vote of the faculty sets a harmful precedent
Jonathan Mummolo"In short, fairness demands that all members of the Princeton community be subject to a common set of rules and procedures. We are all meant to be granted equal protection under these rules. Our established procedures for disciplinary matters do not call for a full faculty vote."
"In short, fairness demands that all members of the Princeton community be subject to a common set of rules and procedures. We are all meant to be granted equal protection under these rules. Our established procedures for disciplinary matters do not call for a full faculty vote."
Princeton, practice what you preach: SPIA graduate students on protest and dialogue
Guest Contributors"As policy students, we are appalled by the blatant hypocrisy of the University administration, which has relied on fear-mongering and false narratives to discredit student protestors. We are increasingly disillusioned with the dissonance of what we are taught in our classrooms and the University’s actions."
"As policy students, we are appalled by the blatant hypocrisy of the University administration, which has relied on fear-mongering and false narratives to discredit student protestors. We are increasingly disillusioned with the dissonance of what we are taught in our classrooms and the University’s actions."
