Features » December 6, 2007

The Democrats’ Path to Victory

The public demand for progressive politics is growing stronger

By David Moberg

Union workers demonstrate against a free trade agreement between Peru and the United States in front of the International Labor Organization's headquarters in Lima on Aug. 7.

Voters are likely to choose the next president primarily on economic issues, especially if the financial crises deepen. But they will also decide the election based on concerns about the war in Iraq and, more broadly, America’s place in the world.

On both counts—the pocketbook and the globe—Democrats hold an advantage. But to retain that advantage, Democrats will need to redefine the terms of debate on America’s global role.

That’s happening in small, if inadequate, ways on both the war in Iraq and trade issues. The danger is that the Democrats will defensively hedge against the inevitable Republican attack machine on foreign policy and pander to their newly generous corporate financial backers on trade. They would then fail to connect with voters’ deep sense of dissatisfaction, not just with Bush, but with longer-term trends in American foreign policy.

Most Americans don’t think the administration’s global and domestic policies are working. “Democrats have not yet found their voice as agents of change, except perhaps on Iraq,” write Democracy Corps political strategists Stan Greenberg, Al Quinlan and James Carville. “If 2008 is to bring a tidal wave, Democrats and progressives must become more fully the voice of what is wrong with these times. It is not enough to be anti-Iraq and anti-Bush.”

Democracy Corps polling supports this populist reading of the electorate. Given a list of phrases that reflect both conservative and progressive explanations, the top two choices among people who think the country is off course were “big businesses get whatever they want in Washington” (40 percent) and “leaders have forgotten the middle class” (38 percent).

But Democracy Corps also reports that the populist inclinations of Democrats and independents diverge, giving Republicans a political wedge opportunity. Democratic voters were most concerned about Iraq spending, healthcare inaction, and job loss to China and India. Independents cared most about unprotected borders, oil dependence and job loss. Thus, immigration emerges as a potential political problem for Democratic candidates, even though most Americans reject draconian crackdowns on immigrants.

Current debates about Iraq and globalization—in Congress and among the presidential candidates—show that Democrats have failed to take advantage of this progressive shift in public opinion.

Iraq—now spilling over to encompass Iran—remains by far the most important global issue for voters. Roughly two out of every three Americans oppose the war in Iraq, and three out of five want the troops out within a year, according to CNN/Opinion Research. What’s more, a solid majority wants out even if the military has not restored order, according to a September Washington Post/ABC polls.

People now trust Democrats more than Republicans on the war, but 55 percent still said that congressional Democrats had not gone far enough in opposing it, according to the same poll.

In the presidential race, the top three Democrats—Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and former Sen. John Edwards—have all committed to starting the withdrawal of troops, saying they would leave residual forces in Iraq and the surrounding area, possibly through the end of their first term. Edwards argues that, unlike Clinton, he would end combat operations within a year, and Obama insists he would leave a smaller, less ambitious residual force than Clinton. But New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson has made a bid for anti-war voters, calling for prompt and complete withdrawal (as has long-time war opponent Rep. Dennis Kucinich).

Clinton’s opponents have criticized her vote for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which declares Iran’s Revolutionary Guards a terrorist group and sets the stage for Bush to attack Iran. In response, Clinton said she did not support a “rush to war,” but did not rule out an attack on Iran.

Over the past five years, the public has steadily opposed the reliance on U.S. military strength over multilateral diplomacy for security. Three-fourths of Americans favor international cooperation over either withdrawing from international affairs or being the top world leader or dominant power, according to the University of Maryland’s Program on International Policy (PIPA). And nearly as many think that unilateral action against terrorism just makes the United States a bigger terrorist target. According to PIPA’s research, Americans overwhelmingly think that goodwill of other countries toward the United States is important but that the world views the country negatively because it dislikes American policies—not American values.

Republicans consistently beat Democrats in the polls on who would ensure a strong military and, by declining margins, on who can best protect national security or fight terrorists. After all, Republicans are adept at creating a culture of fear about foreign threats. And the military-industrial complex continues to exercise tremendous influence.

“I can’t imagine any president of either party standing up to the extreme powerful interests of the Pentagon and CIA in any effective way,” says Chalmers Johnson, author of Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic.

But on fundamental issues, Americans say they want a radically different foreign policy. Democrats need to emphasize that abandoning militarily aggressive policies and working cooperatively with other nations will make Americans more secure.

Granted, as a woman, Hillary Clinton faces biased questions about whether she can be a forceful leader. But it’s time to make the case that a president can be tough without being belligerent and stupid. Trying to distinguish themselves from both Bush and Clinton, Obama and Edwards argue for diplomatic talks with Iran, an offer of incentives as well as economic sanctions, and less aggressiveness (ruling out ambitions for “regime change,” according to Obama, or “preventive war,” according to Edwards).

• Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
• Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  I’m unsure whether the author is out of touch with reality or just too young to realize this, but there is nothing new about the Democrats’ “generous corporate financial backers on trade.”

  As I recall the Democrats controlled Congress except for about three years of the last several decades and there was a steady increase in lobbyists all the while. About the only way the Republicans can be given any additional blame is they managed to double the number to over 36,000 under the guidance of Tom DeLay.

  There are a very few individuals in Congress whom I would trust to look out for the working people and absolutely no party who gives more than lip service. It’s also notable that Ron Paul got no mention regarding the sellout of the U.S. middle class in the jobs category. He has been far and away the most outspoken.

  It was obvious to many of us before the GWH Bush/Clinton pushing through of NAFTA that this was NOT a good idea for any but the most wealthy among us. Perot and Buchanan were ignored and while Perot’s assessment was off on the sound effects, he was dead right on the effect.

  I fear the only thing Paul will accomplish is a repeat of the Perot effect of splitting the vote which gave Clinton eight years to cater to businesses.

  I certainly agree with this statement — “It is not enough to be anti-Iraq and anti-Bush,” for the Democrats and it is not enough for Republicans to be tough on terror. We are of aware all the problems, but there is a dearth of ideas being presented to deal with any of them.  A whole host of polls give Congress ratings as bad as the President.

  Posted by whattheheck on Dec 6, 2007 at 9:06 PM

  I agree that economics will become more and more an important issue.  But the only candidate that has the vision and the leadership to tackle this issue is Dennis Kucinich.  He is not beholden to corporate special interests.  He is the only Presidential candidate that will get us out of Iraq, end NAFTA, create a Department of Peace and bring about Medicare for All.  No other candidate running in the Democratic Primary has that progressive platform.  So if you call yourself progressive or liberal why aren’t you supporting him?  Don’t give me the defeatist response of ” I agree with his positions but he is “unelectable”. ”  That is true if you don’t work and vote for him.  Why do you want to settle for the lowest common denominator?  Do you want another corporate Democrat, “Republican lite” or DINO in the Whitehouse?

  Posted by Trainer12 on Dec 7, 2007 at 7:32 PM

  When I read an article like that that totally ignores Dennis Kucinich, placing him parentheses, I have no confidence that the Democrats will ever find a path to meaningfulness.  What use is victory if even the self-described progressive pundits like Moberg don’t get it that Kucinich is the candidate who embodies the very things they are talking about, yet they ignore his candidacy?

  Posted by Gregory Wonderwheel on Dec 9, 2007 at 11:12 PM

  I agree on Moberg’s choice of issues, but the Democrats are gun shy after so many defeats. Clinton’s victory in 1992 was undone two years later in the Newt Gingrich Congressional election of 94. Moreover the candidates who have gravitated towards progressive issues are dividing the vote. Obama and Edwards have shown the greatest sympathy for the progressive views, but the three way race means that a candidate wins with 35 to 45% of the vote. I believe Hillary Clinton will do this as will Giuliani on the GOP side. Although the GOP predictions are harder to make.

  This means that candidates supportive of military spending and who define consensus as agreement between moderate Dems and moderate Republicans will be in the White House. Finding a way out of this trap is a key problem during the next 4 election cycles.

  However I offer this thought. The war in Iraq will be settled or tantalizing close to a settlement by Nov 08. The NIE report is only one of many break throughs we will see as new regional power arrangements are developed. These will include U.S. military bases in Iraq and regional treaties making Iran one of the status quo powers in the region. If sanctions remain they will be only applied by the U.S. The U.S. will abandon regime change in Iran as a goal and Iran will get guarantees from Sunni States that they will not attack.

  Consequently we will go into the elections with peace and lower oil prices. This doesn’t guarantee a GOP victory, far from it. But it does make the Democratic message harder to articulate.

  Posted by natriley on Dec 12, 2007 at 8:54 PM

  Dennis Kucinich won the Progressive Democrats of America poll operated by Howard Dean. John Edwards came in second and was the only other candidate with double digit favorability.  85% of voters in candidate-blind issue-based polling are matched with Kucinich on the issues.  ABC operated an online poll after the first Democratic debate asking who won?  Dennis Kucinich won that poll and the site administrators immediately withdrew the poll without explanation.  A new poll was posted which Kucinich also won and it was taken down. Running moderate Democrats such as Gore (now more progressive than he was perceived to be when he ran for president) and Kerry failed to rally the base of the Democratic party and many stayed home.  The concept of “electability” is flawed if you think you only have to mobilize swing voters and then that you have to mobilize them on the basis of conservative issues.  Mobilize the base and mobilize swing voters by emphasizing issues on which they are progressive, and we’ll have an electable candidate.  When public interest rules politics instead of pacs, it will be a brighter day.

  Posted by zeitgeistboheme on Dec 12, 2007 at 10:47 PM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 6 posts.

Also featured Dark Side of Russias Rainbow
Kids LOL @ Navy Recruiters
iPower to the People

Full contents
Previous issues
Subscribe and save!

Also by David Moberg

• Out of Control
  Too big to regulate, the banks need to be broken up.Posted on November 18, 2009
• Labor’s New Leader
  The AFL-CIO stakes its future on Richard Trumka. Posted on October 16, 2009
• The Retail Devolution
  Two new books explore corporate evil.Posted on September 25, 2009
• Who’s Got the Power?
  Progressives find themselves outmaneuvered on healthcare reform. Posted on August 17, 2009
• Not Your Parents’ Labor Movement
  Why the Republic sit-in failed to inspire other worker actions.Posted on August 3, 2009