In another sign of his all-but-announced candidacy for DNC chair, Howard Dean gave a big speech this morning giving his vision for the future of the Democratic Party. Mostly pretty good, though very little new. However, his overriding theme was a bit absurd:
Now we need to build on our successes while transforming the Democratic Party into a grassroots organization that can win in 50 states.
I have seen all the doomsday predictions that the Democratic Party could shrink to become a regional Party. A Party of the Northeast and the Pacific Northwest.
We cannot be a Party that seeks the presidency by running an 18-state campaign. We cannot be a party that cedes a single state, a single District, a single precinct, nor should we cede a single voter.
I couldn't quite put my finger on why I found this irritating, nor could I understand why Dean put so much emphasis on this 50-state business, until I read Paul Waldman's take on the DLC's latest broadside:
Al From and Bruce Reed write in the Wall Street Journal that Democrats need to reach out to the heartland, because they can't survive without being a "national party." ...
But here's the thing: The GOP isn't a national party either.
Let's look at the facts. In the last four elections, the Republican nominee has won a grand total of one state in the Northeast or West Coast, when Bush squeezed out New Hampshire by 7000 votes in 2000. From and Reed, like many others, express shock that Democrats "write off" the South - but Republicans write off the Northeast and West Coast. They lament that Bush "won 202 electoral votes without lifting a finger" in states Kerry didn't bother to contest. But Kerry won 190 electoral votes without lifting a finger.
What we have is two non-national parties, one based in the South, lower midwest, and mountain states, and one based in the Northeast and West.
In fact, I'd go step a step farther and say that there's basically no such thing as a "national party" in American politics. The two party system has almost always pitted regions against one another -- often to a far greater degree than it does currently (see 1860).
I'm not sure how much of this 50-state talk is bluster, and how much if it is concrete strategy. I am sure that deploying limiting resources in unwinnable races so that Democrats can vainly call themselves a national party is not a good way to take back Congress.
Finally, why the hell is Howard Dean, a viable candidate to lead his party, taking bait offered by Al From, who is quickly descending into irrelevance?
Posted by Michael at December 8, 2004 04:49 PM | TrackBackEnjoyed your points about national divisions and reach of the 2 US political parties: have you seen this map?
http://funk.co.uk/2004/11/absolutely-last-and-final-word-on-us.html
Also, can you tell me why everywhere else in the world left=red and right=blue, and in the US left=blue and right=red ?
yours fraternally,
Deek.
Posted by: Deek Deekster at December 9, 2004 03:03 AMThe red/blue business is relatively new, since 2000. My understanding is that they used to switch the color-coding for the electoral map every four years, but that with the 2000 election so close, the colors stuck. It should be noted, though, that the Democrats have never officially been a socialist or social democratic party, which is what would've led to the use of red. (I believe the Socialist Party of America did use all the traditional socialist imagery, especially carnations.)
Posted by: Michael at December 11, 2004 01:28 PM