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 |