The Democratic Party’s “lack of unity” has become an oft-cited criticism of conservative pundits [1]. The Republican right has successfully exploited intra-party dissent—primarily regarding the Iraq War—and cultivated the image of the Democratic Party as weak, faltering, and therefore ineffective [2]. Republicans have artfully crafted a fear of uncertainty, and suggested on no uncertain terms that a divided party accomplishes nothing, and the divided Democrats would run the Iraq War and America into ruin if given the opportunity. As we all know, the Democrats have finally begun to recover from the GOP’s fear-mongering tactics, but the complaints of lacking cohesion remain nearly as strong as ever.
Analysts say that the Democrats need to create a new image, and they need to do this by creating a unified front [3]. A few gained House seats won’t last if the Democrats continue to look weak and vulnerable. The talking heads seem to see cohesion as a wholly beneficial aim, something to achieve and advertise on the part of the Democrats.
Let’s inspect that assumption for a moment. Polls throughout the decades have indicated that most voters don’t fully subscribe to a party; they instead tow-the-line in the moderate middle [4]. An independent “American Moderate Party [5]” exists on the fringe, but allow us to face reality: most Americans feel they have but two choices when they go to the polls. In most cases, they really do only have a Republican and a Democrat candidate from whom to choose. And when an independent candidate does provide that supposed third choice, most people feel that such a candidate doesn’t stand a chance, and hence doesn’t even merit consideration. Ralph Nader [5] of course comes to mind.Left with no other option, the typical nonpartisan voter chooses the “lesser of two evils”- the candidate that comes closest to their own personal views, or perhaps just the candidate that seems more amicable. Swing voters love the likeable “lesser of two evils”, which explains why the media adores the seemingly moderate John McCain and mocks the rather intense Howard Dean.
When a party unifies completely, the vital swing voters immediately have fewer choices. Take the recent buzz over Democratic candidate Paul Hackett. Hackett, an Iraq War Veteran, challenged Ohio Senator Mike DeWine with vehement language, and adamantly expressed his disapproval of the War’s continuation. Hackett reports that Democratic Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid asked him to bow out of the race, and that the Party sabotaged his fundraising efforts because of his energetic presentation [6]. Let without his party’s support, Hackett withdrew from the race. Unfortunately for the Democrats, Hackett had a strong standing in pre-election polls [7]. The Daily Show, with its typically biting wit, mocked the Democratic Party’s attempt to make outspoken candidates innocuous and “cohesive” with a bland party message. You can watch the segment here. [8]
The lack of outspoken candidates strikes me as tragically antidemocratic. The crux of representative democracy lies in the range of choices that the voting populous has. If the powerful party machines crush internal debate and create one of two available, universal “platforms”, the power to keep candidates in check becomes vastly limited. Imagine going to the polls and having to choose between pro-war Republicans, and a party comprised of moderate, innocuous Democrats like Joe Liebermann. Either way you would have to vote pro-war. Party unity can both quash democracy and make parties less appetizing.
Analysts have finally begun to stipulate that the Democratic Party could use its internal dissent to its advantage [3]. The head of the centrist group NDN, Simon Rosenberg, looks at the Democratic Party’s “lack of direction” as a sign that democracy has attained the “debate of ideas” vital to the success of the political system. With such a wide array of opinions, why should the Democrats alienate any potential voters?
I don’t often agree with dead-center moderates. Their opinions tend to favor maintaining the current norm at any cost, which I think often indicates either a discomfort with change or general apathy. But when it comes to the stance– or stances— of the Democratic Party, I couldn’t agree with the centrists more. The Democrats need not silence discourse; they could instead market the range of choices they have to offer.
Print this post [9]
[10]