Why Democrats Must Change
Downtown Democratic Forum - December 12, 1997
By Jim Gibson
Who We Are
The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) arouse out of the rubble of the 1984 presidential election. Walter Mondale had just been beaten in 49 states and came within 2,500 votes of losing all 50. Republicans controlled the US Senate.
Prominent and innovative national leaders - including then-Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton, then-Senator Al Gore, then-Representative and now House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt of Missouri and others formed the DLC in 1985 to bring the Democratic Party back to the political mainstream. The goal was to develop a new progressive message to further the fundamental principles and values of Democrats, but in a way that was responsive to the challenges of the 1990s, not the 1960s or 1930s.
The DLC embarked on a four-part strategy to change the Party. Step One was to administer some very-needed political reality therapy. After successively worse defeats in presidential elections, it was clear that it was the message - not political campaign concerns like better candidates or improved Get-Out-The-Vote efforts - that was failing Democrats.
Especially at the presidential level, Democrats were losing the heart of the electorate - middle class people who work hard, play by the rules and expect nothing more than an opportunity to get ahead. For example, in 1988, people who made $20,000 - $50,000 a year represented 51 percent of voters. Bush won that group by 12 points.
After completing that very sobering diagnosis, the DLC then articulated the treatment. Step Two was establishing a new philosophy that still embraced the Democratic Party’s values. In 1990, the DLC issued the New Orleans Declaration; a simple statement that asserted:
The promise of America is equal opportunity, not equal outcomesThe purpose of the Democratic Party is to expand opportunity, not government Private-sector economic growth is the prerequisite to expanding opportunity for everyoneThe importance of inclusion cannot be overemphasizedStep Three was the most challenging of all - take the philosophy and turn it into a governing agenda based on bold, new ideas. This challenge was the toughest of all because moving from principles to specifics means one must draw lines - people will come down on different sides.
At the Cleveland Convention in 1991, chaired by then-Governor Bill Clinton, the DLC passed The New American Choice resolutions. The themes were offering opportunity to all, demanding responsibility from everyone, and promoting a sense of community in America. Ahead of the curve, the New American Choice advocated NAFTA, welfare reform, charter schools, health care reform, community policing and other issues that, today, are part of America's political lexicon.
Step Four was to test-market these ideas with a presidential candidate. The viability of the "New Democrat" message was successfully verified by the election and re-election of Bill Clinton and his successful terms in office.
To localize the "New Democrat" message here, the Colorado DLC was created to repeat the successes we have had at the national level. DLC elected officials and activists are using these ideas to change the state's dialogue and debate.
Why We are Needed
The Democratic Party - and even more importantly the country - face a very serious and historic crisis - the end of traditional liberalism & conservatism. The Reagan and very short-lived Gingrich eras proved to be unworthy substitutes for the New Deal, because unlike President Franklin Roosevelt, modern conservatives did not develop a useful alternative role for government. As they have in the past, Republicans merely temporarily paralyzed progressive politics.
Large majorities of the electorate are disenchanted with both Republicans and Democrats. They justifiably believe that too many Democrats want to take the world back to the New Deal and too many Republicans want to take us back, before the Great Depression - to the turn of the century
People have soundly and repeatedly disdained the calls for conservative "trickle down" economics and intolerant social views. And at every opportunity, as recently as 1994 - they reject traditional liberalism's tax-and-spend policies and something-for-nothing, special-interest politics.
We should resist the trap of believing our victory rests solely on Republican shortcomings and extremism. Democrats have tried that over and over again, only to have paid the price of continual decline. That strategy is a dead-end - it does not provide solutions or help Democrats politically in the long-term.
Please let me be clear. Colorado does not need or want two Republican parties. In my mind, one is probably too much. But it is foolhardy to think that Democrats can merely rewind tapes from the past and play back the New Deal and Great Society.
While Americans rightly believe that the big-government solutions of 1930s and 1960s will not work today, they strongly believe in the values that formed those New Deal and Great Society policies.
They strongly support the Democratic Party’s enduring values of strengthening the middle-class and helping those less fortunate to become part of the middle-class.
They like John F. Kennedy's message of asking everyone to take personal responsibility and to give something back to their community.
They want Democrats to return to its old Andrew Jackson credo of equal opportunity for all and special privilege for none - or as President Clinton has put it, no more something-for-nothing.
And finally, they agree with Democrats that the public sector does have an important role to play in this society. The public simply wants government to be more much responsive to its customers and the taxpayers who foot the bill.
To promote these historic values and solve today's problems, we must advocate a new, positive, progressive agenda that gives citizens a new choice in politics. Democrats must be about an agenda that transcends the divisions of the past and truly focuses on the future.
Democrats must realize that government cannot no longer protect everyone from adversity. Rather, we must have an agenda that moves beyond entitlements to empowerment strategies that equip the middle class and those less fortunate to do well in the global economy.
It is time for us to be free from false ideological and historical baggage, so that Democrats can begin to freshly approach and aggressively tackle the economic and social challenges of our time. We need to develop new and innovative public initiatives that address the real issues of today's economy and the concerns of our people.
Let me talk about what I think what should be included in that specific agenda.
The New Democratic Agenda - Trade
Democrats should reconsider their recent votes and stand with President Clinton in the next battle for fast track authority. While a vote on fast track has been postponed in Congress, the fight to determine America's future is just beginning.
The question is whether Democrats are going to be a force for economic progress or whether we will become a blockade of economic reaction and defeatism. The stakes are high and we must lead the way into the 21st century, ensuring that every American willing to take responsibility has the opportunity to prosper.
Support for open markets and hostility to protectionism is the oldest principle of the Democratic Party, uniting Democrats from the Andrew Jackson era to the late 20th century. Every 20th century Democratic President has promoted freer international trade, and even the labor movement has largely been pro-trade until the late 1970s.
Open trade is a defining principle for Democrats for a very simple reason - protectionism always has and forever will represent action by government to give a small handful of industries, fearing competition, special privileges, at the direct expense of everyone else in the country. Protectionism also fosters political corruption, by inviting industries to bid for intervention in order to boost their profits.
Today, traditional Democrats argue that trade agreements undermine job stability and income levels for some workers. New Democrats respond that it is unfair and un-Democratic to elevate the interests of industries threatened by international competition above the interests of workers in exporting industries, the interests of consumers, the interest of communities that benefit from foreign investment and the interests of all Americans who are benefiting from the current conditions of steady growth.
For example, Colorado's international exports are skyrocketing and creating thousands of jobs but support from Democrats here has been, at best, lukewarm. To his credit, Congressman David Skaggs stood up to organized labor and supported the President. But sad to say, Congresswoman Diana Degette - in a significant departure from her predecessor former Representative Pat Schroeder - voted no on fast track authority for the President.
While New Democrats support free trade and engagement with the rest of world, we also recognize that workers need a new social compact to compete successfully in the global economy. We must expand the winners’ circle in America.
In contrast to the Republican dogma of every man for himself, New Democrats believe that we must develop a new social compact that invests in everyone's employability - those with jobs, those without, and those not yet in the labor market - to acquire the skills and knowledge they need to succeed.
We know we cannot go back to the old Industrial Age compact in which Americans could work in the same jobs for the same companies for a lifetime, with employers and unions providing secure wages and benefits, and government supplying an expanding "safety net" for hard times. Fortunately or fortunately, that world is gone.
In the old, relatively closed domestic economy, blue-collar Americans could get middle-class jobs with a high school diploma and keep those full-time jobs most, if not all, of their lives. Workers needed less training and returned to the same positions after layoffs.
That model was fine for the Industrial Age but not today. Now, a high school diploma is a ticket to a low-wage job. With technology permanently wiping out millions of jobs each year, layoffs are no longer temporary.
Most of us expect to change jobs many times and will need to upgrade our skills continuously. We must take responsibility for and control of our careers. Public bureaucracies cannot do the job because they simply can't keep up with the fast-changing labor market.
As a first step to developing that new social compact, we should scrap the failed hodgepodge of costly training programs we have now and replace it with a new learning enterprise controlled by its intended beneficiaries rather than bureaucrats. We should be nurturing a job training marketplace that is "user-friendly" and empowers individuals to meet their own specific needs in a comprehensive way.
To that end, Colorado should create skill grants for every worker to use throughout their careers. Vouchers would put workers in direct control over services and funds and in charge of their careers. Workers would buy the job search, skill assessment, job placement, career counseling, education and training services of their choice, not that of some government employee.
Competition among private and public service providers would create a market dynamic that leads to innovations and improvements. Competition would also create accountability for performance - dissatisfied customers could “vote with their feet,” taking their business to more effective providers. Finally, the bureaucracies that lord over current programs would be reduced.
Free trade and a new social compact would enhance both worker security and opportunity. That is a deal that America cannot afford to pass up.
Entitlement Reform
On another front, Democrats should be about keeping the promise of a decent living in retirement for Americans. At the same time, we are supposed to worry about finding the fiscal means to make public investments that contribute to economic growth and give working Americans the tools they need to succeed.
That's why New Democrats think it is critical to modernize Social Security and Medicare. Otherwise, both programs will go bankrupt, squeezing important public investments right out of the budget.
Some traditional liberals oppose this approach because they think we can find the money to keep entitlements intact while making public investments. To do that, they advocate slashing the defense budget and soaking the rich with new taxes. That is wishful thinking and plays right into the Republican strategy of starving needed public investments to death.
Democrats need to take the lead on entitlement reform. Otherwise, the numbers will make entitlement reform happen to us.
Welfare Reform
Democrats have always fought for upward mobility for low-income Americans. That's why the DLC has wanted to replace the old welfare system with an employment system that lifts recipients into the private-sector economy. Through increased funding for child and health care, the Earned Income Tax Credit and transportation, New Democrats want to make work pay and directly link workers to job opportunities.
Some in our party oppose this approach because they do not believe the jobs are there. New Democrats say we must find out by trying, instead of joining Republicans in giving up on welfare recipients.
Race
All Americans, especially Democrats, need to join with President Clinton and have an honest dialogue about race in this country. Too many of us have engaged in a conspiracy of silence, resulting in racial gridlock and camps more focused on their self-interests rather than a debate on principle.
Republicans do not care because they have had little success in recruiting significant numbers of people of color. In fact, many Republicans win elections when large numbers of white Democrats switch over and vote for them. As a result, the GOP has no political incentive to propose real and constructive solutions.
Many white Democratic candidates duck the race issue because their support among whites is already so tenuous. In addition, they worry that discussing race might be confused with racism, endangering support from people of color.
To restart the discussion and restore unity, we must change the dynamics of the current debate. For one, the debate should not focus on whether you are for or against affirmative action, but rather the policy alternatives necessary to achieve equal opportunity. Affirmative action might be one of those.
We must also make a critical distinction between compensatory action and preferential treatment. Compensatory action includes measures to help those less fortunate catch up to the standards of competition. Preferential treatment involves suspending those standards, to admit or hire the less-privileged unable to meet the same requirements.
Americans, including many women and people of color, draw the line at predetermining the results of the competition. They are willing to help people get to the starting line - that's compensatory action - but do not want to rig the outcome of the race - that's preferential treatment.
Dr. Martin Luther King was absolutely right when he said that full equality will arrive only when the civil rights campaign becomes one with a movement that provides all Americans with meaningful education and a decent living wage. Because we will succeed only when everyone - African-Americans, Latinos, Asians, whites, women and others - prosper.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Democrats need a healthy debate on how we should translate our values and beliefs in today's circumstances. We need more discussion within our Party, not less.
Voters want public solutions but fear government will only make the problems worse. The Guide the Ride campaign is only the latest example. President Clinton’s health care proposal is another.
At the same time, they are also rejecting the Republican message of every person for himself and “just get government out of the way.” That narrow view of the world simply leaves real problems festering.
Democrats have a clear opportunity to give voters solutions they can have confidence in, putting the public policy debate back on our terms. Like some of the initiatives proposed earlier, Democrats should, across-the-board, advocate non-bureaucratic strategies that use market-oriented approaches and give citizens more choices in public services.
That will be a winning formula for both Colorado and the Democratic Party.
Thanks for this great opportunity and your attention. I look forward to your questions and comments.