From Crisis, Opportunity
Democrats should closely heed the strong message sent by the voters on November 8th. The electorate is seeking real change, and if our party does not respond soon, minority status could become permanent for the foreseeable future.
Railing against the "brain-dead" politics in both parties during the 1992 presidential campaign, Bill Clinton excited voters when he ran as a reformist "New Democrat." He promised genuine change, advocating innovative and centrist proposals that would move the country into the 21st century.
By their very nature, aggressive, centrist agendas require bipartisan support. Unfortunately, the overly partisan nature of Washington became an increasingly stronger obstacle between Clinton and mainstream lawmakers in both parties.
Bipartisan coalitions became the exception, not the rule. Despite the wishes of voters, traditional liberals and conservatives in Congress conspired to play a new version of "gridlock." While agreeing with much of Clinton's New Democrat agenda, many in the GOP instead opted for political advantage and just said no.
At the same time, the administration and congressional Democrats got off track by polarizing matters even more. Traditional members of our Party, having survived the election largely through the clout of incumbency, never really bought the New Democrat agenda, and still did not see or feel the need to adjust their views to the 1990s.
Sensing gridlock, Clinton decided to work with the unpopular Democratic Congressional leadership to pass his agenda. That strategy required much less emphasis on the centrist New Democrat message and often caused him to move out of the mainstream.
As a result, voters had difficulty defining Clinton as he switched between governing as an "Old" and "New" Democrat. In addition, given the very cynical political environment, his presidency became more defined by its failures than its successes.
On issues like reinventing government and the North American Free Trade Agreement, the President built coalitions starting in the center. Despite NAFTA's lagging public support early in the debate, Clinton's leadership on both initiatives eventually generated enthusiastic support among the American people and many moderate congressional Republicans.
In contrast, other programs, like the 1993 economic plan and health care reform, started from the left. Support for these ideas quickly disintegrated once opponents rebutted their heavy-on-government emphasis.
Even accounting for unified Republican opposition, Clinton's economic proposal should have positioned the administration to argue with liberals, not moderates, within the Democratic Party. Similarly, passage of real health care reform may have been possible if the administration had endorsed the market-based Cooper-Breaux proposal rather than one burdened with stifling regulation.
Both Democrats and Republicans should learn some very important lessons from the 1994 election. Unless real results are generated, voters will again throw out the "in" party at the first opportunity, as they did in 1992 with the presidency and this year with Congress.
Americans recognize that the left's undue focus on centralized government and the right's over-reliance on the marketplace are relics from the past. The electorate wants to solve society's deepening problems with public solutions but does not trust the federal government to do anything right. Effectively, they are demanding a new synthesis that blends activist government with entrepreneurial and non-bureaucratic approaches.
Ironically, the Democratic and Republican caucuses are now more liberal and conservative, respectively, than before the election. However, lawmakers in both parties would also be mistaken to sit on their hands or play polarized politics.
Dissatisfaction in 1996 will reach new heights if the choices are only between the hard right or the left. Voters are seeking a party less interested in scoring petty partisanship points and more focused on delivering real solutions that boost stagnating incomes, strengthen families, stop violence in our streets and heal our growing social divisions.
The Democratic Leadership Council is working on a provocative, new agenda to make the Democratic Party that party. Innovative and progressive ideas, firmly rooted in mainstream values, will be unveiled next month as an opening bid in a national conversation to be conducted across the country in 1995.
President Clinton revitalized our party in 1992 with a progressive New Democrat message that expands economic opportunity and makes government work while promoting individual responsibility, family, community and tolerance. If his presidency is to be resurrected, he, with the cooperation of Democrats, must aggressively push this agenda with the Republican Congress and American people.
Jim Gibson is Executive Vice President of the Colorado Democratic Leadership Council, a think tank that advocates new public policy ideas and the Democratic Party's historic commitment to economic growth, personal responsibility, individual liberty and equal opportunity.