New Democrat Update - March 2004
A FIGHT ON PRINCIPLE
In his withdrawal speech from the presidential nomination race, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean took the high road and urged his fiercely loyal core supporters to unite behind the eventual Democratic nominee. His success in using the Internet to mobilize energy and excitement, as well as raise money, was an important innovation that will benefit all Democrats in the long run. Without question, our party needs all the tools it can get to attract new people into the political process.
However, as important as those contributions are, they are only means to an end. The real end is governing well and solving problems, once in office.
The presidential nominating process plays a critical role in our political system. It is the one time every four years that a political party defines itself by the agenda of the nominee it selects. The DLC’s differences with the Dean campaign were always deeply substantive, but never personal. We waged this battle because we believe the Democratic Party is worth fighting for.
The choice in this campaign was between building on the successful New Democrat legacy of the 1990s versus going back to a party that was much less successful in the 1970s and 1980s. Candidates with a forward-looking, optimistic vision do much more to bring new voters to the polls than candidates without one.
After hearing the views of New Democrats, Dean and his supporters resorted to the silly tactic of saying that only they were the "real Democrats." In fact, among self-identified Democrats, only 33 percent consider themselves liberals, according to the Gallup Organization. That translates into one-third of the party’s "base," which in turn only represents about a sixth of all American voters.
As the presidential primary has demonstrated, that represents a far cry from a majority, and no matter how excited, energized and psyched you are, you only get to vote once. Consequently, to prevail, any Democratic nominee needs a well-honed vision, smart policy ideas and intelligent political strategies, along with the humility and patience to speak to voters who do not always agree with us. Furthermore, as they did in the 1990s, majorities will flock to the progressive political tradition - if it is modernized to meet current conditions.
Similarly, New Democrats disagreed deeply with Dean on the all-important issue of values. Dean dismissed talking about cultural issues, ranging from guns and abortion, to religion and the struggles of families to raise kids, to the responsibilities of individuals and civil society, not just government. In his view, Democrats should only talk about the “bread-and-butter” issues like jobs, health care and education.
That is a failed strategy. Silence and trying to change the subject only reinforces the false, negative stereotypes about Democrats that conservatives have spent enormous time and money building and exploiting.
The way to deal with divisive social issues is to have a good answer. Dodging the question just sends the message, "Check your values at the door, and vote your self-interest like everyone else." As New Democrats have demonstrated, our party can generate support from voters who often do not vote Democratic - gun owners, people of faith, parents, and white males - without in any way compromising progressive principles.
At the end of the day, Dean's vision was all about anger toward Bush. That revved up some Democrats, infuriated by the Florida election fiasco in 2000 and the war in Iraq. But it proved to be far from enough. There are limits to the emotional side of politics. No one can get much beyond their own ranks if all they have is passion without an effort at persuasion or energy without empathy for the views of the American people.
While Dean was busy defining himself as everything Bush was not, Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards understood that a robust critique of George W. Bush is necessary, but not sufficient. Successful candidates must also offer a strong positive agenda.
Both Kerry and Edwards have been credible on national security; open and inclusive on cultural issues; imaginative on ways to implement progressive values through new ideas; persuasive to voters who care about real-life results rather than partisan invective; rational as well as energized. Both have refused to raise taxes on the middle class and those who aspire to join its ranks. Both have also pledged muscular internationalism to unite the world against terror, a return to fiscal discipline, bold plans to expand opportunity for the forgotten middle class, and a challenge to Americans to give something back through national service.
During this debate, especially when Dean was far ahead in the polls, the DLC was roundly attacked by some in our party for being divisive. We continued fighting because we believed that for the good of our country and party, ideas and hope must always trump anger. Because we are committed to do what is necessary to reverse the disastrous policies of the Bush administration, we fought this fight on principle, not political expediency.
New Democrats are prepared to carry it on for as long as it takes.
A BAD IDEA FROM FLORIDA
Once again, state Republicans are proposing vouchers as a panacea for all problems with education, now focusing on students with disabilities. The bill, modeled after a program in Florida, would take about $6,000 of state money from school districts and convert the funds into a special-education voucher that could be used at a private school.
New Democrats believe that any schools, supported by taxpayer dollars, should be required to open their doors to the whole public, prohibited from “cherry-picking” students, and publicly answerable for student achievement. The bill violates each of these important values.
Unlike their public counterparts, private schools would not be required to accept students on a first-come, first-serve basis. Colorado’s experience would most likely mirror Florida’s where private schools frequently pick and choose, denying admission to students with more severe or specific kinds of disabilities. Not surprisingly, students with intensive, costly needs rarely participate in the program.
The proposal also does not require private schools to conduct student testing, denying parents the very data they need to evaluate their school choices and monitor the progress of their children. That also negatively impacts the general public which has a right to demand accountability from those who spend their taxes. It will simply be impossible to assess whether private-school students are actually getting a good education.
At a time when public schools are being asked to meet new and higher levels of accountability, exempting private schools from these same standards is indefensible. Public accountability for student performance cannot be increased by funding schools that are not publicly accountable.
Florida’s experience is troubling for another set of reasons. Some schools have falsified state applications and failed to provide needed therapy and other services. One school changed its address at least four times during the year and was cited for safety and health code violations. Another warning sign - some schools have been virtually born overnight to gain access to state dollars.
In Colorado, a $6,000 voucher would be well below the average cost of private school tuition. Consequently, children from upper-income families who can pay the remainder are more likely to benefit. For the overwhelming majority of children who remain in public schools - most likely those with much more severe disabilities - fewer resources would be available for their needs.
Special-education vouchers are a political distraction from the real issues - academic standards, accountability, meaningful public school choice, teacher quality, and equitable and sufficient investment. The debate moves the focus from a reality Republican state legislators hope you will not notice. For nearly a decade, Colorado has ranked near the bottom in special-education state spending - 25 percent less than the national average.
The legislature should step up to that problem before taking on risky and unproven experiments.