New Democrat Update - October 2000
UNCONVENTIONAL WISDOM
Political analysts and pundits say Democrats can't win in Colorado due to an increasing Republican voter registration advantage. However, polls indicate the race between Gore-Lieberman and Bush-Cheney is coming down to the wire, despite Ralph Nader's presence on the ballot (more on that later).
The so-called "experts" misread the Colorado electorate because they see politics through a biased and outdated prism - liberal vs. conservative, Democrat vs. Republican, etc. In the real world, voters make their decisions in a much more pragmatic, nonpartisan and nonideological manner.
Take the 1998 general election. According to a Voter News Service exit poll, by a margin of two to one, voters agreed more with the statement "government should do more to solve problems" over "government is doing too many things better left to business and individuals." The share of voters identifying themselves as conservative dropped to about one-third. Democrats gained an 11-percentage point advantage among moderates and achieved their largest gains among voters earning more than $75,000 a year. None of the above sounds like a conventionally conservative state.
Gore is making it a race because values and ideas matter to Coloradans. In the Information Age, majority coalitions are built around values and ideas, not narrow appeals to constituency groups. Mainstream, value-laden political messages are much more potent than messages targeted at narrow constituencies.
Building a progressive majority requires advocating New Democrat ideas on the "tough governing" issues - economic opportunity, fiscal discipline, crime, welfare, and streamlined government. The Clinton administration's strong record on that front allows Gore to maximize his party's traditional advantages on the "compassion" issues - education, health care and the environment.
Finally, the Gore-Lieberman agenda appeals to the electorate as it is, not as it was. Voters are more centrist, more educated, more female, more middle class, more suburban, and less unionized than a generation ago. Constituencies such as Hispanics and "wired workers," too small to be factors a decade ago, are hugely important today.
Coloradans will continue to support mainstream candidates who focus on building the future, rather than rehashing the old left-right debate. They simply have had it with campaigns determined to rehash the past.
Which brings us to our next subject.
NADER RAIDER
Ralph Nader demonizes globalization and technological change but offers no workable alternative. His third-party strategy actually hinders progress toward his goals of more social justice and democracy.
Restricting trade not only hurts economic opportunities in the US but keeps people in other countries poor. That's why economic development improves worker and environmental standards around the world.
While the large majority of voters recognize the benefits of globalization, a sliver of support for Nader can make the difference in a close election. A mere 25,000 votes for Nader swung Colorado to the Bob Dole column in the 1996 presidential election.
Support for the consumer advocate is rapidly disappearing across the country but he could still "spoil" Gore's chances here in Colorado and elsewhere. In the end, that seems to be his only purpose.
Nader claims that Democrats have abandoned their traditional constituencies and gone "corporate," making the party indistinguishable from Republicans. In the next breath, he acknowledges that there are major differences between the parties, hoping for a Democratic majority in the US House of Representatives.
Right-wing activists could not agree more. They realize a clear choice exists between Gore and Bush and the two major parties. That's why the likes of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are keeping such a low profile for now, allowing Bush and the GOP to make overtures to the political center.
Nader's views are maddeningly contradictory. On one hand, he says Bush would be a disaster for the country and acknowledges that Democrats are generally better than Republicans. He then turns around and tells traditional liberals to waste their votes on him, despite the high stakes.
All Democrats and like-minded independents should see this sucker punch coming.
OUR "MIXED MESSAGE" GOVERNOR
Gov. Bill Owens stood next to Gen. Colin Powell last week and signed the "Promise Partnership," which asks adults to mentor children and aims to give young people ways to give back through community service. For the sake of Colorado, we can only hope Powell came in the nick of time.
The prior week, Owens was the nation's only governor in the country to refuse signing a letter, initiated by a fellow Republican governor, urging Congress to renew AmeriCorps (that list obviously included Govs. George W. and Jeb Bush). AmeriCorps is the national service program which gives college aid to young people who have performed a year or two of community service!
Hopefully, Owens had an enlightening conversation with Powell when he was in Denver. Last year, Powell said "I have now had two years of experience with AmeriCorps, and they are doing a great job....what they do in terms of leveraging other individuals to volunteer...is really incredible."
More than another government program, community service can be a society-transforming idea. It replaces the two competing ethics of the 1980s - "every man for himself" and "something for nothing" - with a new ethic of reciprocal responsibility.
In addition, community service helps turn the strong impulse toward volunteerism among young people into a major resource in addressing our social problems. It also helps revive a sense of patriotism and unity at a time when military service is no longer the common experience of young Americans.
No one across the political spectrum can understand why Owens would flip-flop on community service within the span of a week. It's especially bizarre when many Republicans across the country are increasingly enthusiastic - not just tolerant, but enthusiastic - about AmeriCorps as a catalyst for civil society and patriotism. This also comes at a time when the GOP is frantically trying to exhibit its "compassionate conservatism."
Despite all his talk, Owens seems unwilling to do anything positive with government to promote community-based, non-bureaucratic efforts to address social problems. His form of "compassionate conservatism" may just be a happy-face label for the failed Newt Gingrich-style, anti-government governing philosophy.