He was the star of a conference call with reporters the other day, calmly marshalling his party’s arguments about why someone (turns out to be former senator Frank Lautenberg) should be allowed to replace Robert Torricelli as the Democratic candidate for Senate in New Jersey. The more interesting question is: Why are the Democrats reduced to relying on the Genovas of the world to survive an election season in which they should be thriving?
For Democrats, this fall is beginning to feel like a nightmare from which they can’t wake up. If you look at national poll numbers, Democrats would seem poised to gain seats in Congress. But with a month to go until Election Day, the gathering consensus here is that Republicans will be the net winners on Nov. 5. The White House’s Iraq-around-the-clock strategy (which emphasizes President Bush’s popularity as commander in chief) is one reason. But, to a greater degree than Democrats want to admit, their problems are of their own making.
History and the national mood seem to favor the Democrats–not only to solidify control of the Senate but to take back the House. Junkies (and even nonjunkies) know the background: the party that holds the White House almost always loses congressional seats in the first midterm vote after a presidential election–even when the president is relatively popular. That’s especially true when the economy is in bad shape and the voters in a dark mood.
DEFYING THE POLLS
Despite the Iraq-o-rama in the news, the underlying political landscape should favor the Democrats. In a NEWSWEEK poll, and several others, the economy–and not a possible war with Iraq–remains the voters’ most urgent concern. What polltakers call the “generic ballot” swung in the GOP’s direction after President Bush’s well-received speech to the United Nations, but by this week it had swung back the other way. Asked which party’s candidate they’ll support for Congress, voters are giving Democrats a 3-to-5-point edge.
One more thing: people are pessimistic right now about where the country is headed, an emotional atmosphere that normally helps the presidential “out” party. In several new polls, a majority of voters says that the country is on the “wrong track,” and the trend–given the gyrating markets and talk of war–is downward.
So why can’t the Democrats capitalize?
The conventional wisdom inside the Beltway is that Bush, Karl Rove and the GOP have cleverly and cynically changed the subject from issues on which the Democrats have the upper hand–health care, prescription drugs, Social Security–to the war on terrorism in general and Saddam Hussein in particular. That’s obviously true, up to a point, but it is only part of the explanation.
DEMOCRAT DIVISIONS
The other side of the equation is that the Democrats are divided, lacking in stirring or effective leadership and without a clear, compelling, hopeful message. That, in turn, makes it harder for them to overcome the luck of the draw–lots of key Senate races in “red” states won by Bush in 2000–and the weaknesses and mistakes of specific candidates such as the discredited Torricelli.
Even in the best of times, the Democrats are a fractious lot, and the consensus assembled by Bill Clinton in the ’90s has fallen apart, especially on foreign policy. The peace wing has re-emerged, led by former hawk Al Gore, and is mounting a growing challenge to hawks such as Sen. Joe Lieberman and semihawk Dick Gephardt. That division was highlighted in Wednesday’s Rose Garden announcement that Bush had reached a deal with congressional leaders over the wording of a resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. While Gephardt stood literally shoulder to shoulder with the president, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle was conspicuous by his absence.
And divisions on foreign policy spill over into domestic issues. If you think a war with Iraq is folly, you tend to focus on the cost in dollars as well as lives (an estimated $7.5 billion a month) and demand to know how that money might be better spent–particularly on social programs. With most Republicans lining up behind the president, the growing guns-versus-butter debate is and will take place largely among Democrats.
TAX FRIGHT
By tradition, the Democrats’ response to the rising cost of fighting the war on terrorism (and Saddam) would be obvious: they would demand cancellation of Bush’s 10-year, $1.35 trillion income-tax cut. And a small but growing number of Democrats are saying just that. But the party leadership and most of the rank-and-file in Congress came of age politically during the Reagan Revolution, and they are scared to death of being painted as tax-raising liberals. Most Democrats also are wary of voting against the president’s proposal to massively increase defense spending. Take the tax cut and defense spending off the table, and the Democrats can’t make an alternative economic plan “pencil.”
Perhaps that is why polls show that Democrats don’t have an advantage on the question of which party can better handle the economy. As the “outs” in what looks like a double-dip recession, Democrats should be ahead on that topic. The fact that they are not is telling–and an ominous sign for the Dems.
The Democrats have many would-be leaders, but none, at this point, can effectively share the stage with Bush, who has a relatively unified party and a sense of purpose focused by the imperatives of the war on terrorism. The titular Democratic leaders, on Capitol Hill, are hamstrung by the numbers and their own temperaments. Daschle and Dick Gephardt are both longtime inside operators, used to moving slowly and by consensus. They are past masters of effective defense, maneuvering their party into a defensive crouch, but they don’t have the majorities or personalities to stand toe to toe with Bush.
Some of the prominent Democrats running for president don’t seem eager to take him on frontally, either. Most support a war against Iraq; few are in favor of a sweeping cancellation of the Bush tax cut; few are advocating any Big Think solutions. There will be time for all that, perhaps, but probably not this fall.
NO BOLD LEADERSHIP
Without big new ideas or bold leaders, the Democrats this fall are fighting their wars on the ground, with local issues or old staples such as Social Security and Medicare or, where they can, issues such as abortion, gun control and the environment. But it’s harder to get traction on them when all the talk in Washington is about war, and even harder to do so in “red states” that went for Bush in 2000. That, in turn, leaves Democratic strategists with little margin for error as they plan their ad campaigns for the last month of the season.
As usual, the GOP will have a cash advantage–as much as 2-1–in this, the last season during which national parties can make “soft money” expenditures. Democrats will have to pick their spots with special care, and are facing agonizing decisions about how to apportion funds among the eight toss-up Senate races and dozen toss-up House races. The money arithmetic was a factor in New Jersey: national party officials had made it clear that they didn’t want to waste any more money on Torricelli’s fading chances.
And the Dems literally can’t afford more tight races. They are worried that one might be developing in Iowa, where Sen. Tom Harkin was once considered a shoo-in, but where a campaign-trail spy scandal has put him on the defensive. A few days ago, one of the party’s best media advisers–a longtime Harkin ally named Dale Leibach–flew out to Des Moines to help his old buddy. Leibach had also once worked for Torricelli, but by then “the Torch” was a goner.
