An Election Post Mortem

So this battle is over and the Republicans won. The message the voters sent could not have been clearer. In the issue that mattered most to voters in this election (Moral Values 22% and Terrorism 19%), Bush won 80% and 86% of the vote respectively. While Kerry had equal numbers with regard to the economy and jobs those voters only equalled 20% of the electorate. The difference (and the troubling aspect for Democrats) is that the core issues of Morality and Security are intuitive ones. Granted Security can be an empirically measured issue also (no terrorists acts in 3 years) however for the most part it is still something one feels within. How else to explain Bush’s strongest support on Security comes from states not affected directly by 9/11 and presumably not rational targets of terror (conversely Kerry won every state directly effected by 9/11- New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and DC). Democrats lost on the overarching issue of trust. Despite the failure to find WMD in Iraq, Democrats were portrayed as historically weak, indecisive and incapable of protecting America’s borders, international interests, and core values. With the GOP in firmer control of all branches of government (and the capability of tightening its grip on the judicial branch in the next four years), the Democrats will be fighting an uphill battle for the foreseeable future. As Democrats take stock of this loss (and the challenge before us) there is the knee-jerk reaction on the left to move back to the liberal-progressive ideology of the past. The theory goes that centrist movements have failed, so obviously the only answer is a return to those “core” values of the Democratic Party. I think this theory is one of terrible short sightedness, not to mention a doomed one. To think this way, is to ignore the conservative movement of the country entirely. Liberals who believe they are champions of enlightened government have consistently failed to come to grips with the reality that they are out of the mainstream on most issues. They rightly see a majority support of the right of abortion, while failing to see an equally valid majority that seeks to place reasonable limits on abortion. The success of passage of bans on partial-birth abortion, while championed by right-wing ideologues, is equally championed by moderate pro-choice voters who simply wish some, what they consider to be, common sense restrictions. Indeed moderate pro-choice voters want safe, legal and RARE abortions- the key word for moderate voters is RARE. This is just one issue. There are a myriad of others. Clearly, the aggressive, conservative ideologues have long sought a culture war. The liberal reaction to this has been predictable- the simple pronouncement of separation between Church and State. But even that answer fails to take into account the complexity of that response, or moreover, an understanding of just what sort of separation there should be. Rather than acknowledge that a debate exists over exactly what a separation of Church and State means, they’ve simply declared victory and moved on. But as with most issues, things aren’t that simple. The left has long dismissed any commingling of faith in the political world because they are uncomfortable with, generally, public pronouncements of faith. Notice I didn’t say they necessarily have a problem with faith in general, as indeed many liberals are people of faith. Yet many more conservative people of faith (notably evangelicals) are quite comfortable with public faith, in fact it in engrained in their faith that public pronouncements are mandated. That they choose to make policy out of their faith is a fact that will not disappear with ridicule or scorn. In fact to the evangelical, ridicule only makes their faith stronger. Yet that is only a small component of religious conservatives, and liberals have made a huge mistake in placing all religious conservatives under the same rubric. There are indeed many (many more) religious conservative who do not share the same fundamentalism as evangelicals, yet are disinclined to trust liberals who scoff at faith as a determination for political ideology. The challenge for Democrats is appealing to these more moderate voters through shared faith and values- not, as liberals would have it, turning our backs and mocking them as zealots without intellect. Intellectual elitism is a recipe for failure, and sadly has been the hallmark of liberal approaches to government. The reason Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton won (notice the only 2 Democrats to win since the Civil Rights Act) is because they could appeal to these voters. The liberal refrain, in fact the key frustration for liberals, is the failure of poorer voters to choose Democratic economic policies that would better serve their self-interests over Republican policies that server more wealthy voters. Why? Because Democrats have the right message, but that message is only good when it is heard, and people will hear you only when they believe you share the same values. If they don’t trust that you share (or respect) their faith, they won’t trust that you will protect their interests. Despite what my liberals friends think, the time is not right to abandon a centrist message. To believe so, is to believe Howard Dean (or a similar messenger) would have met a better fate. By contrast, I believe, a “Dean” message would have produced an even greater disparity. Whether Kerry was the right messenger for the message is debatable (I still preferred John Edwards, though I respect the perception that his “inexperience” was a draw-back). Perhaps the lack of an adequate messenger was the real failure. There are few perfect candidates, even the successful ones are never perfect, but I believe we have to look at successes to glean the answers. The next 4 years will see many contenders (in both parties) vying for the nomination(s). My admonition to Democrats is to seek out people who succeed in places where Democrats do not normally succeed. This doesn’t mean we have to choose a Southern Democrat- after all they are few and far between these days. While I’m sure that John Edwards will make another run (and he will have the ability over the next few years to spend many months in key areas building support), I think a good place to start is Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana. Indiana is a heartland state. It is a deeply conservative state that votes Republican overwhelmingly. Yet Bayh was elected twice as Governor, and then elected (and this year re-elected) to the Senate. He has served on the Senate Armed Forces and Intelligence Committees, so he has valuable foreign policy backgrounds. Whether Bayh chooses to run or not run, he is in the Clinton model of fiscal responsibility, social moderation, and broad-based appeal that flows easily with southern conservative values. Kerry’s failure (and I thought he ran an excellent campaign) was that his moderate positions were overshadowed in the minds of many voters by the perception of his more liberal positions. His failure was NOT that he became a “Republican-lite” but that he was viewed as “too liberal”. To read things otherwise is to misread the election. Coming Soon: Predictions For A Second Bush Term