is the democratic party possible? Part 2: Party Unity

I am a big fan of partisanship. I know that this is an unpopular position, both among the growing plurality of “independent” voters, as well as those on the left who wish to remain outside the “confines” of the Democratic Party. However, a disciplined political party, with a loyal voter base, active civil society organizations in and around it, and a clear national or statewide agenda can accomplish considerable social change. Unfortunately, it seems that only the Republican party got this memo.

And so I was surprised today to read a great defense of partisan strategy written by none other than Paul Krugman, a guy who normally leads the squishy brigade. I am used to him offering above-the-fray niceties, and was quite shocked to read him lay down some bomb tracks:

“The point is, those who cling to the belief that politics can be conducted in terms of people rather than parties –a group that also includes would-be centrist Democrats like Joe Lieberman and many members of the punditocracy- are kidding themselves.”

Krugman hammers NARAL and the Sierra Club for endorsing liberal Republican Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island. Chaffee has a decent voting record on both choice and environmental issues. However, as Krugman points out, if the Democrats do not take back the Senate, people who dismiss climate change as “a hoax” will continue to oversee the nation’s environmental policy. Conservative NGO’s, on the other hand, are down the line partisan, even rolling with policies they don’t deem perfect in order to make sure that their larger interest, a Republican government, remains fulfilled. This is a profound point. Partisanship matters.

However, this relationship is a two way street. If we are going to expect labor folks, environmentalists and civil rights activists (and their organizations) to stick with the Party, the Party needs to stick with them. And themselves.

Democratic politicians have a tendency to show their “independence” to voters by stepping on the faces of their base supporters. Consider Clinton’s welfare “reform” initiatives and his support for NAFTA. A whirlwind of discussion in the liberal magazines (The Prospect and Nation, specifically) has centered on the need for the Party to generate a set of “big ideas”, organizing principles within which a majority of Americans can find themselves. This is certainly a necessity. However, in arguing for this, writers like Todd Gitlin, Michael Tomasky, and Markos Moulitsas Zúniga have suggested that politicians need to distance themselves from the groups which make up their base. That’s nonsense, and it’s precisely why so many organizations at the grassroots level want to assert their own independence. When you add in the American cult of individuality, the weakness of our party system, and an electoral arrangement built around individual candidates (especially in California), there are a lot of incentives for issue and constituency-based social movement organizations to be quite guarded and even schizophrenic when it comes to dealing with Democrats. Any “big idea” that comes out of the Democratic Party has to be a sum of its parts, appealing across the varied communities and interests under its tent. You aren’t going to get that by following Tomasky’s advice.

A third problem is that so often elected Democrats put short term gains ahead of long-term strategy. Compromise is the life’s blood of politics, but Democrats seem to suffer from hemophilia.

Take a look at the California Gubernatorial race.Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa both could use a dose of party loyalty. Nunez, while serving the largely ceremonial role as campaign Chairman for Phil Angelides, has in recent months become a regular podium-buddy to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Together, they have crafted a “bi-partisan” package of infrastructure bonds and sent them to voters, thus reinforcing Arnold’s strategy of delivering public goods while passing the cost on to kids who can’t vote against him. That’s not good for Phil. In an even more craven mode, Assembly and Senate leaders are discussing a swap: Arnold gets to take redistricting away from them (one of his failed proposals in the Special Election last year) and in return they get relief from term limits. Now is not the time to be playing footsy with a rich, telegenic populist Republican. Now is the time to be sending a single message about why the Democrats should take back the governor’s office.

Villaraigosa, of whom I’m generally a fan, has done his friend Fabian one better, publicly feuding with Angelides over the Mayor’s attempt to take direct control of the LA school system. He has even enlisted the support of the Governor in pressing his case. So far, Villaraigosa has failed to endorse Angelides.

At best, this is about the short-term goals of shoring up their own voter base. At worse, however, this could be about intentionally working to sink Angelides in order to clear the way for a Villaraigosa run for Governor in 2010. I'm not so sure, but San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has floated that theory in his recent call to Democrats to muster for Phil.

In the end. Party unity must be earned. It emerges from a healthy balance between compromise, strategy, principles and trust. If you don’t believe me, ask Joe Lieberman.