The first six months of 2001 proved, once again, that the only predictable thing about American politics is its unpredictability. The year began with Republicans holding the White House and both houses of Congress for the first time in four decades. Without traditions such as the British shadow government system, which provides an institutional platform for the opposition party to get out its message, Democrats struggled to gain their footing in an uncharacteristic role.
George Bush, undaunted by the fact that he enjoyed no mandate from the electorate, proceeded to ram through his agenda. He introduced a massive tax cut in Congress. He stacked his Administration with friends from the oil industry. He rescinded environmental regulations, workplace safety standards and other policies of the Clinton-Gore Administration.
Democrats regrouped on Capitol Hill, with Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle and House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt leading the charge against the Bush agenda. Members of the Democratic National Committee elected Terry McAuliffe, a party fundraiser and friend of Bill Clinton, as the new party chair.
Then, in a move that took the White House by surprise, Republican Senator James Jeffords switched his party affiliation to Independent and joined the Democratic caucus, giving the Democrats a powerful platform from which to challenge Bush.
Daschle’s ascendance to Senate Majority Leader allows the party to put forward policies that benefit working families and draw clear contrasts with the Republicans. The first front is healthcare. Bush ignored this issue to focus entirely on tax cuts. Senate Democrats revived legislation offering prescription drug coverage for senior citizens and protections for people who get their medical care through private insurance companies.
Both issues put the President on the defensive. His massive tax cut leaves no room for meaningful drug benefits, making clear that he prefers tax cuts for the rich over prescriptions for seniors. Bush’s support from the private health care industry puts him on the side of corporate bureaucrats, rather than patients. While Democratic leaders in Congress use the Senate to focus national attention on Democratic priorities, the new leadership at the Democratic National Committee is making smart investments to improve the party’s infrastructure. McAuliffe is changing the way the DNC does business. Democrats have always done a good job turning out voters for elections, but the party has not invested resources in cultivating the base between election cycles. The DNC has functioned largely as a support system for the presidential campaign.
The Republican National Committee, on the other hand, has operated more along a business model than a campaign model, focusing on the long term and making capital investments that pay off at the polls. For example, the RNC maintains a list of 115 million voters nationwide. A list of that size costs a great deal of time and money to maintain, but it allows the party to send out mailings, raise money and keep its message before its base voters. The Democrats do not have a national voter list. Fortunately, McAuliffe is changing this situation, making investments to upgrade the party’s infrastructure at the state and national levels.
The DNC improvements, as well as the platform provided by the Senate, will help leverage the Democratic party’s most important asset – a substantial base of support among the voters. A recent poll on national party identification showed that 34 percent of Americans identify as Democrats, while only 26 percent identify as Republicans.
To cultivate its base and reach out to unaffiliated voters, Democrats are offering a vision for an active, effective government that focuses on improving the lives of working families. This message will stand in contrast to Bush and the Republicans, who use government to promote the interests of big business and the wealthy at the expense of ordinary people.