Democrats’ war in ranks imperils chances in ‘04

Democrats head toward the presidential campaign’s summer season with their party at war with itself, but with high hopes that a stubbornly weak economy could help them win back the White House in the 2004 election.

With nearly seven months to go before the presidential-nominating primaries begin in January, Democratic leaders acknowledge that beating President Bush next year will be a huge challenge for a party that has grown weaker in the past decade and has elected only two presidents in the past 30 years.

“Democrats have a mountain to climb in 2004 — not only because President Bush is popular, but because our national party has seriously regressed in the past two years,” says Al From, chief executive and founder of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council.

The Democrats are still reeling from their severe setbacks in the 2002 midterm elections, in which they lost control of the Senate, suffered further erosion in the House and saw their long-held majority among the state legislatures disappear. Although Democrats picked up some governorships, particularly in the Midwest, Republicans still control a majority of the statehouses.

“When you lose political power, it’s because of a reason, and we have yet to come to terms with the answer to that,” said a veteran Democratic Party adviser, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “We’ve lost the presidency and lost Congress, and it’s harder to come back from that position.”

A growing number of Democrats now worry that the party is too closely tied to liberal special interests and that it will lose next year if its presidential nominee is seen as too liberal and too often pandering to those interest groups.

“The Democratic Party always struggles with whether or not they are going to repeat the mistakes of the past, whether we are going to stand for a narrow cause, regardless of whether we win or lose, or whether we are smart enough to appeal to all Americans and have a better chance of winning,” said Leon Panetta, former chief of staff in the Clinton White House.

“If each special interest decides they are going to require the candidate to pay a price, that candidate will find himself literally torn apart when it comes to appealing to the broad band of voters out there who will decide who wins,” Mr. Panetta said.

“If the voters think our candidate is being whiplashed by all the special interests, that’s going to be real trouble. This is a fundamental choice, no question in my mind. The party has to put aside special-interest concerns and unify the country. That’s the key to this” election, he said.

A party divided

But the Democrats’ internal debate over the role and influence of its left-wing special-interest constituencies — labor, environmentalists, feminists and social-welfare activists — shows no sign of ending any time soon. In fact, it has all the earmarks of turning into a civil war that threatens party unity.

In a memo to Democratic leaders last week, Mr. From and DLC President Bruce Reed attacked the party’s liberal, activist base, which they said was “defined principally by weakness abroad and elitist, interest-group liberalism at home.”

“That’s the wing that lost 49 states in two elections [in 1972 and 1984], and transformed Democrats from a strong national party into a much weaker regional one,” they said.

Story Continues →