Solving the Democrats' Values Dilemma

By John Kenneth White

An excerpt from a forthcoming book on how Democrats can win the next election.

It is clear that the Democratic losses during the past three election cycles cannot be explained away as either a George W. Bush phenomenon or the byproduct of advanced Republican marketing techniques. Simply put, Democrats have a values problem. According to a December 2004 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, Democrats were preferred when it comes to ensuring equal opportunities as well as enhancing tolerance, individuality, and compassion (see Figure 1). Republicans were strong when it comes to strengthening families, having a strong faith, advocating personal responsibility, and raising standards of public decency (see Figure 2). Moreover, only a mere 11 percent said the Democrats did a better job of strengthening families.

A Zogby International poll taken in February 2005 shows the Democrats maintaining their pitifully poor performances on values issues. When asked which party was better equipped to handle the issue of integrity, Republicans led by fourteen points; on traditional values, the GOP had a twelve-point lead; and on the question of family values, the GOP was ahead by sixteen points. Only on the issue of tolerance did the Democrats have a notable seventeen-point lead.

Simply put, until Democrats regain their footing as a party that encourages personal responsibility, raises public decency standards, has a strong religious faith, and is seen as a party that respects traditional or family values, do not look for them to win presidential elections. Things may get better at the state and local level, only because voters may have a better sense of personally knowing the Democratic candidates and can establish a level of trust with them on values issues.

Democrats have sensed their values weaknesses and in a futile attempt to compensate for them, they have often been tentative and unclear. John Kerry's infamous line about the supplemental budget for the Iraq War-"I actually did vote for the 87 billion dollars before I voted against it"-permitted Bush to affix upon Kerry the moniker "flip-flopper." A focus group conducted by Democracy Corps, headed by Democratic strategists James Carville, Stanley Greenberg, and Bob Shrum, illustrated Kerry's dilemma. One participant noted, "Kerry one day was over here, and then he was over there." Another added, "He's the guy that holds up the line at McDonalds." To Carville and Greenberg, such statements were a devastating indictment of both Kerry and his party: "The collective impression is that Democrats have no strength of conviction or clarity of direction. That reflects the most immediate national election, but also 2002, when Democrats sought the lowest common denominator and failed to challenge the Republicans on taxes, the economy, or Iraq."

While Republicans will always be Republicans-in that they espouse freedom and individualism-Democrats must be Democrats-especially in trumpeting equality of opportunity and tolerance. Today [according to a January Democracy Corps poll], Republicans enjoy a twenty-eight-point advantage over the Democrats as the party that "knows what they stand for." Top-level Democrats instinctively know they must do better. A Gallup survey of Democratic National Committee members conducted [in January-February 2005] prior to the selection of Howard Dean as party chair found 68 percent agreed with the statement that their party should "mainly try to defeat the Republican agenda to draw clear distinctions between the two parties;" only 24 percent said the party should "mainly try to find areas of compromise with Bush and the Republicans to get things done." Even as Democrats assume the mantle of the "loyal opposition," they cannot remain on one side of the values divide by appealing to single, unmarried, mostly urban, and nonwhite voters. Al Gore sensed this by publishing a 2002 book with his wife, Tipper, on the state of the American family. While preaching values, Democrats must do a better job of making sure that traditional families-i.e., those with Working Dads and Stay-at-Home Moms-are welcomed into the party, and that the values choices they have made are respected.

As Democrats seek to rehabilitate their image, party leaders must also have a compelling values story to tell. However, the word "values" cannot be repeated in mantra-like fashion, with the idea that mere repetition fixes the problem. Democrats must pay attention to both the values words and their meaning. Bob Edgar, the general secretary of the National Council of Churches and a former Democratic congressman, understands this: "The good news about the bad news was that the spin doctors, whether they got it right or wrong, have said that values are so important to our political system. They've given us an opportunity for us to say, 'We're people of faith, too, and we're going to talk about what the Bible says about poverty.' When nine million children are living in poverty, that's a moral value." Jim Wallis, author of the best-selling book, God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It, agrees: "The perception of evangelicals is that all they care about is abortion and gay marriage, but it isn't true." Elizabeth Theoharis, a community activist and doctoral student at Union Theological Seminary in New York City, summarizes the problem: "How do we move from the idea of poor people being sinners to poverty being a sin?"

The transition called for by Theoharis may be an especially difficult one for Democrats to make. One reason Democrats have not had values thinking drummed into their DNA dates back to the New Deal. At the onset of his 1932 presidential campaign, Franklin D. Roosevelt declared that, if elected, he would embark on a pattern of "bold and persistent experimentation" to cure the Great Depression. Roosevelt's plan was simple: "It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something." Roosevelt's bold experiments caused Democrats to think programmatically-that is, to offer voters a litany of government-run solutions to present-day problems. Laundry lists are beloved by prime ministers. But presidents are a different story, since the American polity is deeply grounded in the classical liberal values of freedom, equality of opportunity, and individual rights. Thus, Americans respond to values stories told to them by their presidents and party leaders. Republicans understand this and they have no problem thinking thematically; Democrats don't, and as a result too often think programmatically. Voters don't want just one mode of thinking; they want their presidents to be both thematic and programmatic. Thus, Bill Clinton did not just mouth the words "opportunity, community, and responsibility," he proposed ideas that he believed made these values more real to ordinary citizens.

In sum, it is not enough for Democrats to say, "The issues are with us." While that is often the case, it is not enough to win. A February 2005 Zogby International poll makes the point. The survey found Democrats had a fourteen-point lead over the Republicans on handling health care, a twenty-three-point advantage on protecting the environment, a five-point advantage on jobs and the economy, and a three-point edge on managing foreign policy. The same poll also found the public giving George W. Bush very negative marks on many of these same issues. For example, 61 percent disapproved of his handling of the Iraq War; 62 percent disliked the way he was dealing with jobs and the economy; 63 percent objected to his Social Security and Medicare plans; 60 percent disapproved of his handling of education; 61 percent disliked his environmental policies; 56 percent objected to his foreign policy; and 54 percent disliked his tax programs. Yet, respondents preferred Bush over Kerry by a margin of 46 percent to 42 percent, with 7 percent wanting a third party candidate.

By adding values, Democrats can reconnect with voters. One of the ironies of American politics during the past decade is that economic well-being is no longer connected to a party's values standing. Voters suffered economically during Bush's first term; but many were unwilling to give the Democrats a hearing because they believe their candidates did not share their values. That old sign in the 1992 Clinton headquarters that read, "It's the economy, stupid!," no longer applies. Democrats have yet to comprehend this. But when they figure out that values matter most, the nation may be on its way to healing the values divide. Until then, figure the Democrats to lose more elections, even when the issues are with them. As Tom Robbins wrote in his novel Even Cowgirls Get the Blues, "Until humans can solve their philosophical problems, they're condemned to solve their political problems over and over again. It's a cruel, repetitious bore."