RECENTLY, an internal disagreement in the Democratic Party made headlines. That probably sounds familiar, since disagreements over party strategy are nothing new in the Democratic Party.
But the recent conflict between Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic campaign committee in the House, and Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, is more than just another family squabble — it shows just how difficult changing the course of party history can be.
What is missing from the current debate is a clearer appreciation for how the Democrats got to where they are today, and how the current leaders might learn from the record of the past.
Since the New Deal, Democrats have given party building short shrift. Democratic presidents tended to use the formal party apparatus as an instrument for raising money but looked to other vehicles for building political support. They relied on organized labor to get out the vote; on urban machines and congressmen in the South to control local party operations; and on the strength of incumbents to win their own re-elections.
Republicans did not emerge from the minority by trying to win a bare majority in the House or Senate. They put their organization to work for them and discovered that party building bred more party building.
This seems to be precisely what Howard Dean is trying to do. By developing an organizational structure now, Mr. Dean hopes that the Democrats will have something sturdy to rely on if, and when, they win back the White House.
It's uncertain whether Mr. Dean will succeed. After all, Mr. Emanuel makes a persuasive argument for his approach. Why should the Democrats trade a chance to win the House now for an uncertain future?
The answer? Because a victory now will most likely be short-term. As the Republicans have shown, creating a durable electoral majority requires a firm organizational foundation, something the Democrats don't have. But if Mr. Dean can hold fast to his plan, they just might be on the way to getting one.
-from op-ed by Daniel Galvin the NY Times.
No comments:
Post a Comment