The Pervasive Weakening of the Democratic Party

Here’s a snippet from William Galston’s assessment of President Obama’s legacy in his piece at Democracy:

Hillary Clinton’s narrow loss exposed a basic reality—the pervasive weakening of the Democratic Party during the eight Obama years, in part because the party machinery stepped away from its party-building mission. Democratic majorities in the House and Senate have disappeared and seem unlikely to return until at least 2020. Republicans have seized control of governorships and state legislatures across the country. Numerically, the party is at its lowest ebb since the 1920s.

There are certain places in the country, e.g. coastal California, Cook County where the party is as strong as ever. But in much of the country that is just not the case. And, like Mr. Galston, I think a good deal of the blame for that state of affairs should go to the present Democratic leadership, particularly the Democratic National Committee. I think that laying the blame at the feet of the president is an exaggeration if not completely wrong.

The purposes of the DNC among others are to

  1. Raise money.
  2. Distribute money to candidates to elect more Democrats.
  3. To encourage some candidates to seek office and discourage others.

Clearly, they’re doing something wrong.

Honestly, I’m surprised at how staunchly the leadership is being defended in some circles. Res ipsa loquitur.

7 comments… add one
  • Jan Link

    The president sets the tone of the party. Much like lighting can either positively accentuate or cast shadows on art work, so does a president’s attitude effect the overall appearance of his party.

    Trump is a good example of exuding a tone creating unusua!ly overt hostility, divisiveness and political chaos in the wake of coming into power. However, how he handles political divisions, how he either retreats into an insulated bubble, or reaches across the aisle enablng bipartisan cooperation will directly determine the subtance and longevity of his policy foot print, as well as how successful people ultimately view his presidency.

    Obama, OTOH, came into office riding high on his approval stats, augmented by being the “first” of his ethnic background to hold the office of POTUS. In his initial years Obama enjoyed a democratically controlled Congress having higher margins than Trump will have in his first two years. It’s the president, though, who sets the agenda pursued, followed closely by how generous of an ear he’s willing to give the minority opposition party. Obama’s choice, from the get-go, was to govern with an “I won” attitude, often described as “it’s my way or the highway” kind of partnership. Such unyielding partisanship became his standard mode of operation, throughout his tenure as president, with only one outstanding diversion being The Grand Bargain – a deal that fell apart with both sides pointing fingers at the other as to why it collapsed.

    Consequently, I see the tone set by this outgoing president as being a significant part of the equation resulting in weakening the Democrat party, as a whole. Should Trump extend partisan contrariness, far into his presidency, the Republican party will suffer the same fate.

    Increasingly, I see people in this country wanting their needs and wishes highlighting agendas, not the ideology of the man/woman occupying the oval office. As an aside, the petulance of the Dem party, the slow walking of cabinet officials, the mendacity of questions asked will only sink the Dems chances further, in their journey of redemption, where the middle class, blue collar public sees them fit for the important, weighty and “fair” job of equal governance for all.

  • Guarneri Link

    I don’t know who was responsible for Democrats’ lurch towards identity politics, victimhood politics and urban elitism centered on about 5 cities. But it has been a disaster and a self inflicted wound.

    I think to pin it on Obama is incorrect, as it seems rooted in the late 60s and 70s, blossoming in the 90s. However, like a marketbtop blowoff, the arrogant and self aggrandizing President became the willing poster boy for “look at me” politics at the expense of his party. He may not have started it, but he didn’t lift a finger to stop it. Throw in one of the worst candidates in memory, known mostly for being an ex-presidents wife, and you get President Trump.

  • steve Link

    Obama’s choice, from the get-go was to reach across the aisle and try to work with the GOP. He was naive. The Republicans in office after the sweep of 2008 (largely) came from the safest of the safest red districts. Working with Obama would guarantee a primary challenge from the right, as we saw happen later.

    Then with the Tea Party coming on the scene, we saw that the GOP could not even work with itself.

    Steve

  • Gustopher Link

    Clearly, they’re doing something wrong

    I think you’re making a logical error here similar to the one in your “Real Culprit” thread: you are interpreting the data starting with an assumed conclusion, and then if the data fits that conclusion, you decide that it is the correct conclusion — without stopping to find other conclusions.

    Here, for instance, you note the decline in Democratic office holders, and come to the conclusion that the Democrats are doing something “wrong” (with all the pejorative moral meanings), rather than considering whether it is that the Republicans are doing something “right”.

    I would ask some follow up questions:
    – Has the Democratic strategy changed significantly over the last 8 years, or the last 25?
    – Has the Republican strategy changed significantly over the last 8 years, or the last 25?

    I would say that most of the change has been on the Republican side (Tea Party, aggressive redistricting even in off years, moving from a minority governing party to an opposition party, embracing the crazy, the rise of talk radio mainstreaming the crazy, etc), and when measured exclusively by number of offices held it has been very effective.

    As to whether it has been effective in terms of being good for the country… well, we are about to find out. (spoilers: it will be a disaster, and Republicans will say that Trump wasn’t a real Republican)

    Unfortunately, the Republicans have created a template for, and normalized, scorched earth politics, so the Democrats will likely follow that plan.

  • CuriousOnlooker Link

    This is a bit too negative on the DNC. Of the 3 purposes listed, DNC did very well on money which is (a) and (b). Hillary raised 1.2 billion, double Trump, and Obama was a legendary fundraiser.

    Really the biggest sin of the DNC was they rigged the Democratic Primary to ensure Hillary would win — a factor in losing the presidential election, but not much else.

    As others are pointing out, a lot of those lost seats in congress was in reaction to what Democrats / Obama were doing or perceived to be doing – candidate recruitment doesn’t matter if incumbent Ds win.
    In the end, Obama was the leader of the party for the last 8 years and the buck stops with him, he seems to get that.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/19/obama-takes-some-blame-staggering-democratic-losse/
    Furthermore, some of this is just time, ask the Canadian Conservative Party or the British Labour Party how weak they were after 8-10 years in power.

  • Guarneri Link

    You just keep tellin’ yerself that, Gus.

  • Guarneri Link

Leave a Comment