archived: 4 - 10 Dec, 2005         Back                 Next

UPDATED:  7 December, 2005 

                        THIRD PARTY? 

MSNBC has just published an article developing on TPJ’s analysis (see the article below) that while Bush’s public support is falling, the Democratic Party’s public perception has not improved.  

MSNBC notes that: 

In the recent NBC News/ Wall Street Journal poll, when respondents were asked whether the Democrats in Congress have “the same priorities for the country as you do,” only 26 percent said yes. As for the Republicans in Congress, that same question drew an almost identical response, 24 percent, from those interviewed.

One reason voters might view Congress with distaste: evidence of corruption among House members and lobbyists.                       

The article speculates that the public may be ready for a third party effort.   

From TPJ’s perspective, and discounting the possibility of a serious third party effort nationally, the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll is further evidence that the Democratic Party has a very real opportunity to return to majority status if it can define what principles it stands for an provide quality candidates who support those principles.   

The question that haunts Democrats is very simple; will Democrats heed the message.

_____________________________________________

                        A LONG ROAD BACK 

Democratic Party activists are enthralled with the possibilities of recapturing majority control of either or both the US Senate and US House of Representatives in 2006.  Democrats rightfully note that Bush’s polling numbers are “in the tank,” as demonstrated by the Democracy Corps most recent polling, see the article that follows, confirms. 

TPJ has cautioned that Bush’s falling support does not necessarily translate into Democratic Party victory, at least not on the scale envisioned by some Democrats.  The 2005 off-year elections and several special elections clearly indicate that Democrats have an opportunity.  The question remains if and can the Democrats seize that opportunity. 

The Washington Post released its latest polling results for November.  The WP specifically tested public attitudes toward both political Parties.  One could postulate that with Bush’s poll numbers at low levels and a number of Republican politicians engrossed in allegations of corruption that the Democratic Party would be garnering increasing public support.  That hypothesis simply is not developing. 

The WP’s polls of Party support since 2000 are below (modified in format and additional content): 

The results are obvious. Total favorability ratings (very positive + somewhat positive) are at their lowest levels since the 2000 and 2001 combined average.  Additionally, the spread between total favorable and total unfavorable has fallen to a mere 3%+ level. 

It is interesting to note that while total favorability rating averages have fallen; from 46.67% to 36.33% (-10.34%) total unfavorable rating averages have not risen at a corresponding rate; 28.67% to 33.17% (+4.50%).  The largest gain is among those individuals who have a “neutral” impression of the Democratic Party; 22.67% to 28.67% (+6%).

 It is of little consequence that the Republican ratings are as low if not a bit lower than the results for Democrats.  Democrats, being in the minority, bear the brunt of improving their Party’s status to attain majority status. 

There are several possible explanations.  First, many citizens believed that the Democrats had actually won the 2000 election and, as a result, perceptions of the Democratic Party were higher.  Second, as a growing majority of Americans believe the nation is headed in the wrong direction, do these numbers represent that both the Democratic and Republican Party are being held accountable.  Third, do these numbers reflect that Americans do not perceive that the Democrats offer any real policy alternatives to the Republicans?    

At the least, these numbers do not suggest the massive Democratic Party gains that we would like to envision in 2006.  Democracy Corps has issued its November polling results which reinforce the proposition that while Americans are ready for change they are not yet willing to give the Democratic Party control: 

The growing desire for change and anger with Washington and the disengagement from the Republicans and Bush have put the country at the edge of a political upheaval. The change mood has consequences, as Democrats win every argument by significant margins in the races for House and Senate. But the voters are ready for more change than that – enough to change control of the Congress – if the Democrats use every controversy to separate themselves from the Washington mess and define the choice, themselves and their policies. The voters are closing down on the Republicans and desperate for an alternative – as reflected in this survey.

The message . . . is actually very simple. Voters are deeply discontented on Iraq, the economy, gas prices and health care, with the corruption and the failure to address problems. All this continues to deepen and the change mood is dominating our times. Barely a third want to continue with the country’s direction or that of the Bush administration; only a quarter, the direction of the Congress; only a quarter now strongly identify with the president. Bush has lost the country but also his loyalists.  . . .

This survey and the others we have conducted over the last two months together show the Democrats with a very substantial lead in the contested Senate races – using the actual candidate names and looking at 6,000 interviews. In the same exercise, the Democrats have moved into a slight lead in the contested House seats – enough to make gains but not yet enough to take control. But Republican incumbents are only getting 54 percent of the vote on average – suggesting that a lot of their seats could be below 50 percent. If the Democrats take advantage of their opportunities, the playing field in 2006 can be considerable larger.

The Democrats’ overall image is better than the Republicans, as we saw in our last survey, but that does not mean Democrats have improved their standing. Yet there could be no better moment. Independents are unhinged: 39 percent are voting Democratic but 73 percent want a significant change in the direction of the Congress. There are almost twice as many voters newly winnable for Democrats as winnable for Republicans. 

The message is indeed simple; Democrats have to convey what they stand for.                       

                        A DEMOCRATIC PARTY POLICY FOR IRAQ 

Former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski was recently interviewed and outlined for Democrats an Iraqi policy.  Brzezinski’s points are excellent and a must read: -- Democratic Party Policy for Iraq 

These excepts highlight Brzezinski’s points: 

The Democrats have a responsibility vis à vis the American people: to act as an alternative and to provide a vision of a strategy that avoids the pitfalls of what the Bush administration has created. . . . [T]he fact is Democrats, tacitly at the very least, and explicitly in some cases, went along with a presidential decision based on a case that was dubious at best and mendacious at worst.

The task for Democrats today is to formulate an alternative approach to problems in the Middle East with some specificity regarding the duration of the war in Iraq, the Israeli-Palestinian peace front, and the nuclear problem posed by Iran. More broadly, Democrats need to articulate a different vision of America’s role in the world, placing the issue of terrorism in proper perspective. That means addressing terrorism as a serious threat but not exaggerating it to the degree to which the Bush administration has done. . . .

Democrats in particular should promote consensus-building. Consensus means compromise. Consensus means joint action. Consensus means responding to problems with one’s trusted friends. Consensus excludes the notion of condemning one’s friends as weaklings or weasels if they don’t agree with us. That is a prescription for self-isolation. . . .

Our congressional leaders are still inclined to dance around the issue or to find salvation in a formula that calls for American disengagement -- but gradually and without indicating what that means in terms of levels or dates. I’m not sure that’s a wise policy. Because once you begin to draw down your troops, it’s probably better to remove them rapidly. If you scale down your presence gradually, the reduced numbers are going to be in jeopardy. Moreover, it doesn’t have the psychological and political effect of shaking Iraqis into a realization that it is their responsibility to stand on their own feet. We need to scale down our definition of success and realize we’re not going to get a "democratic," secular, pro-American Iraq. We’re going to get an Iraq that is responsive to Iraqi nationalism and dominated by a combination of Shiites and Kurds with some proportion of Sunnis adjusting to that reality. It will probably be more theocratic in character than we would like to see. But it will be a regime that responds to current political realities. I think we need to bite the bullet and leave sometime in the next year.

I think our course with the Iraqi forces verges on the absurd: It is all about us training them. The question arises: Training them to do what?  . . . I think most military-aged Iraqis don’t need our training. If it is a question of training Iraqis so they behave and act like American soldiers, that’s well and good. Except that is not what is needed in the circumstances we will be bequeathing them. What is needed is motivation based on loyalty to the powers that be. That will mean loyalty to various Shiite militias with a clerical connotation and loyalty to the two major Kurdish formations. Plus, perhaps eventually, loyalty to some Sunni militias based on a tribal allegiance. The motivation is not going to be created by American sergeants who are -- quote, unquote -- "training" them how to behave like American soldiers.

. . .  Can there be a political arrangement along major groups in which individual Iraqis owe personal allegiances to different groups? I think so. Iraqis may not like each other that much, but they dislike Americans just as much -- or even more.  

Having read Brzezinski’s views, readers should consider Dr. Steven Jonas’ specific recommendations for the Democratic Party that are posted in his section of TPJ.

NEXT- MICHAEL CARMICHAEL

Last Update: 03/23/2006