Democrats: Republicans may be floundering and taking political risks they can ill afford, but Democrats persist in their failure to take advantage by adopting a positive agenda of their own. This has prompted Democrats to undertake an audacious plan that could produce new policy ideas for the left.
CAFTA: Although many of them have always supported free trade, House Democrats were united in opposing this agreement. For the most part, it was a cynical attempt to embarrass President Bush. But coming out of the 2004 election, there is also a strong sense that the Democrats, for political reasons, have abandoned the New Democrat agenda of free trade in favor of protectionism.
1) House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) was livid at its passage, and called the 15 Democrats who voted “yes” to the carpet. On July 28, Pelosi called a meeting of the Democratic Steering Committee to review the rationale that each of the defecting Democrats gave for his “yes” vote.
2) Freshman Democratic Rep. Melissa Bean of Illinois, perhaps the top Republican target for 2006, may win the U.S. Chamber of Commerce endorsement at the cost of backing from the Teamsters and other labor unions because of her “yes” vote. Bean has carefully cultivated a near-100% voting record on Chamber issues.
3) Labor unions were outraged by Bean’s CAFTA vote after contributing $235,200 to her 2004 campaign against veteran Republican Rep. Phil Crane in his suburban Chicago district. Since the election, labor has given her $127,500 more.
Long-Term Development: The breakup of the AFL-CIO and new plans for a network of liberal think tanks are both signs that the left is starting to think smarter about its political future. But the long-term reformation of the Democratic establishment—whether it succeeds or fails miserably in the end—will come with a short-term political cost.
1) At the heart of the union breakup is not a change of politics, but a change of focus. If anything, the new “Change to Win” umbrella labor organization, consisting of dissident former AFL-CIO member unions, is more ideologically left-wing than its predecessor.
2) The new strategy is to spend more time and money organizing workers and unionizing businesses, in the belief that political gains for labor are possible only if labor itself remains a vital part of American life. In the short term, however, it will obviously mean millions of dollars less for the Democrats and left-wing political groups in 2006 and 2008.
3) Strikingly similar is the Democrats’ new project of sinking hundreds of millions into a network of left-wing think tanks—essentially liberal versions of the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute. A group of 80 wealthy liberals calling themselves the Democracy Alliance have pledged $1 million or more each over the next five years in order to begin a network of think tanks—an effort to mirror conservative successes in policy development and analysis over the past 30 years. The project amounts to $200 million.
4) Leaving aside the potential long-term impact this may have, it is bad news for Democrats in the short term. Much of the $200 million being raised for this project will come at the expense of the traditional party fund-raising organs—party committees, PACs and even candidates. Many liberals were upset at how left-wing Section 527 groups squandered hundreds of millions of dollars on the 2004 election, even as the Democratic Party suffered its worst defeat in the modern era.
5) Between labor and the think-tank project, Democrats will soon suffer a double cash-crunch. If Republicans are vulnerable in this cycle, Democrats may find themselves in a relatively poor position to take advantage. n
