These upcoming midterm elections are exciting for any Democrat. With an unpopular president dragging down his party and a new scandal striking Republican candidates every week or so, states that were once solidly red are now in play. It's looking more and more likely that the House will have a Democratic majority come 2007, and the Senate, though a long shot, might also be within reach.
But is the Democratic Party selling out its principles to regain power? The recent column by Tess Lantos '07 ("Vote your conscience, not your party," Oct. 2) suggests that it may well be. After all, senators like Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., who supported the war in Iraq, are leaders of the party, and third-party anti-war candidates, like Washington's Green Party candidate Aaron Dixon, are being asked to quit splitting the party and leave the race.
A Democratic Congress, though, is critical this year, if for no other reason than momentum. A victory for the Dems this November would give the party strength, excite its base and allow it to dictate the legislative tone for the next two years. These factors will be critically important in the 2008 presidential election. A congressional majority also means appointments to leadership positions in committees. Maybe from one of these new jobs, a halfway decent presidential candidate might emerge for the first time in 12 years.
This still doesn't address the issue of the liberal conscience, however. How can we vote for the same Democrats that allowed the invasion of Iraq? This is certainly no easy question. But I think we must consider a couple of facts.
First, most of these Democrats, like Clinton, are now opposed to the war. Better to have those in office who admit wrongdoing and seek to correct their errors than to leave a Republican majority and let the quagmire continue. Second, contrary to Lantos' portrayal, this is not a single-issue election. There are economic, environmental and social issues that a Democratic Congress could put on the table, issues that we certainly don't want to leave up to the Republicans.
And even in the international arena, a change in the ruling party could do nothing but good. New leadership in Washington, D.C., could bring a long-awaited and much-needed rapprochement with countries like France and Germany that have been turned away by the Bush administration's brash unilateralism. (Case in point: German Chancellor Angela Merkel's literal shrug-off this July at the G8 summit.)
Also, sadly, the Democratic Party cannot currently play only to its base and win. The Republicans, due to brilliant organization and tactics, have had this luxury as recently as 2004. All they had to do was make some noise about gays and terrorists, and out marched the faithful. It remains to be seen if the Republican base will have the kind of unanticipated impact in 2006 that it did during the last election.
The Democrats simply aren't organized that way. The national party is made up of a number of very distinct groups whose views overlap in relatively few places. Organization on a local level is insufficient to address these groups individually, to speak the right message in the right places and get out voters across the country for the reasons that matter most to them.
The good news is that the party is changing. A recent New York Times Magazine details how Howard Dean is providing precisely this level of local organization across the country. And coupled with the energy of a big win this November and the excitement of a Democratic legislative agenda, the traditional liberal base of the party will be resurgent. Candidates will be able to play to this base without having to pander to the middle.
Democrats, in short, could soon be the candidates of our conscience, the people who feel, like we do, that "liberal" is not a dirty word but an irrevocable principle. But they can only get there from a position of power, and it's our duty to put them there this November.
Will Guzzardi '09 would date Angie Merkel.
