Reflections on Elections Part 2

My theme in these posts is to examine some of the self-flagellation of the Democrats and to throw in my few cents. My proposition is that there is nothing in this election the Democrats should take to mean that their underlying principles have been rejected by the electorate. Below I tossed in a few thoughts on the GWOT/Iraq, now let's take a look at moral values.

There seems to be a basic premise that the Democrats lost the moral values vote. I think a number of writers and bloggers have shown that the religious right did not carry the election for the President, despite this theme. And several has noted that "moral issues' is vague enough that it probably did not mean "gay marriage" to the voters who responded. But I would go further, I suggest that the Democrats stick to their guns on the moral and cultural issues, with one caveat, if they are looking to take the White House in 2008.

Despite the vitriol expressed toward the President and, subsequent to the election, Bush voters, the Democrats are generally thought of in terms of acceptance and inclusiveness. Maybe this is changing, but I don't see real proof of it. (Let's face it, the liberal bias of the MSM enables the fringe elements of the Democratic party - cough*O'Donnell*cough*Moore*cough - to have access to the airwaves, but they have not altered the general image of the Democrats. Further, I am not saying this is correct.) Thus, I think that voters, generally, will give higher marks to the Democrats on the cultural issues. You might not agree that gays should have marriages or civil unions, but you are comfortable that the Democrats will be responsive to your positions, even if they are not traditional.

Now you can see the fine line: if the O'Donnells and Moores of the world become the face of the Democratic party, this image of inclusiveness will erode. Some years back, the Republicans had a similar "problem" with Ralph Reed. Mr. Reed was becoming a huge liability for the Republicans image. While noone worked harder for conservative causes, Mr. Reed was painted as a bigoted extremist representing the religious right. Mr. Reed was given or got the message. Today, Ralph Reed works as hard for conservatives and their causes, but he is difficult to find.

Now the caveat. The calculus on "moral issues" is two fold. First, what do I want and second, what can I accept. For example, one can be for the right to choose, but accept certain restrictions on that right (no partial birth abortions, parental notification, etc.). One could be against gay marriage, but accept legal equality for gays through civil unions. Senator Kerry could not have played these issues worse if he had tried. Tried hard. Tried really, really, hard. President Bush, on the other hand, was a virtuoso. (The President had certain built in advantages: the right to choose is the law of the land, so he can seem reasonable about adding restrictions; Vice President Cheney's daughter and the President's support of civil unions allowed the administration to seem progressive.)

But Senator Kerry's voting record was so awful on these matters, that he could not bring them up. His position on abortion restrictions, combined with his professed Catholicism, allowed voters to think the worst: he was a hypocrite. The challenge is to appeal to the base, but allow room for the "buts" that will soften the swing voters and allow the broad electorate to accept your position.

Suffice to say that President Clinton was the anti-Kerry.

Next, economics and the shifting demographics in Part 3.