The 2004 U.S. presidential election

¶ … Democrats

Some contend that the Democratic Party lost voters and their ability to win an election by straying from their historic ideals and attempting to woo undecided voters and capture the swing states in the 2004 Presidential election. Such statements ignore the realities of the 2004 election. While the Democrats may have been too moderate for some of their voters, post-election analysis demonstrates that the 2004 election hinged, not on traditional issues, but the amorphous issue of moral values. While George Bush constantly reminded voters of his personal religious beliefs and moral convictions, John Kerry was considered out of the cultural mainstream, making it more difficult for the average voter to relate to him. At first blush, it appeared that Kerry was too moderate for the liberals and too liberal for the moderates, but poll results demonstrated that most left-leaning voters still cast their votes for the Democrats. In addition, the only successful Democratic presidential candidate in almost 30 years was Bill Clinton; a moderate who managed to win his elections by capturing the swing vote and the last Democrat to reach 50% of the vote was Lyndon Johnson in 1964. Furthermore, the strengths of the Republican Party and the fact that the country is at war contributed greatly to the Democrat's defeat. The Democrats lost election 2004, not because they catered to undecided voters, but because they failed to woo enough of the swing voters and undecided electorate. However, if the Democrats use the election of 2004 as a learning experience and return to their history of being the people's party, they will regain their capability of winning elections.

If the Democrats want to, once again, become the people's party, they need to get back in touch with the people. Since Jimmy Carter failed to win his bid for re-election, the Democrats have been viewed as somewhat elitist, and that perception was exacerbated by the 2004 election. Heading into the election, the key issues for the Democrats appeared to be the war in Iraq, the threat of terrorism, and the economy. In contrast, the Republicans were focusing on family values, same-sex marriage, and blurring the line separating church and state. The Democrats dismissed those issues as unimportant to the average voter. Those very issues turned out to be the deciding factors in an extremely close election, and the fact that the Democrats failed to realize the importance of those issues demonstrates how out-of-touch with mainstream America the Democratic Party has become.

One of the major issues is that the Democrats do not appear to have considered the social, psychological, and political ramifications that 9-11 had on most of the country. Post 9-11 many Americans expressed a desire to return to traditional American values, including an emphasis on the nuclear family and religion. That return to traditional American values also coincides with a return to an era of diminished civil rights at home.

Issues such as civil rights, which Republican voters claim to support as a basis for foreign wars, are taken for granted at home. Civil rights have become so guaranteed that many right-wing voters that they fail to see the irony in supporting a war abroad for the sake of ensuring the civil rights of an oppressed people. Furthermore, many American voters are too young to remember the not-so-distant past when large portions of the American populace were actively denied basic civil rights on a daily basis. The American electorate seemed to have a hard time grasping how easily civil rights can be eroded, but, instead of emphasizing the importance of protecting liberty at home, the Democrats allowed the Republicans to frame a central debate around spreading liberty abroad.

The debate around the return to traditional values was at its most heated concerning the issue of same-sex marriage. While Kerry and Bush had almost identical positions on the issue of same-sex marriage, the Democrats allowed the Republicans to transform same-sex marriage into a central theme of the election. Despite the fact that the Republican vice-presidential candidate's daughter is a lesbian, the Democrats were seen as more sympathetic to the concerns of gays and lesbians. While that may be true, what the Democrats failed to do was emphasize how ensuring civil rights for a marginalized group helps ensure freedom for all people.

Stem-cell research was another hot-topic for debate in election 2004. While Kerry's views regarding stem-cell research align closely with those of the average American, the issue of stem cell research was transformed by the Republicans into a mere substitute for the same issue that has polarized American politics for the last 30 years: abortion. Many left-leaning Democrats have failed to take into account that the advancements in medicine that have made fetuses viable at 20 weeks have made it morally repugnant to many Americans to consider themselves unqualifiedly pro-choice. Even for voters who support a woman's right to an abortion in the first trimester or to save a mother's life, might have problems voting for a candidate that they believe supports abortion without reservation. Finally, Democrats waited too long to inform the American public about the realities of stem-cell research and the origins of stem-cell lines. By the time that Kerry chose to really address the issue, many Americans already believed that stem-cell research involved terminating lives-in-progress.

In short, too much of the American public viewed the Democrats in general and Kerry in particular, as outsiders. The perception by many Americans was that the Democratic Party was composed of baby-killing homosexuals. The problem was not that the Democrats nominated a candidate that was outside of the social mainstream in his personal politics; Kerry is a devout Roman Catholic. The problem was that the Democrats ignored how important issues of moral values were and neglected to demonstrate Kerry's personal religious foundation. Instead, the Democrats allowed the Republicans to portray Kerry as just another secular liberal.

Moral values are not the only place were Democrats are out of touch with the average American. The Democrats have a Presidential nominating process that regularly leads them to select out-of-the-cultural mainstream candidates. For almost 30 years, Democrats have, for the most part, nominated Presidential candidates that voters have found were out of step with American feelings regarding national security, religious issues, and moral values. Kerry was a prime example of such a candidate. Kerry was considered aloof and aristocratic by voters, and his attempts to connect with the average voter only served to heighten the differences between him and most Americans.

During the debates, when Kerry attempted to emphasize his concern for the average tax-paying American, he did so in a manner that emphasized the enormous differences between his economic circumstances, versus that of the average American. Instead of making voters believe that he was genuinely interested in their economic welfare, Kerry came off as somewhat patronizing and condescending. However, Kerry's apparent aloofness was not limited to one error in one debate: he appeared far better-educated and wealthier than the average American, which made it more difficult for the average American to relate to him. While Bush and Kerry had similar educational and financial backgrounds, Bush presented himself to the electorate like someone born with spurs on his boots rather than a silver spoon in his mouth.

Bush's appearance that he was like every man helped cement the Republican Party's lock on a huge segment of the population that had previously aligned itself with the Democratic Party. Since 1964, the Democratic base of blue-collar, less educated, and rural whites has eroded. Given that the majority of voters fall into that category, the Democrats needed to address and remedy that erosion. However, throughout election 2004, the Democrats failed to acknowledge that they no longer have a natural majority of voters.

Instead of making a concerted effort to reach moderate voters, the Democrats have continued to nominate candidates like Kerry, who are perceived as more liberal and more left-wing than the average voter. In order to capture a majority of votes, the Democrats are going to have to nominate a candidate that the majority of voters feel that they can trust and understand.

Part of the problem rests in the nomination process employed by the Democratic Party, which gives disproportionate power to interest groups. Though polls show that moderates and conservatives actually outnumber liberals in the Democratic Party, the liberals dominate the primaries. In fact, in the 2004 Democratic primary elections, only Lieberman ran as a moderate, and he failed to win a single primary.

The major problem with the Democrats choosing a liberal as their presidential candidate is that they are concentrating their efforts on voters that are going to vote Democrat anyway, simply because of a lack of other viable options. The red states and the blue states did not significantly vary from the division in election 2000. While the candidates had double-digit percentage leads in the traditional red and blue states, Bush's lead in some of the swing states was less than 3%. In addition, unlike election 2000 and despite large contributions by Republican Party supporters, the votes for Ralph Nadar did not appear to have any influence on the outcome of the election. Furthermore, voter turnout for election 2004 exceeded voter turnout for 2000 by approximately 8%. However, many of those voters can be attributed to efforts of special interest groups, which appealed to voters in the extremes of both parties. If the Democrats plan to win future elections, they have to capture undecided voters in the swing states. The Democrats are not going to win the votes of the undecided by appealing to the far left of the Democratic Party.

Perhaps the best recent example of a moderate Democrat is Bill Clinton. Clinton was the last successful Democratic Presidential. In addition to being a political moderate, and despite the fact that Clinton was also better-educated than the average American and less overtly religious than Kerry, Clinton was seen as more in-touch with the average person. Some Democratic Party centrists have complained that Kerry's loss was due to him straying from the winning Clintonian formula of pro-business, pro-death-penalty mainstream politics, or the fact that Clinton was unable to participate in much of Kerry's campaign. After all, Clinton's moderation and popularity were enough for him to win two bids for the presidency.

However, even Clinton's more moderate stance was not enough to get him a majority of the popular vote in either of his elections. While the Democrats love Clinton, he polarized Republicans as well as Democrats. Furthermore, with the Republican emphasis on moral values and the sanctity of marriage, Clinton's presence could actually have been detrimental to any Democratic efforts to target the undecided voter. While Clinton was a popular President, his Presidency was also marred by repeated scandals, including sexual indiscretions and alleged financial wrongdoing.

The last Democratic candidate to receive more than 50% of the popular vote was Lyndon Johnson in 1964. However, Johnson's Presidency also changed the face of the Democratic Party because Johnson ushered in sweeping civil rights reform. However, those same civil rights reforms that now identify the heart and soul of the Democratic Party were largely responsible for the erosion of the political base that the Democrats had relied upon since the New Deal.

The Democrat's defeat cannot be attributed solely to their failure to nominate a middle-of-the-road candidate. Bush won the Presidency not just because of the things that the Democrats did wrong, but also because of the things that the Republicans did right. The Republicans did a masterful job of transforming the political base of the Republican Party from wealthy conservatives to average Americans. While that transformation is partially due to the Republican choice of a charismatic candidate, it actually began in the 1980's, when Reagan began courting the religious right and incorporating those ideals into American politics. In the 1980's, the Republicans and the religious right focused their energy on pornography. However, with the proliferation of pornography and its widespread availability in all media, the right has focused on another divisive issue: gay marriage. In a country facing threats from terrorists, a weakened economy, war in two countries, a divorce rate higher than 50%, and the highest murder rate of any Western country, the Republicans were able to transform the issue of same-sex marriage into one of the deciding factors of election 2004.

In addition, the Republicans did a masterful job of capitalizing on the war. While no incumbent President who has put himself up for re-election during a war has been unsuccessful, the Republicans created an atmosphere where political dissent was equated with treason. When Democrats questioned the soundness of invading Iraq before attaining victory in Afghanistan or capturing Bin Laden and without proof of weapons of mass destruction, instead of being portrayed as concerned about risking soldiers' lives, they were portrayed as not supporting the troops.

In contrast, the Republicans capitalized on the fear lingering from the 9-11 attacks to bolster public support for the war in Iraq, despite there being no evidence of any link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. The Republicans consistently emphasized that Americans were at risk of being killed in another terrorist attack, culminating in the Republican convention where the Republicans equated a vote for Kerry with a guarantee that the country would be subjected to further terrorist attacks.

Although the Republican Party currently dominates the Congress and holds the Presidency, election 2004 did not sound the death knell for the Democratic Party. Instead, the election offered the Party a chance to change to reflect the changing ideals of the American public. The trick will be for the Democrats to balance voters' nostalgia for the America of yesterday with their desire not to lose any of the freedoms that have been gained in the past 100 years.

One way for the Democrats to remain politically viable is for them to break the Republican stranglehold on the issue of moral values. Right now, it appears that Democrats are afraid to use morality in an election. However, this last election demonstrates that Americans are increasingly concerned with moral values. This is not a suggestion that Democrats abandon some of the ideals that the Republicans have deemed immoral. Instead, Democrats have to stop being reactive. The Democrats need to come out strongly in support of the moral beliefs held by the majority of Democratic voters.

This means that Democrats need to make it clear why they support same-sex civil unions, if not gay marriage. Democrats need to point out that civil unions strengthen the existing bonds between people, rather than allowing Republicans to lead the public to believe that civil unions would increase the number of homosexual relationships. Democrats need to point out that civil unions could provide stability for children of homosexual couples and decrease litigation over asset distribution following break ups or death. Finally, there are plenty of religious denominations that feel that homosexuality is, if not permissible, a choice to be made by an individual and to be judged only by a higher power. The Democrats need to ally themselves with strong religious leaders that will remind the electorate that they have not been placed in a position to judge others.

In contrast, the Democrats need to revise their position on abortion to reflect the realities of modern science. When Roe v. Wade was authored, fetuses were not considered viable until the third trimester. Now fetuses are considered viable at 20 weeks, which may be long before the quickening. While some on the left worry that a softened position on abortion rights will lead, not only to the total erosion of the right to choose, but also the erosion of other rights for women, the reality is that the majority of Americans fall somewhere along the continuum of abortion rights. Those who believe that a woman's right to choose should be inalienable up until the moment of birth are already guaranteed not to vote for the Republicans, who have identified themselves as extremely anti-choice. However, those who believe that abortion should be an option in certain situations may feel that it is morally wrong to vote for a candidate that supports late-term or partial birth abortions.

The Democrats need to challenge views on the idealized America. Post 9-11, America experienced a surge of patriotism and a desire to return to the America of yesterday. Americans equated the America of yesteryear with safety and security. Democrats need to stop being afraid of challenging those ideals. The 1950's situation comedy values touted by many Republicans failed to include a wide range of Americans. Democrats need to remind voters that Democrats have led the fight to protect civil rights for all Americans. When Johnson lost the Southern vote with his sweeping civil rights reforms, the Democrats failed to pick up votes in the heartland of America, which did not have the same history of racial division as the South. Democrats need to be proactive about pointing out the very real benefits of social reform.

One of the major areas that Democrats need to concentrate on is the area of welfare and Social Security. The Republicans were very successful in portraying the Democrats as a bunch of spenders, ready and eager to waste hard-earned tax-payer dollars on government subsidies. However, based on geographic location, the median income of most Republican voters was lower than that of Democratic voters. Democrats need to point out the efficacy of social programming. Given that the Republicans now get the majority of the blue-collar vote, Democrats need to capitalize on the financial insecurity felt by many blue-collar workers. The blue collar Republicans need to understand that if they elect someone who radically transforms the Social Security system, it could affect their eligibility for Social Security Disability Insurance in addition to their retirement planning options.

Concentrating on finances may not be enough to sway the blue-collar vote. To regain viability, the Democrats will have to look at nominating a more moderate candidate in 2008. While there is some talk of nominating Hillary Clinton for the 2008 Presidential election, the Democrats need to scrutinize her ability to pull in middle-of-the-road voters. Like her husband, Hillary is well-loved by the left, but, like her husband, she also polarizes the right.