| |
The State of the Democratic Party in Pennsylvania
Posted
06-28-2001
There has been a lot of talk about the state of the Democratic party in
Pennsylvania. Some folks point to Al Gore's victory in Pennsylvania as proof
that things aren't hopeless, and I agree with that evaluation. But when you
look around at some of our neighboring states, Democrats do seem stronger.
Recently, I traveled to New Jersey, and they were in the midst of a very
nasty primary for governor. The nastiness was only on the Republican side.
The Democrat, Jim McGreevy, was unopposed, while on the Republican side,
Brett Schundler, who eventually won, had a mean-spirited battle with former
Congressman Bob Franks. Name-calling and below-the-belt shots were common.
The conventional wisdom was that so many wounds were opened; the General
Election is McGreevy's to lose.
Could you imagine in
Pennsylvania if we didn't kill ourselves in primary elections? For the first
time that I can remember, we have a slate of judicial candidates this year,
and rather than spending money in a contested primary, they've been able to
work for a November victory. Hopefully, the results will show that this
strategy pays dividends. Next year, Pennsylvania will likely have a heated,
costly primary for governor between Bob Casey Jr. and Ed Rendell. I hope the
winner isn't so battered that it hurts him in November. Without a damaging
primary either candidate should be able to win in the general election.
The US Senate is another
story. What if Ron Klink didn't have to spend a lot of money in the primary
last year? What if he didn't have to spend his time in the primary securing
his southwestern base? Would the November results have been different? We'll
never know. But when you look around us, New York, New Jersey, Delaware,
Maryland, and West Virginia all have TWO Democratic senators. Only our
neighbor to the west, Ohio, is like us with two Republicans. Can working
people's interests be that different in neighboring states that one party
dominates the US senate positions?
Perhaps parties themselves
don't make or break the election, and it is the individual candidates that
matter. In some of the states I've mentioned, they have Republican governors
and Republican legislatures. So while certain offices go one way in a state,
the parties can't ensure a complete sweep. Unfortunately, right now,
Pennsylvania is the closest thing to Republican domination. We have a
Republican governor, two Republican US senators, our Congressional
delegation now has a Republican majority, and both houses of the
Legislature, as well as all statewide row officers except Bob Casey are
Republican. I think it is that phenomenon that causes people here to voice
concern about our statewide party.
So what can be done? Running
the best possible candidates is a no-brainer. But, our state party needs a
new structure. It is tough enough at the county level to have committee
people play a meaningful role. Individually, they can make a difference in
races, but the endorsement process just doesn't work any more, and it is not
inclusive. At the state level, it is even tougher to have committee people
play a significant role. All political parties should eliminate elected
officials from being party officials. Our county Democratic party by-laws
prevent it, and that is wise. But, the state party has a State Senator from
Philadelphia as chairperson and a State Rep from the Lehigh Valley as
vice-chair. We need to bring more non-public officials into the party
leadership. We need private citizens committed to the principles of our
party and who can get things done. No offense to elected officials, but we
need to broaden our participation.
We also need to be totally
supportive of our party's candidates in general elections. There are
factions to the Republican party, the far-right social conservatives, and
the more moderate Republicans who are more open-minded on social issues but
conservative fiscally. They may fight like cats and dogs if they have
contested primaries, but when the general election rolls around, they close
ranks. I'm certain, in Westmoreland County, there is more straight party
voting on the Republican side than on the Democrat side.
Building majorities in
legislative bodies is so important and to the Republicans credit, they've
done it here in both houses of the legislature. If you watch most special
elections in Pennsylvania or other states, you'll see that the R's get their
people out and the D's don't. In addition to the profound impact on
legislation, we are seeing the consequences of Republican majorities with
respect to reapportionment. What is happening in Pennsylvania is that they
are shaping political boundaries that will either protect or enhance their
majorities for the next decade. It will only make the Democrats job that
much tougher in the future.
Politics is often a strange,
yet dynamic process. What worked in the past, often doesn't work any longer.
I'm not advocating a move from our core beliefs that government can and
should help working people and be a positive influence on society, but we
need to improve our marketing techniques. There is a relationship between
governing and elections. Performance in office does effect re-election. But
after seeing Rick Santorum remake himself into a moderate after voting as a
strident conservative his entire time in office, I'm convinced elections are
all about selling a product. The Democrats in Pennsylvania can be
successful, but we had better play by the rules of the 21st century. |
