Homeland Insecurity

Americans feel vulnerable in the post-9/11. Many Democratic activists can't relate to such a feeling, but they ought not make the mistake of believing that everyone thinks (or feels) as they do. The Democratic nominee can't ignore the national security concerns of large numbers of voters because Bush will be talking about them ad nauseam. Instead, taking the lead from Wesley Clark, the candidate should address the issue repeatedly and of his own accord (that is, not just in response to questions about it). The Democrat can't hope to capture the issue from the Republicans, but he might be able to neutralize it (much as Bush did with education in 2000). Of course, biography bestows a certain credibility on some of the candidates—namely, Kerry and Clark— but any of the candidates could capitalize on Bush's botching of the post-war situation in Iraq. To do so, the nominee must immediately offer a detailed plan of action for avoiding a quagmire.

Though Joe Lieberman is ideologically out of step with most Democrats, what should be salvaged from his failed candidacy is his emphasis on values. Too many voters see Democrats as moral relativists. To counter this misconception, the nominee should not be afraid to use value-laden language, albeit of the civic not religious variety. Equality and freedom are core political principles in the United States and they play a central role in the Democratic philosophy. They should be continuously invoked to justify the policy positions of the nominee. When John Edwards argues that it is immoral to allow so many people in the richest nation on Earth to live without health care, he is making an argument based on a value system shared by most Americans. The eventual nominee should do the same.

The nominee must also find a way to bottle the energy of the Dean campaign and bring thousands of alienated citizens of all ages into a movement to "take back America." The short-term success of the Democratic Party in the 1990s was based primarily on the personality of one man. To be successful over the long haul, the party has to be rebuilt from the ground up. In truth, this can't be done by a single campaign. Thus, as soon as a single candidate emerges as the party's nominee, the nine presidential candidates and their closest advisers should hold an "organizational summit" in Minnesota (home of former senator Paul Wellstone and swing state in 2004). The assembled "brain trust" could be immensely useful to the nominee—sharing organizational strategies and tactics and putting a structure in place for identifying, registering and mobilizing those who have been shut out of the system to this point. Republicans test-drove the 72 Hour Task Force in 2002—their highly organized voter mobilization effort—and it has been perfected for 2004. Without a similar effort on behalf of Democratic candidates, Republicans are certain to maintain complete control of the government.

That Vision Thing

Although Democrats must present the voters with a coherent foreign policy, domestic issues have to be the focal point of the nominee's agenda. All of the contenders spoke eloquently about the challenges facing the country on a variety of social and economic issues but the nominee should emphasize jobs and health care in particular. No single candidate led the way in addressing these concerns; the eventual nominee, therefore, can use his own voice to reinforce the salience of these issues in the fall.

More than the specific maneuvering I've suggested, the Democratic nominee must offer the country a vision of what America could be under his leadership. (Incidentally, the feeble Democratic rebuttal to the State of the Union Address should serve as a model of what not to do.) Clearly, the Bush campaign is going to portray the president as a bold and decisive leader; witness the defense of a preemptive foreign policy and the proposal to return to the moon (and beyond). Without a vision, the Democrat risks being viewed as a carping politician rather than a statesman who can not only restore opportunity at home but can re-establish America's constructive place in the world. To be fair, a few of the candidates have offered what is intended to be just such a vision. The fact that none of these has captured the imagination of a majority of the voters shows how hard it is to create a compelling vision—and there's no guarantee it will work. But without a vision of a better America, the next nominee is sure to end up a footnote in history and the Democratic Party risks becoming irrelevant.