The Minnesota DFL Meltdown: Why it matters, why it is overdue, why it is mostly good

The meltdown of the Minnesota DFL was entirely predictable.  It is  also overdue and mostly good.  The roots of  this implosion  can be located in its failure till now to address significant changes in Minnesota, ranging from structural forces in the state to demographic ones.  But simply the cause is that the DFL failed to gradually reform, forcing an abrupt crisis that is happening now, at a most critical if inopportune time.
The DFL implosion parallels one found with the national Democratic party.  Nationally the Democrats are facing their failures to rebuild the lost New Deal coalition that linked labor unions, working class, and people of color.  Unions are all best decimated and will meet their final fate in a few weeks when the Supreme Court kills them off in Janus v. AFSCME, in part because when given the chance, Obama and the Democrats took them for granted and did nothing to change the law to help them modernize.  Democrats long ago abandoned working class when they became a corporate party chasing Wall Street and rich donors while ignoring the growing gap between the rich and poor in America. Now a new generation expresses disdain for these Reagan and now Trump Democrats, seeing them as ignorant, racists who are not worth courting.  And while yes Democrats still appeal to people of color for votes, how much they really deliver for them versus take their vote for granted is a matter of serious debate.
The crisis of the national Democratic party is one lacking a compelling narrative, it is one  of having a one-size-fits-all campaign strategy well suited to run in urban settings but largely ineffective in rural and often suburban areas.  It is a party facing an existential crisis as the aging Baby Boomers and soon Gen Xers  exit politics and it is unable to talk an agenda relevant  to Millennials and soon Gen Z.  It is a party whose divide and problems surfaced in the 2016 clash between Clinton and Sanders, where many Democrats stayed home because they could not stand to vote for another neo-liberal.  It is a party whose problems are summed up by saying that their rationale or narrative in 2016 was that “We are not Trump,” and who may, if they are lucky, this year, squeak out a victory in 2018 on running against something and not for something.  This is the problem of the national Democrats.  Trump is only the latest external threat to the Democrats, both externally and internally.
The Minnesota DFL faces similar challenges.  It is a party still living in the past, assuming  that the political landscape of the state is the same as it was 20, 30, or 40 years ago when the DFL  was the majority party.  The statistics fail to show that.  It is a Blue state gone Purple and maybe headed Red.  It is a state where the party still pays homage to fallen and past party leaders and lives in their shadow.  Yes Humphrey, Wellstone, McCarthy, and Mondale were great figures, but they represent a different political area.  The Minnesota DFL is an insular party where its one-size-fits-all campaign strategy has reduced its political base to a few  urban cores and no more than maybe 10 or so counties.  It is a party occupied by an ideology of Baby Boomers and some Gen Xers, and it is a party with a leadership looking backwards and not to the future.  It is a party facing an existential crisis.
Political scientist Walter Dean Burnham wrote in his  Critical Elections and the Mainsprings of American Politics that every 30 or 40 years American politics and parties are characterized by a critical realignment.  Driven by economic or political crises, American history  demonstrates the need for parties and political to change, forcing changes in party labels, coalitions, and alignments.  For too long too Democrats nationally and the DFL in Minnesota have needed to  critically realign.  Changes in the economy and political changes, driven by racial and generational  demographics, necessitate the DFL to change.  This is what is happening now.
The DFL change began five years ago in Minneapolis with Betsy Hodges.  It was a DFL without the F and L.  Hodges had an opportunity to ride the wave of change but she was simply too inept to manage it.  Jacob Frey and Melvin Carter are a second wave of the change, how they respond is too soon to tell.  Now what has happened over the last few days is another sign of a party torn in lots of directions.  Murphy, Walz, and Swanson at the gubernatorial level represent three wings of the party, three ideologies, and three strategies on how to campaign in the state and forge winning coalitions.  The divide played out at the DFL convention with the fight over the attorney general nomination and subsequent filings for the office, and it plays out in replacing Keith Ellison. 
Much of this is destructive.  Many of the candidates running appear to be in it for themselves and not for the party of state.  Many seem to lack the experience or qualifications for the job, and many in choosing to run seem to have conceded that the State House of Representatives is a lost cause and are abandoning it for higher office.  All of this is unfortunate, coming at a time when control for so  many institutions and levers of powers in Minnesota are at stake. 
But much of this behavior is also understandable.  It comes at a time when the party has sat on reform and change for too many years and where new leaders are demanding that the party reflect  their generation’s interests and needs.  Short term it is not clear how well the DFL navigates  this meltdown, longer term it is too soon to tell the results.   But this meltdown matters, it is overdue, and maybe mostly good.

Trump, Sanders, and the Crises of Republican and Democratic Party Orthodoxy

Trump and Sanders test Republican and Democratic Party orthodoxy.  They do so in different ways and for contrasting reasons, but over the next few weeks first the Iowa caucuses and then the New Hampshire primary will tell us something about how real these candidates are and what it means for the future of the two major parties.

In my election law seminar one of the questions I ask is “Who is the Party?”  By that, I am asking a legal question regarding who in a political party gets to assert what rights on behalf of whom.  In asking that question possible answers are that the party is its elected officials, paid party officials, party leaders, convention attendees, primary voters, caucus attendees, general election voters, or even those who register or simply declare themselves to be members of that party.  This same legal question applies to thinking about Trump and Sanders in terms of what they mean to the Republicans and Democrats.

Consider Trump first.  Several months ago mainstream Republicans expressed with horror the prospect that he could be their party nominee.   Trump was the fringe candidate, Bush orthodoxy.  Trump’s polling numbers show his greatest support coming from white males without a college education, yet several recent polls now show that across the board Trump is consolidating support across broad portions of the Republican Party and that even its mainstream establishment  is coming to accept the fact that he may be their nominee.  Trump has a huge lead in NH and is second in Iowa to Cruz, yet the former is user the birther attack on the latter and it may succeed in weakening the latter.  Additionally Trump is turning up is attacks on Cruz, potentially suggesting a tightening of the race there over the next several weeks.

The big variable for Trump is twofold.  First, does he have a ground game to deliver his supports to the caucuses and polls in Iowa and New Hampshire.  So far there is little indication of this type of organization.  Second, assuming Trump does convert polls into votes, and as other candidates drop out, can he pick up their support and will he be able to consolidate the base around him?  These are good questions and especially important as the battle beyond NH moves south and one needs to see how well Trump does in winning the Bible belt vote which is critical to the Republican base.

But Trump’s challenge to the GOP is fascinating.  On the one hand he challenges party orthodoxy with his rhetoric, appealing to the fear, prejudice, and insecurities of white males who see a world no longer favoring them. Party leaders abhor his language.   Yet in other ways some point to the fact that Trump’s views simply represent the chickens coming home to roost.   The GOP for the last few years has appealed more to whites, males, working class, and those who espouse hostility to immigration and civil rights.  He is both mainstream and not mainstream Republicanism.

The problem for the Republicans is that much of their current base does support these positions yet this base is old and dying off or demographically represents a decreasing proportion of the population and the electorate with each election.  Unless Republicans reach out to new constituencies, perhaps necessitating a change in policy to do that, the GOP may simply see its base disappear in much of America.  Trump appeals to those who are both part of the base today but not of tomorrow.  He appeals to those who do not like the current Republican party but they are ones who often do not vote.  Trump is a candidate who both does and does not challenge the Republican Party in so many ways.

Democrats are giddy with the prospects of Trump and how he is dividing the Republican Party but they should not be so gleeful.  Clinton holds powerful advantages in 2016 within the Democratic Party as my friend Amy Fried points out.  But the Sanders challenge underscores a huge problem for her and orthodox Democratic Party politics.  First it is surprising that Sanders is doing so well in the polls given that he is not a Democrat.  He is an independent running as Democrat.  That alone should bring pause to the party that an outsider is doing as well as he is.  But with that polls in New Hampshire have him leading and Iowa polls have also narrowed and it is not impossible for him to win there also.  Both Sanders and Clinton have strong ground games in Iowa and lots of money to spend.  Clinton could lose the first two states but still win it all once  the primaries and caucuses head south.

Yet Clinton faces continuing challenges within her party.  She suffers from a significant enthusiasm gap with the Democratic Party, even among women. Moreover, among younger voters she has problems, yet this cuts two ways.  Short term Millennials do not vote in high percentages so perhaps this is not an issue.  But if we think of the future of the Democratic Party residing in capturing a new generation of voters–the demographics is destiny argument–Clinton is not helping the party.  Millennials are far more liberal than previous generations and more liberal than Clinton.

Millennials are more likely to identify as Democrats when they do identify.  But overall Millennials are turned off by both parties, including the Democrats.  Clinton does little to bring these new people into the party, Sanders potentially does.  Sanders is like Eugene McCarthy once was, or Ted Kennedy to Jimmy Carter, Bill Bradley to Al Gore, Howard Dean to John Kerry, or even Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton in 2008.  Sanders represents a power challenge to party, but this time the challenge has an age and generational aspect that overlays with ideology.  Clinton is the Democratic Party as it is now or was 20 years ago when Baby Boomers were in charge.  But Obama was the first Gen X president and soon power will pass to the Millennials.  Clinton is perhaps the last gasp of the old Democratic Party, not one to build toward the future.

Clinton’s other problem is one similar to Trump’s; neither are very appealing to the independent or swing voter–especially in the swing states–who will really decide the presidency.  Clinton is less unpopular than Trump but should the latter get the nomination it is not unthinkable that Trump could win if he uses the same tactics against her that he is using against his Republican opponents.  Already Trump is going after Clinton via her husband’s sex life, and one can anticipate even other low blows and shots in a general election.  Remember Willie Horton ans Swift Boats for Turth?

What we see in Trump and Sanders are rival challenges to party orthodoxy.  In the same way that Trump speaks to voters whom the Republican Party appeals to but whom they have not benefitted, Sanders also appeals to a group of voters to whom the Democratic Party has ignored.  If Bush and Clinton represent status quo orthodox in the parties, Trump and Sanders show a rejection of such orthodoxy. Trump is perhaps the logical extension of party policies and rhetoric that will appeal to a demographic that puts the Republican party out of business.  Sanders potentially speaks to the coming Millennial generation without whose support the Democratic Party cannot survive in the future.

Four More Years? Obama’s Challenges in Quest of a Second Term

    Presidential re-elections are referendums. They are referendums on the economy, on the state of the country, on the performance of the president.  Voters they look back four years and ask themselves how they judge the performance of the incumbent president.  The same will be true this year with Obama.  But unlike four years ago, President Obama faces daunting challenges running for re-election, including facing this referendum on his first term and convincing Americans he deserves four more years.

    Four years ago Obama had several advantages in his bid for the White House that no longer exist, or at least are muted compared to 2008.  What are they?

Generational Politics
Perhaps the most important advantage Obama had was the generational factor.  By that, Obama wad the choice of a new generation as the baby boomers, Gen Xers, and especially the Millennials come out to support him.  Obama had the cool factor.  He was young and chic, hip, and a rock star.  Voting studies demonstrated that he had overwhelming support and turnout among younger voters, losing only to the aging Silent Generation. But today Obama is no longer cool.  He is older, greyer, and not as chic as he once was. While in 08 he embodied optimism, Romney was correct at the RNC that now for many he is about disappointment and disillusionment.  He had such promise and opportunity so many say in the coffee shops, but he failed to live up to the expectations.

    Obama failed to live up to these expectations because in part about his narrative.  The 2008 campaign was about hope and change, but what change was about was never clear.  It was an empty  bottle which people filled with their own hops.  Obama also created expectations that he would change politics and Washington and solve the pressing problems of the day.  That did not happen.  It did not for many reasons.  Yes the Republicans sabotaged compromise, but the Democrats failed to cooperate too.  Yes the scope of the problems were greater than he and others estimated, especially with the economy, but Obama too had a generational chance to push for bold ideas and instead he squandered away opportunity.  He just never thought bold.  Thus, change did not occur.

    But generational politics works in a different way–demographics.  The Silent angry generation is dying off.  More states are reliably Democratic than Republican and the racial demographics in the swing states favor Obama. 

The Missing Narrative
    Now four years later the narrative of change is impossible to use.  Republicans used it successfully in 2010 and again are using it again–arguing for change in the White House while mocking the hopey changey narrative.  Obama’s problem remains again the issue of narrative.  In 2010 the narrative was “It could have been worse.”  No excitement here.   Obama’s biggest challenge in Charlotte this week will be to try to offer the new narrative.

Incumbency
    Obama is the incumbent.  That also forestalls running on the banner of change. Asking voters whether they are better off now than four years ago was a powerful challenge by Ronald Reagan in 1980 that led to the defeat of Jimmy Carter.  Romney posed this question at the RNC again, and if swing voters make this the question that decides their choice, Obama loses.  As pointed out scores of times, no sitting president besides FDR and Reagan have won re-election with unemployment above 7%.  It should be over for Obama, except for the fact that the Republicans have no plan, no candidate who is likeable, or a demographic that works to their advantage.  There are just not enough aging angry white guys out there to win an election.  Yet given the facts that data suggest the top 1% along with Wall Street  are doing better now than four years ago, why they are not supporting him seems perplexing.

    Incumbency brings advantages but it also means you are held responsible for the status quo.  Obama is responsible rightly or wrongly and he needs to convince people that your record is worthy of four more years.  Obama does have an impressive record–the auto bailout, health care reform, Dodd-Frank, “Don’t ask, don’t tell is gone.  But Obama has not told his story well and he needs to do a better job than he has.

Money
    Obama has a significant political cash advantage four years ago.  Business broke from the Republicans and supported him.  Now Romney and the GOP will have more cash and Wall Street  has turned against him.  Obama runs as an incumbent with a cash disadvantage.

Technology and Grassroots
    Obama lacks the big pockets he had last time but he still has the powerful community organizer grass roots structure that he had four years ago.  Additionally, four years ago Obama became the first Twitter and Facebook president, using the new and social media in unique ways that helped him reach out to a new generation.  Others have caught up here, and Twitter and Facebook are no longer cutting edge.  Yet Obama still has an advantage here.

Personality
    Four years ago voters like Obama.  They still do and this is his biggest advantage over Romney who no one really likes or is passionate over.  When push comes to shove likeability is a major factor for candidates.  Romney runs on competence but plumbers seldom win presidential if any elections

The political-economic world of 2012 is very different from the one of 2008 when Obama won.  Obama faces many challenges to a second term.  What he and the Democrats need to do this week in Charlotte is more than simply say the Republicans are bad.  They need to make the case for Obama, convincing voters that despite what appears to be the case four years later, they are better off and should award him with a second term.  A term that as of yet we have to what he wants to accomplish.

The Uniqueness of the 2012 Election

This blog originally appeared as a June 5, 2012 National Public Radio digital news story by Linton Weeks. My comments are featured in a story about what is unique about the 2012 elections.

Volunteers unfurl a banner with the Preamble to the Constitution during a demonstration against the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling on campaign finance rules at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., Oct. 20, 2010.

All U.S. presidential elections "are unique in some fashion," says John G. Geer, a political science professor at Vanderbilt University.

Sure, but what about 2012? What exactly will make the 2012 election between President Obama and Mitt Romney truly unique?

For one thing, though the candidates have many similarities, as noted by NPR and The New York Times, there is a clear-cut choice between directions the country might take.

And there are other — what shall we call them? — uniquities.

Carol S. Weissert, director of the LeRoy Collins Institute — a nonpartisan public policy think tank in Tallahassee, Fla. — points out that the presidential election in November will be the first since the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court opinion that opened the barn door to unregulated spending in all political campaigns — but especially presidential campaigns.

"We're seeing some glimpses of what unregulated spending is doing in the Wisconsin recall," Weissert says, "but we haven't seen anything yet."

And, she says, it'll be the first election during a time when our country's economic well-being is linked in large part with Europe's economy. "If the eurozone collapses — or maybe when," Weissert says, "this will shake the core of our economy and affect the presidential election. And there is little we can do about it but watch."

The 2012 election, says Caroline Tolbert, a political science professor at the University of Iowa, will be sui generis in several ways. Never before has this country seen an African-American incumbent president run for re-election, she says. And never before has there been a major party nominee who was a Mormon.

Tolbert also cites the president's mad skills at digital campaigning and politics. "Obama has 26 million likes on Facebook," she says, "compared to less than 2 million for Romney."

For David Schultz, a public policy professor at Hamline University in St. Paul, Minn., the approaching election "is about an America that is divided by a partisan politics of nostalgia versus a politics of tomorrow."

Schultz, who also teaches election law at the University of Minnesota's law school, says the country is at a critical crossroads. One path will determine how America responds to its global role and ranking in a hyperdynamic world.

"The second path America is crossing is demographics," Schultz says. "We are witnesses to a country where one generation of citizens — the baby boomers — are waning in influence and are being replaced by a new generation sharing a different agenda than those who came of age during the 1960s. This election is about the end of the 1960s as a defining moment in American politics. The other demographic change is racial. We are seeing a growth in the strength of people of color, as their numbers increase and the white majority recedes to a white plurality."

The third path, Schultz says, leads to a war over wealth that this country has not seen in a century.

"America is economically more unequal today than it has been since the 1920s," Schultz says, "with multiple statistics and studies demonstrating that the gap between rich and poor has exploded in the last three decades. Occupy Wall Street has highlighted this battle of wealth versus the people, portending a possibility that this election is about whether American democracy is for real or for sale."

Those scenarios — America's place in the world, shifting demographics and the battle between dollars and democracy — are setting up two contrasting political narratives, Schultz says. One narrative leads toward a nostalgic past; the other toward a fast-changing future. "This election," Schultz says, "is about which of the narratives will win."

Vanderbilt's Geer frames it another way. The 2012 election, he says, "strikes me as very much a product of long-standing forces. In this case: the condition of the economy and which candidate we most trust to lead America for the next four years."