By Basil Anthony Smikle Jr.
Earlier this year, Gallup reported that a record number of Americans identify as Independents. Forty-two percent of the country shed traditional political party labels: Republican Party identification fell to 25% while 31% identified with Democrats – down from 36% in 2008 when Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama battled for the nomination. Attempts to recalibrate each national party’s internal political compass before 2016 will likely prove more vexing for Republicans, but recent activity among major Democratic figures signals a far more aggressive push for realignment than previously thought. A high-profile campaign 10 years ago and recent developments among education policy-leaders may foreshadow a dramatic shift in the Party’s forthcoming platform.
Howard Dean’s rapid ascension among Democratic presidential contenders in 2004 was fueled in part by an strong anti-war stance, a unabashed liberal ideology during the neo-conservative Bush-Cheney years, and a pre-Facebook internet strategy that was groundbreaking for its fundraising and community-building activities. Dean famously lost in Iowa and New Hampshire as voters chose John Kerry, who was presumed to be a better general election candidate. While Dean’s loss was not wholly unwelcomed by certain corners of the Democratic Party, his most ardent supporters were without a champion until early 2007, when President Obama kicked off his seemingly quixotic campaign for the White House.
Obama, to some, appeared to fulfill the promise of Dean — with extraordinary fundraising talent, populist rhetoric and hopefulness that the country previewed three years earlier during a memorable speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. But in order for Obama to be competitive and overcome his electoral challenges, he needed to prove his viability, and a small pool of very wealthy liberals and conservatives joined a small group of young professionals to provide the Senator his opportunity.
Many of those early donors were also advocates for school choice and laid the foundation for much of the Obama Administration’s education policies, including Race to the Top, high-stakes teacher evaluations and rapid expansion of charter schools. But despite the growing nationalization of education policy, much of the activism was mostly at the state and city level — notably in New York, Chicago, New Orleans and Washington D.C.
That is why events of the last few weeks have been so startling. The American Federation of Teachers has been a strong supporter of Democrats. By one measure, they ranked 7th contributions in the 2012 cycle with over $19 million — almost all of it supporting Democrats. But just last week during their annual conference, AFT President Randi Weingarten signaled that she would take a hard look at the impact of Common Core on her membership, calling into question the implementation of this controversial policy under the Obama Administration saying that “the Secretary of Education [Arne Duncan] doesn’t walk in the shoes of public educators”. One week earlier, the National Education Association (NEA) formally called for Duncan’s resignation.
Amazingly, other top Democrats, including DNC Vice Chair Donna Brazile, former Governors Jennifer Granholm (Michigan) and Ted Strickland (Ohio) announced an effort to temper or perhaps directly counter the efforts of school choice advocates. Democrats for Public Education – as opposed to the charter-backed Democrats for Education Reform – seeks to fight “market-driven” reforms, which Brazile says make her “ashamed of some of the Democrats of her own party.” The legitimacy of school choice concerns notwithstanding, the rebuke of Obama education policy may add another layer of friction among education stakeholders including millions of parents who are largely Black and Latino and often poor.
These recent actions should not be observed in a vacuum. Perhaps DC Mayor Adrian Fenty’s loss in 2010 was, in part, a repudiation of school choice and a return to more fundamental notions of public education. The recent mayoral victories of Bill de Blasio in New York City and Ras Baraka in Newark could arguably punctuate a rejection of centrist attitudes and may be an overture to the high-profile Mayor’s race in Chicago involving Rahm Emannauel and Chicago Teachers Union President, Karen Lewis.
Then there is the often-discussed hypothetical candidacy of Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). Last year at the Netroots Nation conference, progressive activists groused about the President’s policy on broad surveillance techniques that the Administration was slow to renounce. This year, Senator Warren was a featured speaker at Netroots Nation, focusing on familiar topics that have been resonating with voters on both sides of the aisle: income inequality, the need for a strong middle class, tougher financial regulations and affordable college education. Supporters have been effusive in discussing her policies and many are assembling resources and talent to consider a likely campaign infrastructure. Perhaps weaving across the country from red state to blue state in support of Democratic candidates is both a function of party loyalty as well as future ground-game preparation.
If all this activity is a prelude to larger movement to modernize the Democratic Party, then it is hard to ignore the feeling that Democrats are disappointed that Obama’s presidency did not live up to the progressive expectations. Perhaps fearful of Republican reprisals, these sentiments are often relegated to the likes of Cornel West and Tavis Smiley, who routinely call the President to task on his policy choices — though even in these midterm elections, vulnerable Democrats have demurred in their support of the Affordable Care Act.
Whether the concerns around his leadership are the result of the President’s own ideological shift, our initial misinterpretation of his candidacy, the impact of racial animus, a stalled Congress or the constraints of institutions, any movement to motivate the base and reclaim disaffected Democrats will have to reject typical and often patronizing tableaus of inclusivity toward practical solutions to a constituency experiencing staggering growth in racial, ethnic and class diversity.
The egalitarian principals espoused in progressive politics, borrowed from civil rights movements, are meant to promote inclusivity; therefore, modernization and growth are not uncommon for political parties that seek to realign with changing populations. But they must still achieve it by using old standard – making Americans better off now than they were before. It is true that Presidential campaigns are often symbolic, inspirational and aspirational, but Democrats must also aim to be practical.
Basil Smikle Jr. is a professor in the Murphy Institute Public Administration and Public Policy program. <<Read more>>
