Most of the post-election discussion I’ve seen has focused on the impact of religion, and quite a few commentators have suggested that the Democrats need to shift their policies to appeal more to religiously-motivated voters. This approach would entail some fairly substantial compromises in the search for marginal votes.
If we’re the mood for pragmatic populism, there’s a policy option that might well have delivered the Democrats the election, without the risk of fracturing the Democratic base as an appeal to the religious right would have done. That option is protectionism, of the kind espoused during the campaign by Gephardt[1]. Gephardt had his electoral problems, but I think he could have carried Ohio and his home state of Missouri, as well as having a good chance in West Virginia and even Indiana. He might have lost some coastal states but overall he would have had a better chance of a majority in both the popular vote and the electoral college.
I don’t think protectionist policies are beneficial or even particularly effective, but I don’t share the quasi-religious abhorrence of tariffs and other trade restrictions many economists have had drilled into them from their earliest youth. In the current environment, the big threat to the world economy isn’t the possibility of a trade war, but the danger that the imbalances created by the US trade and budget deficits will bring the whole system crashing down[2]. Unlike Kerry, Gephardt favored the complete repeal of the Bush tax cuts, the crucial first step towards a resolution of the imbalances. This position would have been bitterly attacked by the Republicans, but those attacks would have shifted the ground to the economy, the issue where Bush was weakest.
There are good arguments against going in this direction. It would certainly have cost the Democrats a lot of support among the policy elite, who backed Kerry almost uniformly, for what that was worth. But this is a good time to take a clear-eyed look at all the options, rather than focusing exclusively on the first one that catches our attention. If it’s necessary to compromise in order to win, religiously-motivated voters aren’t the only fish in the sea.
fn1. Kerry tilted in this direction, but not enough to have much of an impact, favorable or otherwise.
fn2. Even in the Great Depression, the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930 was only a secondary factor, at most. Competitive devaluations in other countries had much the same effect. The central cause was the failure of the financial system.
John Quiggin 
As a *policy option*, what you suggest is interesting. Protectionism didn’t carry the day in South Carolina Senate race, but I agree that it has the potential to make the Democrats more regionally competitive. Kerry and Edwards were not very far from Gephardt in rhetoric, but I can see how Gephardt might have had an advantage on substance.
On the other hand, *this* messenger was fatally flawed. While past performance is no guarantee of future results, Gephardt was obliterated by Kerry and Edwards in Iowa (including a collapse in his union support). Worse, Gephardt had a pro-life voting record (30% rating by NARAL). You can see how that might increase his regional appeal, but I see that as coming at an unacceptable cost: with abortion off the table, I think Arnold and Bush can put California in play – and that would be the ball game. Kerry only won California by 11 points and I think Arnold demonstrates Republicans can be competitive there once social issue are off the table.
JQ suggesting something that makes no economic sense in the hope of widespread popularity – nothing new on this website.
i dunno, bush tried this with his steel tariff, but he had to back down [against pressure from tricksy foreigners, no less], and i think the whole episode was something of a debacle for him.
in re “quasi-religious abhorrence of tariffs”, steve landsburg’s election endorsement was pretty priceless. apparently there’s “not a dime’s worth of moral difference” between racism and protectionism. and yet, given bush’s actual protectionism in the case of steel tariffs, it’s john edwards who is the “xenophobe”, for making kinda vague references to doing something about outsourcing.
Counter-factuals are always difficult but I think Gephardt would have run a worse race than Kerry. For a start, he is too closely tied to the policies of the House Republicans – normally seen (at least at the leadership level) – as more liberal than the Demo Senators. Gephardt has also never campaigned well at national level – in his various presidential runs or trying to counter Gingrich as Majority Leader. Edwards also made enough protectionist noises (and Kerry dropped some big hints) to make the comparison invalid.
Populism, as the name suggests, is popular and thats what wins elections. I think that economic populism is, and should be, the way that the DEMs try to counter the REPs cultural and political populism.
Gephardt is an ex-Air Force officer and has working class background and has supported measures to improve the lot of the working poor – a DEM base that is not that well moblilised since the decline of unions. His military background means that he could probably have played to the political populists with a bit of flag-waving.
Firmly, but fairly, enforcing existing immigration laws would be the single most popular policy amongst working class Americans of all races. It certainly did Howard no harm and he has gotten a big slice of the blue-collar vote.
I don’t know if Protecionism would do the trick for a Southern populist. Bush would have no hesitation in about supporting protectionist measures if he thought it could win him Red State votes.
The Political Left does not have to become religious fanatics to engage in some cultural populism. Although some ostentatious religious observances would not do any harm.
But the Political Left needs to lose its cosy affiliations with the latte set. The party of the workers loses ten thousand votes every time one of these po-mo deconstructing, pee-cee invigilating, multi-culturating, identity-politicking Cultural Elites dribbles onto the screen. Remember Tasmania.
To reinforce the populist position: I think that the electoral evidence shows that post-911 America has shifted to the Right on both political and cultural matters. By my rough and ready calculations the electorate is about four points to the Right of where it was under Clinton.
Americans are less likely to trust other nations, for obvious reasons, which is the motive behind their politically assertive nationalism. The ostentatious appearance of military uniforms on the platforms of both parties is significant.
And Americans probably are more prone towards cultural conservative integration. The seventies have scarred many families with divorce etc.
The shift to the Right on these issues cannot be defied by simply changing the personality of the party leader or opting for more populist economic policies. Although these would greatly help.
The DEMS should be seeking out retired Army officers (from one of the Gulf Wars) and lay preachers, preferably with gubertanorial or congressional careers in the South.
Jack Strocchi is spot on about the latte set.
A comment on an earlier post said that the Christian vote wouldn’t get much bigger. That is wishful thinking on their part. It is the left that is killing its unborn children. The Christian conservatives keep breeding and converting. They are not in decline.
To cheer you lefties up, here is why I think you shouldn’t write off Hillary Clinton.
1) Hatred is often over rated: She’s like Bush, some loud critics, but that doesn’t mean everyone hates her. Ridiculous hate campaigns might excite the faithful, but they turn away most. Michael Moore lost a lot of votes for the Democrats (hey, there’s a lot more money to be made with Bush in power)
2)She’s already well known: As former movie stars and pro wrestlers will attest, this is a good thing in an election.
3) People want warriors to lead them: Pure biological instinct. John Howard gets more popular the tougher he gets. Latham would have done better if he had been a gung ho supporter of Iraq. Kerry may have been a brave man in Vietnam, but he ruined his credentials with his post war sellouts. Hillary is a tough, ruthless bitch (that’s a compliment). Being a woman doesn’t help, but as the Iceni proved, sometimes it doesn’t matter.
4) They’re already preparing: Bill Clinton says that if he was president he may have had to invade Iraq. Didn’t Hillary even visit the troops there? The Clintons have looked into the future and know that Iraq will be looked on as a success. She will be able to quite credibly say she was in support of the war (see point 3).
5) She’s a Clinton.
BUT, she need to move towards the Christian conservatives on social issues. Unless she becomes more openly religious herself, she will need a very religious VP.
Giuliani would be a big bogy opponent for her though.
As Steve Sailer pointed out – imagine where Bush would be if he hadn’t invaded Iraq, hadn’t blown the budget, and hadn’t proposed his effective amnesty plan for illegal immigrants. He’d have taken Kerry to the cleaners, who, as a Democrat, is necessarily hopeless on immigration.
John,
A more prosaic explanation might be that your views, and your cohorts, are actually a minority ones.
If so, then that would adequateley explain the US election result yesterday.
But only in the USA and here in OZ, and wherever, are you not demonised for holding them. Elsewhere you should fear for your life.
you’re right louis, a social democrat would obviously be thrown to the wolves in europe.
the Political Left needs to lose its cosy affiliations with the latte set. The party of the workers loses ten thousand votes every time one of these po-mo deconstructing, pee-cee invigilating, multi-culturating, identity-politicking Cultural Elites dribbles onto the screen.
This is overstated even if the core truth that the left cannot afford to be seen as being captured by the socially progressive is correct.
Jack, whose bete noire is anglos who prefer their cinema french – a bit like Tim Blair – mistakes his personal distaste for popular disgust. The exposure of the lattes is tiny in mainstream media. Under Keating the ALP did gain a tinge of cultural elitism – but since Latham’s rise there has not been a mention of reconciliation, refugees or gay rights. Yes, there were the trees, but that policy was so badly presented that it is impossible to judge its likely true effect on the vote if it had been eptly done.
The Aust election was decided on fear of interest rates and widespread obeisance to the myth that we are at war with gloabl terrorists for which a strong and reolute hand is required. Latham had not the time nor his history on side in that debate.
To cheer you lefties up, here is why I think you shouldn’t write off Hillary Clinton.
I smell a vast right-wing conspiracy here. I noticed earlier in the campaign that the abortive ‘Draft Hillary’ movement consisted almost entirely of right-wing pundits like William Safire.
I am sure that the RNC, along with Rush, Bill, Sean, Annie C and the rest of the gang will be lighting candles every night as they fervently pray that the Democrats will nominate Hillary in 2008.
Cannot agree with you on this one John. Winning a vote on the basis of trade restrictions is a recipe for disaster. Leaving aside the poor economics behind this, it would send a powerful and negative global anti-trade signal.
Why this view that Hilary not religious? She is a very committed Methodist and her religion shows in her books.
Its interesting Hilary is so disliked and so made fun of on the comedy shows. She’s highly intelligent with good political judgement, a good speaker and an idealist to boot. Why is she disliked?
The best reason for disliking Hilary is the same one for Bush, Simon Crean, et al. FAMILY DYNASTIES. Absolutely no place for these in a democracy.
I love it after these elections when the left does badly and the right turn up and offer bad advice just to rub it in. Any time someone suggests hilary clinton as a good candidate for 2008 you just know they’re foaming at the mouth and turning into werewolves as they type.
It’s academic why Hillary is disliked – she’s disliked. So she won’t get put up.
But for reasons why she’s disliked – ambitious female, surname, progressive, intense, idealistic.
tim g, I’ve always wanted to be part of some sort of conspiracy 🙂
But really, my comments were genuine. Some people have that X factor, and she is one of them (and no, I don’t have a “thing” for her).
I would prefer her to be a bit (a lot) more conservative on some issues, but I think she would do a good job.
I’m not sure if liking both George Bush and Hillary Clinton as presidents gets you committed, but I will wait for the white van if that’s the case.
Johng, is she against abortion? How about gay marriage? These are important issues to Christian consrvatives.
As, I noted, I think the dislike of her is somewhat exaggerated.
Doucouliagos makes a good point though. (please explain Simon Crean) Perhaps it is in our nature to like “royal” dynasties.
My typing is slowing as my paws slow me down, and the fur is getting in my eyes 😉
I don’t know if she is the best candidate, but like I said, I don’t write her off. (How electable was John Howard at various points of his career)
As for offering the left advice, I’ve been looking for a reasonable left blog to read (not the “Bushitler” crap), and this looked like one. I’m pretty sure I won’t be having a big influence on the Democrats next candidate for the USA, especially as I don’t live in the country.
I’m very conservative, but it gets a bit incestuous to read only the opinions of people with similar thoughts to yourself all the time.
It is even harder to use the “shift to the Right” meme in the US than here. A huge number of Christian conservatives (Ssomething like six million?) made it to the polling booth who don’t normally vote, but they have always been there. The opinions could be absolutely static.
I use the “shift to the Right” meme as an example of a manifest, rather than latent, function. It may well have always been there but so long as the sleeping dog lay it was of no political consequence.
the reason why so many ‘christians ‘ registered to vote was becasue of the same sex marraige issue.
Abortion has been an issue for ages however SSM only came on the radar screen late last year andthis year.
I doubt if it will be a big issue next election so
I wouldn’t be surprised to see quite a few not vote whereas the other WILL want to vote to change the Whitehouse.
If there was any doubt that non-economic issues were important to winning elections, the Republicans proved it in Ohio where, despite increasing unemployment, the Democrats couldn’t make inroads. Similarly, they made no impression in Southern and rural states, where Americans tend to be more traditional in their beliefs (and where Evangelical Christians are numerous). It’s also worth pointing out the increased vote the Republicans received from Latinos, probably attributable to the fact that they too tend to be quite religious (Catholic), and feel strongly about family values. It is high-time the Democrats (and the ALP in Australia) reconcile themselves with the way people feel about these things, and forget the votes of a few yuppies, while at the same time hammering away about bread and butter issues that actually affect these people on a day-to-day basis like jobs. No Democrat will win elections without making gains in these voters.
The Democrats need a Harry Truman or Lyndon Johnson-type candidate. Someone who is popular enough to win in the South and Midwest, with a likeable, down-to-earth personality. Of the Democrats who contested this year, Edwards and Gephardt come closest.
I agree that the Democrats need a candidate who is popular in the South and Midwest (although Kerry won nearly all the mid west) but all this talk about how the Democrats need to move to the right is very shallow.
They have been getting this advice, and acting on it, since George McGovern lost to Richard Nixon in a landslide in 1972. John Kerry’s policy positions were not only well to the right of McGovern, they were well to the right of Nixon (or John Howard, for that matter), and still he lost. The probem is, when the Democrats move right, the Republicans move even further right, and always look more conservative than the Democrats. There doesn’t seem to be any limit to how far right the Republicans can go. On most issues, George W. Bush is far more right wing than Barry Goldwater was a generation ago, and Goldwater was a laughing stock even amongst Republicans.
The Democrats will always be to the left of the Republicans. They should stop worrying about that, and start worrying about how to connect with ordinary people in places like Atlanta and Houston.
I think is a bit simplistic to say Christian=conservative. Yes, the Christian conservatives have had the money and the power to mobilise, but there are plenty of left Christians around.
In Australia we have Catholics that are interested in social justice (even ‘elite’ issues like reconciliation).
And of course we can’t forget the other Costello
Re protectionism, my fave quote from one of the old Mel Brooks movies is apposite:
‘Hey Torquemada, whaddya say?
I just got back from the auto da fe!
Auto da fe? What’s an auto da fe?
It’s what ya oughtn’t to do, but ya do anyway!’
Free trade ideals will always get lip service, but it’s only earnest little countries like us who are so devout that they ignore the reality that protectionism will in some cases have an irresistable political appeal. Especially in countries with massive trade deficits where the growing unemployed are set to be sent off to Workhouse Inc.
Thanks Guido – I was feeling very alone as a do-gooding, latte-set christian myself (and a refugee advocate to boot!). Even the Pope opposed the invasion of Iraq.
But I gather the Bible-belt Christians are socially conservative, believin’ in the factuality of Genesis an’ awl, hence their views on gay marriage (OK so the Pope opposes that one too), abortion (er…) and contraception (oh gosh, painted myself into a corner here…). I think I’ll just lie low for a few years…..whatever happened to Liberation Theologists?
I’m pro-choice, but its not a really big issue with me (perhaps because I’m male!). The sooner Roe vs Wade gets overturned, the better for the Dems. And Clinton was quite right to tell Kerry privately during the campaign that he should have loudly supported the anti-gay marriage propositions. The line in both cases should be “these are matters for legislatures, not courts, to decide”. Running this line consistently will give some protection against a future Dem admin being blocked by reactionary courts.
The point is that there really are a lot of potential left christians out who in the past voted Dem but have been alienated by what ought to be 2nd order issues (compared with questions of war, prosperity and social justice). Dems don’t have to pitch for the true Southern rednecks – just get those ‘decent’ church people to vote all their values.
Just found out Michael Moore is going to support Hillary Clinton. She’s stuffed.
Unless she says Michael Moore is an idiot and should not be feted by Democrats. If she does that, some Republicans would vote for her.
The Caucasian vote, about 77% of the voting population, swung 54% (2000) to 58% (2004) to the REPs. Thats a 7% increase, out of the total white vote of about 88m., in the REP share of the Caucasian vote = 6 m extra votes. That alone is more than enough to give Bush victory.
OTOTH hand, the Hispanic vote, about 8% of the total voting population, swung to from 35% (2000) to 44% (2004) to the REPs. Thats a 25% increase, out of the total 9m Hispanic voters, in the REP share of the Hispanic vote = 2 m. extra votes.
The question is – what are the more conservative ideological valuations of the ethnic groups a proxy for? Probably some combination of Ethnic Nationalism (War on Terror) and Religious Moralism (Culture War). ie good ‘ole boys and bible bashers.
The Culture-Warring Bible-Bashing (regular church going folk are about 40% of the voting public ie 46 m. voters. In 2004 they voted 60% in favour of Bush ie thats 26 m voters.
Exit Poll data show that observant Christians, some 20% of the electorate, nominated “moral values” as their primary vote determinant. Pretty clearly, procreation ethics, ie stem cells, gays, abortion, were a huge factor in mobilising and directing the votes of these people. Presumably they are more fanatical sub-set of the regular church goers. About 80% of this group voted in favour or Bush – bout 18 m votes
The big mystery is the aggregate size and partisan alignment of the 2000 Christian Evangelics/Catholics turn-out. We need this to make an apples to apples comparison with 2004.
The conventional wisdom is that about 4 m. Evangelics stayed away in their droves in 2000 on account of poor mobilisation and their disgust with Bush’s drunkeness.
Bush claims that Rove got them back at the polling booths on 2004 election day. Perhaps that accounts for the extra 4% of the Caucasian vote that Bush got this year.
If thats true, then the partisan votes of these missing Evangelics were enough to get Bush comfortably up to the line. The fact that Bush turned around so many, normally Democrat leaning, cultural conservative Hispanic voters probably did the rest.
We need a new version of Godwin’s law that automatically terminates comments/discussion threads when the term “latte set” is used.
I heartily concur. I’m an urban leftie-type and I don’t even drink coffee. Time for a new stereotype, please.
Gephardt has never run a state-wide race in Missouri nor is he a popular state-wide figure. He could/would not carry Missouri. Furthermore, many Dean supporters would never vote for him. Finally, the deal that Gephardt cut with Bush to support the Iraq war undercut the better Lugar version in the Senate, which helped Bush clobber the Democrats in the 2002 elections. As one observer noted, Gephardt is not just an opportunist, he is an incompetent opportunist.