Howard Dean and Joseph Lieberman are two of the most polarizing figures in the Democratic Party. One is more concerned with pushing his own convictions and ambitions than with respecting the Democratic mainstream. The other criticizes his own part repeatedly and even ran against it to protect his "centrist" agenda. But though party elites might never admit this, the recent election should send them an almost contradictory message: both Dean and Lieberman were right.
Lieberman, a key figure in the moderate Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), has believed for years that centrism is the best way to ensure Democrats electoral success.
While most of the Democratic Party remained convinced that continued losses were the result of a failure to communicate their message, Lieberman and the DLC argued that losses occurred because the party was too far to the left. President Clinton's electoral success, they argue, was the result of his ability to appeal to independent and Republican voters on economic (welfare reform, NAFTA, balanced budget) and social (Defense of Marriage Act) issues.
The most recent elections confirm this, as most of the newly elected Democrats are of moderate breed. In more socially conservative districts, many of the newest Democrats are pro-life and pro-gun. In wealthier areas, fiscal conservatives have ascended to office.
Growing the size of their ideological tent has clearly assisted the Democrats in re-gaining the majority. But, while Senator Lieberman may have been correct with regards to the winning political philosophy, it was Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean who developed the proper strategy. Over a year ago, the already unpopular chairman proposed that the Democrats engage in a "50 state strategy."
Many Democrats found this move naïve. They told him that pursuing safe seats in Republican states was a waste of resources, and an irresponsible use of the chairmanship. "Dean has actually been horrible as DNC Chair," Party strategist Paul Begala said. "His 50 state strategy is foolhardy and unrealistic."
In retrospect, the Democrats owe Dean an apology. Not only did very few elections (if any) suffer as a result of diverted resources, but also the 50 state strategy is responsible for the Democratic majority in the Senate, as well as the extent of the majority in the house.
In fact, Dean has proven his compatriots wrong before. In 2004, they attacked his suggestion that Iraq was safer with Saddam in power, yet today this seems to be a popular notion among Democrats (as well as some Republicans).
Whether or not party elite will admit they were wrong, they cannot deny the role played by a moderate message and broad geographical strategy in the midterm result.
The Dean and Lieberman methods will also be pivotal in 2007 and 2008. The Dean strategy, presumably, would involve hearings designed to embarrass the Bush administration and provide the democrats leverage for their legislative agenda. By delegitimizing the administration and Republican congress, Democrats can taint the GOP and make their candidates untenable in 2008.
The Lieberman strategy, on the other hand, would be based on legislation over accusation. Hearings might still occur, but they would be aimed at finding the truth and pressing positive reforms, instead of embarrassing the President on national television.
Under this strategy, Democrats would find areas where they can legislate their agenda and force the President to sign it into law. On immigration, for example, the Democrats have a position which is virtually identical to the President. Bush would also sign a renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban and a raise in the minimum wage. Middle ground can also be found on the budget deficit, prescription drug plan and entitlement reform.
By being moderate, in temperament, and pragmatic, in philosophy, the Democrats can take the moral high ground and demonstrate that the Democratic party can lead America, even without the White House.
Having been critical of both Dean and Lieberman, the Democratic party will now have to choose between one of their two strategies. I don't know which one will work better and neither do they.
So far, Dean has been right twice and Lieberman once. For the sake of this divided nation, I hope Lieberman can make it a tie.
--Marc Goldwein is a senior political science and economics major from Merion, Pa.
