The Myth of the Resurgent Left | By DLC | January 1, 1998
The Democratic Party's left wing, largely dormant since Jesse Jackson's 1988 presidential primary campaign, seems to be stirring. Embittered by the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994 and leery of President Clinton's modernization of the party along New Democrat lines, the left believes it has found the political muscle, the issue, and perhaps the champion it needs to regain control of the party.
The muscle comes from organized labor, under new management and influenced by a coterie of 1960s vintage radicals who have risen to key posts. The issue is the global economy, caricatured as a blindly destructive force that threatens working Americans' security. The potential champion is House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, who despite his leadership post opposed Clinton's top priorities last year: balancing the federal budget and renewing presidential fast-track trade negotiating authority.
Labor's lurch to the left is the most significant shift in the correlation of party forces. Under the leadership of George Meany and Lane Kirkland during the Cold War, the AFL-CIO was a sturdy pillar of American internationalism. Under the new regime headed by President John Sweeney and Secretary-Treasurer Richard Trumka, labor has embraced a narrow nationalism that would deny America and other countries the benefits of expanded trade and investment on the demonstrably false theory that global competition is a zero-sum game.
While the new regime has failed to stem the decline in union membership, it has invested heavily in political lobbying. As business contributions to Democrats dried up in the wake of campaign finance scandals and the party's loss of Congress, unions filled the vacuum. Indeed, labor money accounted for nearly half of all the funds House Democrats raised from political action committees in 1996. This has left Democrats far more dependent on labor, which hasn't been shy about calling in its chits as it did last fall when it persuaded even many pro-trade House Democrats to deny the President enhanced trade negotiating authority.
If labor has moved left -- or, more precisely, if leftists have moved into powerful posts within the AFL-CIO hierarchy -- there are few signs of a liberal renaissance within the party or the country at large. On the contrary, as White House pollster Mark Penn points out, in terms of their political outlook and how they vote, most rank-and-file Democrats today are New Democrats. And as Fred Siegel notes in his account of last November's New York mayoral contest, liberalism no longer commands much enthusiasm, much less majority support, even in its traditional stronghold. With apologies to Frank Sinatra, if the left cannot make it there, can it make it anywhere?
Nonetheless, labor and its congressional allies believe their stances on trade and globalization (vs. those on welfare reform and the budget) have finally placed them on the winning side of a big political issue. Although the U.S. economy continues to turn in its strongest performance in a generation, they see only the bad news: rising economic insecurity and inequality. These problems are real, and they demand a public response. But as pollster Everett Carll Ladd reports, there is no groundswell of support for protectionism. The labor-left may win tactical victories by preying on Americans' insecurities, but economic pessimism is an exceedingly narrow foundation on which to build a new progressive majority.
As for Gephardt, he certainly is entitled to disagree with Clinton. We've never believed that presenting a facade of party unity is more important than a vigorous and candid internal debate about core principles and governing priorities. But the recent spectacle of a top legislative leader personally opposing and in some instances rallying other Democrats to oppose a Democratic president's key initiatives is without precedent in recent U.S. political history. After all, Gephardt is no mere backbencher, he is the House Minority Leader. As such, his chief responsibility is to promote party cohesion and discipline on the vital issues of the day.
To be fair, Gephardt has backpedaled furiously since his speech at Harvard late last year in which he publicly, if obliquely, chided Clinton for straying from "core Democratic values." The object of his speech, he says, was to set a new direction for Democrats. But it is Clinton's priorities, not Gephardt's, that have won broad public validation in two successive national elections. If Gephardt wants to lead a rebellion against the Clinton- Gore agenda, he should seek the party's nomination in 2000 rather than use his high post to sabotage a popular Democratic President.
The rising tension between the President and the New Democrats on the one side and the party's left on the other has two sources. The first is the Clinton-Gore team's effort to look beyond the conventional left-right debate for solutions to the new challenges of the Information Age. The second is the White House's willingness to work with the GOP's congressional leadership to get major legislation passed.
Thoughtful liberals acknowledge that New Democrat positions on crime, welfare, and family values have helped realign the party with the moral sentiments of middle-class Americans. Some also concede that the administration's efforts to reinvent government and restore fiscal discipline have erased our party's tax-and-spend image.
But as the national agenda turns to economic growth and entitlement reform, liberal elites say New Democrat reforms go too far. Sure, the economy is growing and unemployment has fallen to a 23-year low, they say, but income disparities remain, and job security is evaporating. Rather than praise Clinton for restoring public confidence in Democrats' ability to manage the economy, they fear his economic successes will undercut the case for a class-based populism that casts U.S. workers as victims of globalization. Yet despite today's palpable undercurrent of economic insecurity, most Democrats don't view themselves as victims and in fact are coping successfully with the new economy.
In a similar vein, New Democrats share Clinton's belief that Medicare and Social Security must be reformed to preserve the nation's commitment to health and retirement security. The left interprets such realism as a fatal concession to the Republicans that threatens to remove "protecting Medicare and Social Security" as perennial political trump cards. Yet the public, especially younger voters, overwhelmingly recognizes the need for structural reforms.
Finally, liberal elites charge New Democrats with blurring the sharp contrasts between Democrats and Republicans. Partisan posturing may well be the occupational hazard of legislators. But presidents are elected to solve the nation's problems, not to posture. Given the reality of divided government, the nation's progress depends on some modicum of political cooperation between the White House and congressional Republicans. Liberal elites need to understand that the party's hopes of recapturing Congress hinge on its ability to govern effectively, not on its ability to mire government in ideological gridlock.
President Clinton and the New Democrats have infused the Democratic Party with new ideas, fresh energy, and a realistic political strategy. Liberal fundamentalists feel control of the party slipping away, and they want to get it back. But for Democrats, there can be no turning back. The best way for President Clinton and Vice President Gore to consolidate their political gains and show they are not intimidated by the labor-left revolt is to continue their historic effort to update the Democratic agenda for the Information Age.
