Nagourney Suggests a New Strategy for the Dems. It's the same as the old strategy: Don't win.

May 14, 2006
The Nation
Hey Democrats, Why Win?
By ADAM NAGOURNEY

WASHINGTON

DEMOCRATS are all but breaking out the Champagne. Republicans are divided and disheartened; President Bush's poll numbers seem to be in free fall. Many Democrats are talking not only about victory in November but about what they will do once Congress is in their hands.

Such talk may well be premature. Election Day is six months away, and the party has lost many a winning hand. But here is a slightly heretical question, being asked only partly in jest right now: Is it really in the best interest of the Democratic Party to win control of the House and Senate in November? Might the party's long-term fortunes actually be helped by falling short?

As strange as it might seem, there are moments when losing is winning in politics. Even as Democrats are doing everything they can to win, and believe that victory is critical for future battles over real issues, some of the party's leading figures are also speculating that November could represent one of those moments.

From this perspective, it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world politically to watch the Republicans struggle through the last two years of the Bush presidency. There's the prospect of continued conflict in Iraq, high gas prices, corruption investigations, Republican infighting and a gridlocked Congress. Democrats would have a better chance of winning the presidency in 2008, by this reasoning, and for the future they enhance their stature at a time when Republicans are faltering.

Indeed, some Democrats worry that the worst-case scenario may be winning control of Congress by a slim margin, giving them responsibility without real authority. They might serve as a foil to Republicans and President Bush, who would be looking for someone to share the blame. Democrats need a net gain of 6 seats in the Senate, and 15 seats in the House. "The most politically advantageous thing for the Democrats is to pick up 11, 12 seats in the House and 3 or 4 seats in the Senate but let the Republicans continue to be responsible for government," said Tony Coelho, a former House Democratic whip. "We are heading into this period of tremendous deficit, plus all the scandals, plus all the programs that have been cut. This way, they get blamed for everything."

Mr. Coelho quickly added, "Obviously, from a party point of view we want to get in and do things, but I'm talking about the ideal political thing."

Of course, no Democrat is going so far as to say that he or she hopes the party fails, and party leaders are doing everything they can to avoid this outcome.

Some especially prominent leaders described such talk as wrong and counterproductive.

"I don't buy the argument that we'd be better off if we almost got there and didn't win a majority in either house," Bill Clinton, the former president, said in an interview. "I think when you suit up you've got to try to win, and I hope we will win because we will get better public policy and it'll be better for America."

What might happen if Democrats take over? Americans clearly prefer a bipartisan government — by 49 percent to 29 percent, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll released last week.

But the worry among some Democrats is that a thin majority breeds not compromise but inaction, and that could turn off voters just as much as single-party rule has. Republicans, on the other hand, would get a welcome reprieve, said Martin Frost, a former House member from Texas who has led the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

"They don't have to worry about passing anything," Mr. Frost said, "and it gives them freedom to be critics. There's a certain liberating aspect of being in the minority in the short term, but I don't recommend it in the long term."

Another worry is whether some Democrats would use their power in what could be perceived as payback against Republicans. Party leaders like Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader, have talked of investigations into allegations of malfeasance across all parts of the Bush administration.

Some Democrats argue that such investigations are long overdue in order to expose and correct a pattern of abuses by the administration. But others differ.

"Revenge — that's what we have to avoid," said Joe Andrews, a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, adding that it's dangerous to talk "about what are you going to do to the guys you beat, as opposed to what are you going to do for the people."

"If the first thing that happens is a series of investigations, or committee restructurings, it will clearly sour people on the party and make it more difficult to win in 2008," he said. "As a practical matter would Democrats be able to restrain themselves?"

Bob Kerrey, the former Democratic senator from Nebraska who is president of the New School, put it another way.

"It's going to be very difficult to lead, because the loudest voices in both parties will be those that feel the strongest about their certitude," he said. "That's going to be the left: Impeach him! Investigate him!"

The party would also be under increased pressure to come up with its own solutions to the problems afflicting the country: what to do in Iraq, how to deal with high gas prices and the budget deficit.

"I'm sure that the Bush people will try to put some conservative bills before them to make Democrats shoot them down," said Philip A. Klinkner, a professor of government at Hamilton College. President Bush would "start using his veto pen and cutting spending bills — he'd try to show Democrats are for raising taxes and spending."

The new Democratic leaders will also find themselves under new scrutiny. On "Meet the Press" last Sunday, Ms. Pelosi, who would become speaker if Democrats take back the House, came across as tentative and halting when questioned about her party's plans. Even though Ms. Pelosi enjoys notable support in her party, her performance was panned even by fellow Democrats. "I was screaming at the TV as if it were Bush being interviewed," wrote Stephen Kaus, a lawyer and contributor to huffingtonpost.com, a liberal blog.

Democrats these days look back to 1994, when Republicans took over Congress, as inspiration for why the party can take over today. Equally instructive might be the experience the Republican Party had after it took power for what turned out to be two tumultuous years marked by the House's shutdown of government.

The transition from being the critic out of power to being the leader proved difficult. That is a lesson that at least some Democrats are thinking about today, even as they put their Champagne on ice.