AS THE Democratic Party continues its attempt to recover from its devastating defeat in the November elections, the party now faces an election of its own. In February, Terry McAuliffe will step aside as Democratic National Committee chair and will be replaced by one of seven men running for the position.
In 2001, when McAuliffe was first elected, he was handed a party whose presidential candidate had just received more votes than any candidate in American history, and a party that wasn't the minority in the Senate for the first time since 1994. Since then, the Democrats have lost seven seats in the House and six seats in the Senate. In November, they gave up the first popular majority to go to a presidential candidate since 1988.
Despite all of these failures, many in the Democratic leadership have consistently praised McAuliffe for his accomplishments as party chair. Some senior Democrats even tried to get McAuliffe to run for re-election. This is a sign of just how out-of-touch the Democratic elites have become with reality, and why the party must choose someone unconventional and outside of the elites of the party as the next chair.
The next chair of the Democratic Party has a monumental task before him or her. It will be up to the next chair to develop a party platform that is stronger on defense and more flexible on values. It will be up to the chair to help find candidates that can appeal to a wide array of voters and to make the Democratic Party competitive in all parts of the country once again, including the South and Midwest. Of course, the chairman must do all of this while still maintaining the core of the party's financial support, which comes from a strong liberal base.
Unfortunately, of those running for the position of party chair, most have so far proven to be just more of the same. The highest profile candidate, for example, is former Vermont Gov. and presidential candidate Howard Dean. Dean, who seems right now to be the likely choice of the party, is a northeastern liberal who would serve to simply alienate yet more of the voting population if he were to be elected.
In fact, out of all of the candidates, only one truly has the chance to make the Democrats competitive in the South and Midwest again and to once again make the Democrats a party that people of all faiths and backgrounds can turn to. Unfortunately, this candidate is also the one least likely to win. This candidate is former Indiana Rep. Tim Roemer.
Roemer made headlines when he announced his candidacy for the chairmanship because of his open opposition to abortion. The pro-choice lobby, led by groups such as the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (better known as NARAL) and Emily's List, immediately began working to stop Roemer's chances to be elected. Because the pro-choice lobby holds such a powerful position within the Democratic Party (for example, one of the featured links on the main page of the DNC Web page is an op-ed by the founder of NARAL), it is likely they will be able to derail Roemer's chairmanship bid.
This is really a shame for the Democrats. Roemer is a pro-life Christian with strong faith and a strong belief in moral values. At the same time, he is also a reliable supporter of the programs so important to Democrats, like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other important social programs. Electing a chair such as Roemer would send a clear message to Americans across the country that the party shares, or at least welcomes, their values while also fighting for their interests (something the Republicans can never claim).
Electing Roemer as party chair will not change the Democrats from being the party that is pro-choice, that supports equality for homosexuals and all of the other stances many of us believe to be so crucial to the party. Roemer himself has said he has no intention to try to change the party's platform on these issues. Rather, Roemer would help expand the party's appeal by making the party a more welcoming place for those who disagree with its stances on value issues. Roemer would create a party openly and proudly divided on moral issues, but one which would have good debate about these issues, which would at times even produce candidates who took non-party mainstream stances on these issues. At the same time, Roemer would create a much larger party, with a much larger base of support, and one that could be permanently united in its fight for the common man, for the people against the powerful, for every man, woman and child in America.
Sam Leven's column appears Tuesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at sleven@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PARTING SHOT: On fighting imposter syndrome and being cool
By Mary Kurbanov | 6 hours agoUltimately, though, I now know that success in a role is possible if deep-seated passion is the main source of motivation.
PARTING SHOT: Escaping the Doldrums
By Camila Cohen Suárez | 6 hours agoIf you ever find yourself stuck in the Doldrums, know that you are not alone. Look to your surroundings for escape. You will know the way out.
ELJAZZAR: Celebrate U.Va.’s expansion into Northern Virginia
By Farah Eljazzar | 18 hours agoThe Northern Virginia campus is indicative of a larger initiative and a larger imperative to expand into other underserved areas.
