« More Details on the 2005 Democratic Summit | Main | BREAKING - Rutt Bridges Out of Governor's Race »
August 11, 2005
The Future of Democrats in the West
Colorado Luis has brought up a great point today about the geo-political issues of a possible run for President by Vice-President Dick Cheney. (By the way, props to Colorado Luis - while he doesn't post as much as some other bloggers [who am I to complain?], his posts are always insightful and very interesting to read.)
This brings me to a subject I've been meaning to post about for a while now: the future of the Democratic Party in the West.
1. The Problem.
In the West -- and by the West, I'm focusing primarily on the interior West -- we've often had problems as a Party helping the average Westerner identify with the Democratic Party. Too often, we're successful as Democrats out here in spite of what is going on nationally, not because of it.
One of our biggest problems, from my perspective, has been that our Party's national face has never -- and I mean never -- had a Western face.
I mentioned this to Howard Dean when he was in Denver a few weeks ago, and I think I really surprised him with this news. He thought for a couple of seconds, because I think he wanted to disagree with me, but simply could not come up with an example to disprove my thesis. Why? Because it doesn't exist.
I've gone back in the records to look at every Presidential election since 1892. I looked at the "home state" of every Democratic and Republican candidate for President and Vice President. Here are the results.
For the Democrats, we've been dismal in our representation of the West. Of the 58 nominees for President or Vice President for our Party, only 16 have come from states entirely west of the Mississippi River. Only 16.
It gets worse.
Of those 16, NONE have ever come from the states the DNC now considers to be the Western quarter of this nation. None.
The furthest west we've ever gotten? Well, William Jennings Bryan was from Nebraska. Then, John Nance Garner, FDR's Vice President for a couple of terms, came from Texas, as did President Lyndon Johnson and Senator Lloyd Bentsen (1988). Finally, George McGovern was, of course, a South Dakotan. But that's it. Not even a Californian in the bunch.
I said earlier that it gets worse. It gets worse still.
The Republican Party has been nominating Westerners all along. 25 of their nominees have been from entirely West of the Mississippi River. Further, all 25 of those folks have been nominated since 1928. But "real" westerners have been a big chunk of these, too. 14 nominees have come from the Western Region -- 14 of their nominees have come from further West than any one of our nominees.
So why do Westerners have difficulty relating to our national Democratic Party? Maybe because all they see -- with all due respect to our nominees -- is folks from Massachusetts, Connecticut, Tennessee, and North Carolina leading our ticket. I'm not saying that our problem is solved once we nominate a candidate from the interior West, but I do think that will help a great deal.
2. The Solution.
Until I was elected as the First Vice Chair, kinda' unexpectedly, I had never really spent a whole lot of time focusing on the DNC and our national strategy. My focus was more locally-based. I certainly want to continue to focus on those things, but my position also puts me on the DNC and makes me a member of the ASDC, so it requires that I spend a little more time focusing on the national strategy, as well.
This is a long-term problem, and it will require a long-term solution. Over the next few years, I think the following three things need to be the focus of Democrats in the West:
a. Support the Concept of a Western Regional Primary.
As Colorado Luis rightly points out, as long as the folks in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina are culling the field for us, Western issues will get short shrift. We need to agressively press for a regional primary here in the West, to be held very early in the process. Not only will Western candidates (from both parties) benefit, but issues important to the West, including land use, the environment, and individual rights issues, become a lot more important to Presidential candidates.
b. Bring the National Convention to the Interior West.
We need the national spotlight on the Democratic Party with a Western backdrop. Of course, I would love to see that backdrop be the skyline of Denver and the Rockies, but I'd be happy with the convention in Phoenix or another city in the interior West with the capacity for this event. What is frustrating to me is that there is some sort of inferiority complex when it comes to Denver as a convention site. We have too many pessimists saying "it can't happen." If we work hard enough, of course it can happen. If we can host the Pope, the G-8 summit, and the All-Star games for the NBA, MLB, and the NHL, of course we can host the Democratic National Convention!
c. Demand a Western Vice Presidential nominee.
Even if we end up nominating somebody from out East as our Presidential nominee, we MUST demand that we be given the appropriate consideration as a geographical region. There are plenty of incredibly competent stars within our Party in the west -- including several governors and U.S. Senators -- who would make extraordinary Vice Presidential nominees.
In the end, we in the West have got to demand that our Party take action to include our region -- talk is cheap. It is one thing to talk about how important the West will be in the future years. It is quite another thing to make the investments -- in time, in money, and in political capital -- to guarantee the West's importance to this Party for the next generation and beyond.
Posted by dslater at August 11, 2005 09:21 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://WWW.demnotes.COM/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/172
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Future of Democrats in the West:
» Hidden Democrats of the Interior West from They Get Letters
Democrats need to become more involved in the interior, and understand the priorities that westerners have: "land use, the environment, and individual rights issues..." The evidence for that is pretty graphic. If you look at population density on th... [Read More]
Tracked on August 12, 2005 02:19 AM
» Walken for President? from Coyote Gulch
DemNotes: "The future of Democrats in the West." Christopher Walken: "Our great country is in a terrible downward spiral. [Read More]
Tracked on August 14, 2005 02:36 PM
» The History of Democrats and the West from Colorado Luis
Dan Slater picked up on a post of mine from week before last and followed it up with some points that I think should be required reading for everyone who cares about the Democratic Party in the West. I'm going [Read More]
Tracked on August 21, 2005 01:02 PM
» A roadmap of sorts. from the hypothetical wren
Dan Slater, the vice chair of the Colorado Democratic Party, has an interesting blog post about the future of the Democrats in the West (found via this Colorado Luispost). It's a list of suggestions as to how Democrats can improve [Read More]
Tracked on August 21, 2005 02:13 PM
» Winning the West from Freedom Democrats
Western Democrat has a simple list of three suggestion from Dan Slater, Colorado Democratic Party First Vice Chair, on how the DNC can start winning the West.
a. Support the Concept of a Western Regional Primary.
As Colorado Luis rightly points out, a [Read More]
Tracked on August 22, 2005 12:51 PM
Comments
I think Westerners don't like Democrats, because Democrats are the party of the Federal Gov't, of using the BLM, and other federal agencies to tell Westerners what they can and can't do with their land.
I think that's what it boils down to, in a lot of ways. Take Nevada, where some 90% of all the land in the state is controlled by the BLM. Mr. Westerner is told he can't do something with the land because some "liberal" out east doesn't want him too (even though, those in the East already destroyed most of their environment long before people cared about it).
Posted by: pacified at August 11, 2005 10:03 AM
I don't think it's that the Democrats are the party of the Federal Government any more than the Republicans are a party of the Federal Government. It's more a perception, and also of what each party wants to use the FG for. Repubs use the FG just as much as Dems, but for somewhat different purposes. Since land use is a big issue in the West, that's a strike against Dems in the West.
I agree that the Democratic Party needs to be drawn out of its coastal dominance. I'm originally from the very urban west coast myself, and I know how little thought is given to the interior west. People who dwell in urban areas do not understand the needs of those who live in rural areas, and vice versa, and those needs are very different because of the disparities in population density and land use.
Posted by: Julie O. at August 11, 2005 11:36 PM