Twenty years ago, in the first months of a new Republican president's term, Tip O'Neill, the Democratic speaker of the House, was attacked by Republicans and some Democrats for being out of sync with the times. He was criticized because he felt President Reagan's economic program was unfair to working people and the disadvantaged. He held the line, and demanded that the Democratic Party in the House take a stand even if it meant losing on vote after vote in the Congress.
Within a year, O'Neill's defense of Social Security, government programs for the poor, and tax relief for middle-income families had sealed his reputation and turned him into an American folk hero. Democrats made huge gains in the next election.
If he were alive today, Tip O'Neill probably would not recognize his party.
Last summer at the Democratic National Convention, the Massachusetts delegation met every day for breakfast to pick up that day's credentials. Each day, the breakfast was underwritten by a different sponsor. On the day that a big pharmaceutical company bought our breakfast, the guest speaker, a United States senator, attacked the Republicans for being in the pockets of the drug companies.
The convention itself had all the charm of a Fortune 500 trade show. While the delegates squirmed in their seats through tedious infomercial-style presentations, the real business of the convention went on up in the sky boxes where lobbyists and politicians schmoozed, oblivious to the proceedings below.
There is little shame in the Democratic Party these days when it comes to fund-raising. Last year Democratic candidates for the Senate received more in soft money contributions than Republicans. Soft money is the worst, but by no means the only, kind of special-interest money allowed by the law. The interests that donate these hundreds of millions of dollars have the greatest influence over both parties.
Soft money contributions create fewer credibility problems for Republicans because the GOP has always been seen as the pro-business party. For Democrats, these contributions are deadly, since they undermine what has historically been our greatest strength, an abiding concern for the economic interests of working people.
Today, the Democratic Party's addiction to soft money has crippled its ability to mount a credible challenge to our new Republican president's economic policies. In 1981, leaders like O'Neill could take on Reagan and credibly argue that Democratic alternatives were better for average people. Now, many people do not see much difference between two parties that seem to be in thrall to the same interests. The strong bipartisan support for the egregious bankruptcy legislation is just the most recent example of the influence of this money.
Even the infamous pardon of the eponymous Mr. Rich by President Clinton served to reinforce a public perception that Democrats are more interested in bestowing benefits on benefactors than in fighting for fairness. It was, after all, the Democratic Party's finance chair who guided that decision as she took the money for the party.
Democrats' failure to generate public support for alternatives to President Bush's tax and budget priorities should not surprise anyone. The Democratic Party, so patently beholden to big contributors, is in no position to argue that Bush's tax plan skews too much benefit to the rich and that his budget shortchanges working people's needs.
The feeble efforts of the Democratic leadership to counter Bush's plan is just a recognition by them that a vigorous argument based on traditional Democratic principles would appear so inauthentic as to be laughable.
The Democratic Party will not succeed at countering the Republican administration's program until we have restored our credibility by taking the lead in breaking the grip of money on our political process. There are several steps Democrats should take right away.
Democratic leaders in Congress should make the McCain-Feingold bill the centerpiece of the Democratic program. Nothing else Democrats say will matter if the public views our rhetoric as inauthentic.
Twenty years ago, Democrats in Congress who supported the Reagan program were marginalized. Key committee assignments were denied to members who did not support the party's position. Some faced primaries in the next election. Others switched parties. The Democratic Party was better off when they left. A ban on soft money is important enough for the country for our leaders to enforce that kind of discipline to achieve it.
Democratic leaders should suggest to the new chairman, Terry McAuliffe, that he step aside for the good of the party. McAuliffe's only qualifications for the job are his ability to raise vast amounts of soft money for the party and his willingness to make his own personal wealth available to the Clintons as needed. It is hard to imagine a less appropriate face for the Democrats right now.
Democrats should plan for unilateral disarmament if necessary. The fate of McCain-Feingold is in doubt. If it does not pass this Congress, Democrats should, as a party, establish guidelines that limit what the party will take from special interests. Just because a contribution is legal doesn't make it ethical.
The Democratic National Committee should appoint a commission of respected Democrats to propose limits that the party will live by whether or not McCain-Feingold passes. There is no reason why such a commission could not establish guidelines to be put in place for the 2002 election.
With these steps, the Democratic Party has an opportunity to reassert itself as a party that stands up for people against the power of special interests. Then Americans might listen when Democrats offer an alternative to President Bush's policies.
Jim Shannon is a former Democratic Congressman and former Attorney General of Massachusetts.
© Copyright 2001 Globe Newspaper Company
###
