Democrats and the States

Right now, the Democratic Party is not only the minority party in both Houses of Congress, out of the presidency, and precariously represented in much of the federal judiciary, but it also finds itself in an advanced state of decrepitude at the state and local level. The situation is at least partly the result of the party's view of government, and its relative indifference to the lower levels of government has contributed to its poor showings there.

The largest debates in the Democratic Party in recent times have centered around the degree to which a federal presence is required in national issues to ensure that they are resolved progressively. Should the federal government provide health insurance directly, or more closely regulate the existing market? Should large banks be broken up or merely subjected to an elevated level of scrutiny? Anyone following the Democrats in the last decade will be familiar with such debates, but the thing I would like to point out about them is that the focus is entirely federal.

This is a general characteristic of modern policy debates, but it is especially so in the Democratic Party. Of the major national issues today, only abortion has been fought out mostly at the state level, and even then the constant presence of the judiciary looms over all state actions on the subject. While it is certainly true that many of the policy issues at stake have important national components, it is undeniable that state and local campaigns have faded into the background to a much larger extent than they used to.

An ideological focus on national policy, while useful in promoting large scale thinking, creates distance between the party and the grassroots.The diversity of regional interests also means that focusing on national policy limits the scope of issues that the party is seen as competent to address. For Democrats, the Obama presidency only exacerbated the problem. 

As became only too clear every time he wasn't on the ballot, the greater part of his coalition was loyal to him personally and not to the vague party apparatus. His administration was defined by a national economic crisis and a series of vicious, high profile legislative struggles, all of which served to further focus all political attention on DC.

The rise of the super PAC following the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United  further magnified the problem for state parties, drawing political money away from the party organization and into outside private groups. The PACs spend to support specific candidates rather than parties, and so vital resources failed to find their way to the state Democratic parties throughout the Obama years. The lack of a strong party apparatus at every level played a significant part in the consecutive wipeouts the Democrats faced in the 2010 and 2014 midterm elections.

The importance of state and local governments is guaranteed by the preponderance of everyday issues they grapple with. Not only abortion restrictions but welfare benefits, educational standards and curricula, voting requirements and polling districts, congressional districts, and a number of other vital issues are determined primarily at the state level. The absurdly gerrymandered congressional map that now makes it difficult for the Democrats to compete in the House of Representatives is a direct result of their staggering losses at the state level in 2010.

Unless the Democrats invest on a large scale in reinforcing and in some cases rebuilding the state parties, they risk consistent underachievement both politically and in terms of policy accomplishment. Strengthening the state parties includes paying particular attention to issues that are determined at the state and local level and cultivating executive and legislative prospects - not to mention encouraging and facilitating grassroots activism. If the Democrats do not make that commitment, the crisis of legitimacy they are currently experiencing will continue.