The Republican victories in the 2002 election were widespread and, in some places, outright shocking. In Massachusetts, 45 percent of voters supported a ballot question that would eliminate the state income tax, cutting $40 billion from the state budget. In Georgia, Democratic Sen. Max Cleland, a widely respected Vietnam veteran, was defeated on the issue of homeland security. In countless other close races—for the senate in Minnesota and Missouri, for the governor’s office in California—Democrats fared very poorly, and in several cases lost contests that were eminently winnable.

These startling results proved right the pundits who argued that the Democratic platform was nothing but smoke and mirrors. They hugged President Bush’s positions on terrorism and Afghanistan; most of them even parroted his hawkish stance on Iraq. Their efforts to shift the focus to domestic issues were completely unsuccessful—which might have been a blessing in disguise, because their domestic platform was little more than tired variations of stale ideas.

Democrats were divided on Bush’s massive tax cut; a quarter of Senate Democrats voted in favor of the ill-conceived plan. Instead of disagreeing outright with Bush’s idea of a Department of Homeland Security, the Democrats let the plan languish while they bickered about a minor labor dispute. Republicans have adopted the idea of subsidized prescription drugs, leaving the Democrats with no proposals that match the sweeping innovation of Bill Clinton’s 1992 proposal to extend health care to all people who are uninsured.

This election was a referendum on the direction of the Democratic Party, and the voters were clearly disappointed by the Democrats’ lack of vision. Frustrated by the absence of a compelling Democratic agenda, voters refused to support candidates whose only message was that their opponents were wrong. Democrats must now heed the voters’ demands for a new definition of what the party stands for—a new set of independent Democratic ideas. No longer can the Democrats be the negative image of a Republican agenda, standing only for criticism of conservative positions. Democrats must have a positive vision of their own: concrete policy proposals backed by ideological commitment.

The opportunity for the Democrats to develop a new, powerful policy agenda is here. Current House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt has announced he will not seek to lead the Democrats in the House again, leaving the position open for a new leader to reinvigorate Democratic representatives with a dynamic, positive agenda. Instead of bowing to Republican ideas and swallowing the president’s tax cut and war on Iraq, Democrats must forcefully advocate their own vision for America’s future. They must be willing to take courageous and controversial positions, accepting the risk of temporary unpopularity in exchange for new respect for the strength of their ideological convictions.

Last Tuesday’s election was not a mandate for President Bush or the Republican agenda; it was a testament to the frustration of liberal voters with the absence of a compelling Democratic platform. The close margins in races around the country illustrate that voters are struggling to find a candidate in today’s political arena with an agenda powerful enough to inspire dedicated support.

In trying to capture centrist voters and remain immune from charges of lack of patriotism—defined as lack of support for the president’s agenda in wartime—Democrats have stifled the liberal ideas that once formed a clear, ideological platform strong enough to challenge conservative proposals. In this election, the Democrats presented no vision for America.

Dissent: Clear Victory for GOP

Following the sweeping election success of Republican candidates nationwide, President Bush and his party have a clear mandate from voters to pursue the agenda they set forth in their campaigns: tax cuts and military action against Saddam Hussein. Bush’s visible presence during the Congressional campaigns of many Republicans only strengthens this mandate. To suggest otherwise is presumptuous, ignoring voters who have expressed their support for Republican policies.

The Staff should tuck its tail between its legs and seriously reexamine its own knee-jerk liberal ideology. Massachusetts voters soundly rejected the “visionary, progressive stances” of Democratic gubernatorial candidate Shannon P. O’Brien, whom the Staff endorsed. Republican victories in Massachusetts and across the nation suggest that the Staff’s unfailingly leftist values are seriously out of touch with those of the voters.

—Luke Smith ’04