I believe it is possible to break the majority Republican coalition, which is primarily an ideological coalition of conservatives against liberals, and create a majority Democratic coalition that will last for at least two or three decades, by liberalizing / progressivizing the 10-15% of the population that is currently primarily reform minded and non-ideological (and thus has a strong tendency to support major third-party efforts). While it is currently non-ideological, this segment of the population, which has existed in large numbers since at least the 1880's, has an outlook on politics that is far more closely allied with liberalism than conservatism because of its emphasis on reform. It is, to put it one way, latently liberal. This segment of the electorate can be swung toward the liberal camp, thus breaking the Republican majority coalition, if the pragmatic, non-dogmatic, reformer, anti-status quo, entrepreneurial aspects of liberalism are foregrounded and turned into a national narrative and platform. Pulling this off will also require dismantling the Great Backlash narrative of oppressive liberal elites, and replacing it with a narrative about conservatism being a force that relies on pure theory, faith-based worldviews, and that supports status-quo institutions such as corporations and the media.

Currently, the significant majority (60-70%) of the non-ideological "reformer" segment of the population, which has a tendency to vote in blocks, is allied with the Republican coalition. In fact, it was this addition to the Republican coalition that led to their 1994 sweep to power, and it remains the aspect of the Republican coalition that gives them their national slim majority (50-52% of the electorate). Primarily, this alliance is a result of the Great Backlash narrative, which identifies liberalism as an oppressive, status quo force in control of academia, the media, the entertainment industry, and the judiciary. However, unlike the conservative and evangelic / born again segments of the coalition that allies itself against liberalism on ideological grounds, the non-ideological element allies itself against liberalism not because of what liberalism stands for, but because liberals are viewed as powerful, anti-reform "insiders." It opposes liberalism not because of left / center / right reasons, but because of insider / outsider reasons. Best of all, because liberalism is a reformer ideology, liberals have the potential to swing this group more or less permanently, which is something that conservatism have never been able to do.

In other words, we win, both short term and long term, with a reformer platform and a national narrative that pits liberalism as a reformer ideology against a status-quo conservative ideology. This is how we grow liberalism and finally push the liberal electoral coalition first postulated by the McGovern campaign into power.

[...]

In our current coalition, we have almost all of the liberals, and we have most of the ideological moderates. To complete a majority coalition, we need the reformers. I believe that "moderates" who are concerned with reform and supportive of third-party movements are streaming toward the Republican Party in order to strike a blow against the insider "elites" in charge of unpopular institutions: the media, academia, the judiciary and the entertainment industry. In do doing, they are performing a liberal act while allying with a conservative party. By positioning liberalism as a reformist ideology permanently struggling against elites--which it is--we could bring a large segment of the non-ideological "moderate" population back into the liberal camp on a semi-permanent basis. This would allow us to break the Republican majority coalition which is currently run by the nation's 34% conservative minority, and regain the reigns of power for the next generation.

Right now, Republicans control somewhere between 60-70% of the non-ideological reformer vote, and between 51-52% of the national vote. The average third party vote in 1980, 1992 and 1996 was 12.6%. Bringing the majority of the 10-15% of the electorate that falls into the non-ideological / reformer category into the Democratic coalition would almost precisely flip the exiting balance of power between the two coalitions, as it would give Democrats a 51-52% national majority coalition. In the immediate short-term, this means to me that Dean absolutely must become the spokesmen of the Democratic Party. No one else up for the job even remotely approaches his reformer / outside cred nationally, not even Simon Rosenberg. Bringing the reformer segment of the electorate into the Democratic / liberal camp is even more important than increasing our share of the growing Latino vote, which is undeniably important.

Our future success is not predicated upon moving to the left or the right, but rather in our ability to move from the inside to the outside in the national political frame.

This idea appeals to me enormously (as does one of Chris' other concerns, a related one, which is the need to reframe and better articulate the liberal worldview), because it does not necessarily mean jettisoning long-held and important liberal values in a desperate attempt to attract new blood by appearing less overtly "liberal". Not only that, but I think it's right in line with my idea that the Democratic party (in our current circumstance, I think equating the Republican party with the right wing and the Democratic party with liberalism is not going to be far from wrong) needs to re-position itself as the party of praticality, rationality and empiricism, in opposition to the iron ideological dogmatism of the Republicans.

Combine this with the kind of populism that the broadening of the coalition with reformers would provoke, and, possibly, giving in to the need for more glamour in our Presidential candidates, and we may actually elect someone to the White House again.

One thing I'm pretty damn sure of is that just standing pat and presenting a strong traditional liberal stance isn't going to do it. As I wrote the other day, there's just too many of them and not enough of us.

(Be sure to read Chris latest entry, and follow up on the various links in the post to get the full flavor of the changes that he's urging.)