A Rooseveltian Task for Hillary

During the 1920s, while her husband was immobilized by polio, Eleanor Roosevelt helped regenerate the Democratic Party during a low point in its fortunes. With other women Democrats she toured New York state to encourage the formation of women’s clubs within the party, and she urged the national party to take stronger liberal positions. During her White House years and for almost two decades after, she worked tirelessly for a more progressive Democratic Party that would reach out especially to women, immigrants, young people and minorities.

After his sweeping reelection in 1936, FDR confronted a deeply divided party incapable of carrying out the liberal mandate of that election. After watching New Deal measures like wages and hours regulation shot down in Congress, he toured the South urging the defeat of several reactionary Democratic senators. Though failing in this “purge,” he continued to call for a more liberal and inclusive party and nation.

Today another Democratic president has been given a second term, but with no clear mandate. His party has failed to recapture control of Congress, and Democrats are riven over the doctrinal issue of centrism versus liberalism. But the immediate problem facing the Democrats is less ideological than organizational. Today this party consists of plenty of generals and captains but a paucity of sergeants and privates. It has never been weaker at the grass-roots and city street level.

As one of the privates, I can testify to that weakness. Never, after almost a half a century as an active member of my town Democratic committee, have I felt so remote from the formal party leadership in Washington. Sure, I get copious communications from national party leaders, but they simply ask for money, not ideas or participation.

For decades, political analysts have been warning of the decline of party ties, resulting in the domination of our politics by television, pressure-group lobbyists, and political entrepreneurs with their heavily financed followings. That decline is now.

Does it matter? Yes, because our parties have long been--and could be again--the lifeblood of our democracy. They convey local needs and ideas to state and national policymakers. They are leadership and candidate incubators. They strengthen teamwork in government, thus imparting some unity and accountability to our constitutionally divided policy. They foster the healthy conflict so vitally needed in a democracy.

Do we need another FDR, then, to reshape the Democratic Party from the top down? No, we need another Eleanor Roosevelt willing to work at the state and local grass roots, for we need rejuvenation of the party from the bottom up. The Democratic rank and file must recapture the qualities of a social movement--its commitments, sense of mission, sheer “kindling power.” The Democrats need workshops, training programs, meaningful state and city conventions, participatory caucuses that can invigorate inactive local committees.

Such organization, however, is useless unless linked to purpose and program. The Democrats must decide whether they wish to be protectors of the status quo or still the party of change. Ultimately it must be the mobilized rank-and-file Democrats who will decide, by the millions, between centrism and progressivism. But to mobilize that rank and file we need a recognized national leader with a demonstrated talent for listening to people as well as speaking for them. We need a principled Democrat who is close to government in Washington but not a formal part of it. We need a woman leader who can consolidate and extend the Democratic Party’s appeal to women. Even more, we need a recruiter of talented women candidates who will take us to 2000 and beyond.

Who else but Hillary Clinton.