Writing hours before last fall’s election, a columnist for the London-based Guardian commented: “a respectable performance by Republicans tonight – maintaining, say, their narrow hold over the House… even when the economy is sputtering – would be seen as an enormous vindication of a man who won fewer votes in the 2000 election than his Democratic opponent… From fending off questions about the legitimacy of his presidency, Bush would have become one of only three presidents not to lose House seats in a midterm election.” That President Bush surpassed even these standards loudly proclaims not only Republican success but also a Democratic debacle.

Paul Wellstone’s death last October serves as a sad metaphor for the state of the Party. Wellstone described himself as representing the democratic wing of the Democratic Party. That wing is moribund. Without it, the party is unlikely to survive.

Commentators attributed Democrats’ defeat to “wag the dog.” The president distracted the electorate with war talk. Yet unlike the days following Sept. 11, Americans remain more reluctant than the President to plunge into war.

An election focused on economics hurts Republicans only if Democrats constitute an alternative. In a few states-including Maine- individual Democrats did offer progressive perspectives on taxes, prescription drugs, and corporate accountability. Nonetheless, all progressive challengers were limited by two factors. Republicans are adept at co-opting their issues by presenting alternatives. Republican alternatives are less comprehensive and, ironically, more bureaucratically complex. Nonetheless, they appear to accomplish the same ends.

In an age driven by sound bites, local candidates also have few opportunities to establish differences from their opponents. Their cause is aided when national parties articulate the stakes. Democrats enjoyed control of the U.S. Senate. Though they could not enact laws, leaders and committee chairs could have highlighted an alternative agenda.

An alternative agenda would, however, require acknowledging and breaking with the Clinton past. Today’s sagging economy reflects bipartisan ineptitude. The collapse of the tech-driven stock market bubble was foreseen – not only by some left economists but also even by Lawrence Lindsay well before his ill-fated tour of duty at the White House. But Alan Greenspan – a hero of both parties, rejected his suggestion that the Fed impose tighter margin requirements to dampen stock speculation. The Clinton Administration advanced a deregulatory agenda that did as much to encourage speculative excesses as any subsequent Bush administration decision.

National Democrats continue to squander opportunities. Nation columnist William Greider comments: “Democrats like to wail about Bush’s $1.3 trillion tax cut but forget that Daschle’s opening offer was $900 billion. He rushed through the bailout for airlines … and left out the workers. The measure expanding unemployment benefits was hailed as a great Democratic victory, but the bill included $43 billion in new business tax breaks, compared with $8.5 billion for the millions of jobless.” Democrats have no national identity as a party that aids victims of trade policy or provides fiscal assistance to struggling state governments.

Democratic leaders argue that public programs are pass?. Yet historically in tough times, progressive Democrats, both prodded by and sometimes providing leadership for grass-roots groups, have shown that government can work for ordinary citizens. Broad based, publicly funded initiatives, such as Social Security, the GI bill and Medicare became staples of American life. They achieved their popularity because they were efficient, comprehensive, and laid a foundation for private sector growth. Paul Wellstone’s greatness lay in his willingness to be out front on such issues as the poor, family farmers, and universal healthcare even when these were scorned by elites.

I recently discussed Wellstone’s academic background with Peter Bachrach, a distinguished Temple University political theorist now retired to Southwest Harbor. Peter’s ground- breaking work in the sixties taught my generation about the subtle ways institutional and cultural forces exclude some voices even in formally democratic societies.

When Wellstone came up for tenure at Carleton College, the administration tried to deny that promotion. Widespread campus opposition forced administrators to authorize an evaluation of him by a distinguished visiting team (including Peter). That team’s report, endorsing his teaching and scholarship, compelled the administration to relent. Peter recalled that Wellstone’s sin was to encourage students to do open- ended interviews with impoverished local farmers about their grievances and political goals. The administration feared the controversy such interviews might stir up.

Leadership in Washington today consists of focus groups and carefully orchestrated polls. It packages party funders’ goals and concerns. It is not about forcefully articulating ends and objectives that will engage and serve the broad middle and working class.

The anguished response to Wellstone’s death by grass-roots organizations from Maine to California stood in contrast to an election where most Americans couldn’t generate the enthusiasm to vote. There is a lesson for the opposition party – if it ever hopes to be an opposition.

John Buell is a political economist who lives in Southwest Harbor. Readers wishing to contact him may e-mail messages to jbuell@acadia.net.