How Being More Democratic Injured the Democratic Party
Editor's Note: This is the first segment of the third article in a series leading up to the 2026 midterm elections and the 2028 presidential election. The second segment will appear after the August 4 Democratic primary in Michigan.
As some readers might know, my first public relations job was with a boutique political PR firm, Earle Associates (which ceased operations after its founder died). While the agency was small, our assignments were major. They included local, statewide and presidential campaigns, and I worked on all three.
My assignments included two presidential campaigns, one in which I personally interfaced with a president of the United States and another with a vice president, as well as members of both houses of Congress, a governor of New York State and many other elected officials. During my nearly quarter-century at Burson-Marsteller, then the world's leading international public relations agency, before opening my own consultancy, I also worked on quasi-government accounts, including an initiative with New York City Mayor Ed Koch, and traveled internationally as a media adviser to foreign government officials.
While I was at Earle Associates, the iron grip that the Democratic Party had held since Franklin D. Roosevelt's election in 1932 was already fading. The reason, in my opinion: Being too democratic seriously injured the Democratic Party.
The problem that led to the party's rapid decline began at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago during the Vietnam War. Anti-war progressives defied party leaders and unsuccessfully attempted to nominate Sen. Eugene McCarthy, whom I also met personally, instead of the party establishment's preferred candidate, Vice President Hubert Humphrey. Humphrey ultimately lost to Richard Nixon, whom I met twice. Although he was always polite, his demeanor was unlike that of any other candidate I encountered. He never seemed interested in making himself personally likable.
Here's why.
The protests over what progressives viewed as underhanded tactics by party leaders at the 1968 Democratic National Convention culminated in violent clashes between demonstrators and Chicago police that became one of the defining moments of that year's convention.
Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley defended the police response and also used an anti-Semitic slur after Sen. Abraham Ribicoff of Connecticut denounced the police from the convention floor for what he described as excessive force against demonstrators, including the use of nightsticks and tear gas. A subsequent federal investigation concluded that the violence amounted to a "police riot."
Efforts to make the presidential nominating process more democratic dated back to the late 1800s, but it was the aftermath of the 1968 convention that fundamentally changed how Democratic presidential nominees would be selected.
Prior to 1968, many candidates, especially those seeking statewide or national office, were effectively chosen in the proverbial "smoke-filled rooms," where party leaders selected nominees they believed had the broadest appeal.
The reforms that followed the 1968 convention produced the modern presidential primary system, beginning with the 1972 election.
In my opinion, the current primary system has weakened the Democratic Party by increasing the influence of highly motivated ideological factions while reducing the influence of broader party leadership.
Here's why I believe that.
The political leaders who met in those so-called smoke-filled rooms generally selected candidates they believed would appeal to the broadest cross-section of Americans and who had established records of public service. That system produced Democratic presidents such as Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Lyndon B. Johnson, until the Vietnam War ultimately damaged Johnson's presidency.
(While the smoke-filled rooms may have disappeared when it comes to selecting candidates, influence behind the scenes remains very much alive in politics. A May 22 Wall Street Journal article reported, in part, that "Reynolds American, one of the biggest tobacco companies, made a $5 million donation to a political group aligned with President Trump shortly before his administration decided to lift restrictions on certain flavored vaping products. ... Reynolds is one of the biggest sellers of vaping products under its Vuse brand." The Journal noted that the donation was first reported by The New York Times.)
In my view, the current primary system has elevated candidates affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) because primary turnout is often low, allowing relatively small groups of highly motivated voters to have outsized influence. That dynamic has contributed to the election of candidates such as New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar, along with others whose positions align with many DSA priorities. In my opinion, those candidates have limited national appeal.
I've argued since Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's 2018 primary victory that the Democratic primary system deserves another look. In that race, only about seven percent of eligible voters cast ballots. As I've written before, many Democratic voters simply do not participate in primaries.
Only after three democratic socialist candidates won New York City primaries this June has the issue begun receiving significant national attention.
One example was a July 3 Wall Street Journal column by Mark Penn, longtime pollster and adviser to Bill and Hillary Clinton, and Andrew Stein, former president of the New York City Council.
Their column, titled "The Socialist Threat Is Real," stated in part: "The turnouts in New York's elections were well below anything that could be called representative of the community. Only 18% to 25% of registered Democrats voted in each of the closed primaries for three contested House nominations. This means that a good organizational effort can impose its will with less than 15% of the party electorate."
The authors concluded that if mainstream Democrats fail to regain control of their party, the political consequences could be significant. Readers can judge for themselves whether that assessment proves accurate.
In the June 23 New York City primaries, all three congressional candidates backed by Mr. Mamdani won. Whether that ultimately becomes a problem for the Democratic Party remains to be seen, but it could have implications for both the 2026 midterm elections and the 2028 presidential election. All three candidates are outspoken critics of Israel and have accused the country of committing genocide in Gaza. In my opinion, those positions could influence some traditionally pro-Israel Democratic voters to support Republican candidates. I will examine that issue in greater detail in a future essay.
Democratic socialists remain a relatively small bloc in Congress, and New York City has long been one of the nation's most liberal cities. Even if the candidates who won these primaries are ultimately elected, the number of self-described democratic socialists in Congress will remain relatively small.
Is the influence of the DSA exaggerated by the media? In my opinion, that's certainly possible. New York City has an estimated population of approximately 8.6 million residents, roughly 3.1 million registered Democrats and approximately 15,000 DSA members. By that measure, support for the DSA remains relatively limited even in the city where its recent primary victories attracted national attention.
Nevertheless, I believe the Democratic National Committee should take the movement seriously. As Geoffrey Chaucer wrote in the 14th century in Troilus and Criseyde, to paraphrase, mighty oaks grow from small saplings. Or, in his original words, "as an ook cometh of a litel spyr."
Writer's Note: My first public relations position was with a political agency, where I worked on local, statewide and presidential campaigns. Based on those experiences, along with my later work on quasi-government accounts at Burson-Marsteller, I occasionally write opinion essays about American politics during election cycles. This is the third article in a series I plan to write leading up to the 2028 presidential election.
Editor's Note: The views expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of CommPRO, its editors or management.
