An exclusive interview with David Wilhelm

Campaigns & Elections,  June-July, 1993  

• E-mail
• Print
• Link

DNC chairman sees party's future linked to White House performance

When their crowd controls the presidency, national party chieftains usually operate within the shadows of the White House. Current Democratic national chairman David Wilhelm is no exception. Unabashedly, he admits that the future of his party is inextricably tied to Bill Clinton's ability to deliver on promises of change and economic revitalization.

At 36, Wilhelm is the youngest party leader the Democrats have ever had. Even though he's largely unknown, he sports an impressive background in politics, from the ward wars of Chicago mayoralty contests to the bright lights of presidential electioneering.

A graduate of Ohio University, Wilhelm holds a master's degree in public policy from Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. He's served on Senator Howard Metzenbaum's staff, directed Citizens for Tax Justice, and worked as a researcher for the AFL-CIO. He's also been a deputy commissioner of the Cook County, Illinois, Board of Tax Appeals and has held major positions in campaigns for Senators Paul Simon and Joe Biden. In 1988, Wilhelm was an unsuccessful candidate for Congress in Ohio. In the recent presidential race, he served as Bill Clinton's campaign manager. He was interviewed in his office by Campaigns & Elections' editor Ron Faucheux, managing editor Michael Clark, and associate editor Morgan Stewart.

Q From one point of view, the Democratic party looks stronger than it has been in a long time, with control of the White House, Congress, and a majority of state and local offices. From another point of view, it looks weaker. Over the last four presidential elections the party has gotten an average of only about 42 percent of the vote. Do you think the Democratic party is fundamentally too liberal to break out of that low-to mid-40 percent support range in national elections?

A I agree with the premise of the question. There are many things to celebrate. We are the governing party. We have control of the White House. We have control of the House. We have -- control may not be the right word for the Senate right now -- but we certainly have a majority there. We have a double-digit edge when it comes to party affiliation. We have a significant edge over the Republican party when people are asked who do you trust to manage the economy. So we have a lot of things going for us right now. People voted for change last year. They view this party as the instrument of change. They view the Republicans as an obstacle to change. That dynamic works in our favor. But, having said all that, Bill Clinton was elected with only 43 percent of the vote, and if we are going to be the majority party we've got a ways to go. Mid-term elections for a newly elected president can be a real challenge. And we have not re-elected a Democratic incumbent president since FDR. There's both good news and a challenge that lies ahead. Are we too liberal? I think Bill Clinton has already changed this party in fundamental ways. And in ways that are broadly understood and supported in the party. The linkage of economic opportunity, so long the staple of the Democratic Party, with the concept of individual responsibility is an important change that he has brought about. He, as a candidate, and now with this party, has been able to capture the issue of economic growth. He has so clearly defined this party as the party of the national interest, of the public interest rather than what we used to be criticized for as a collection of special interests. If we maintain the fundamental tenets of the party that led to victory in November and build on them, and deliver the economic change and political reform that people voted for, I think we can build a new Democratic majority.

Q Political analysts question whether each presidential election signals a new long-term voting alignment, or whether it was merely the result of short-term forces. Where do you think the 1992 election fits into that?

A I think it's too early to tell. George Bush suffered the third largest fall off of vote share of any president in history, exceeded only by Herbert Hoover and William Howard Taft. So there was a very clear and fundamental rejection of the Republican hands-off philosophy. The American people said we want a president that will take responsibility for our economic affairs. We have a skeptical, but hopeful, public willing to be convinced that this party can lead and manage an economy, but not yet convinced of that. So we have an opportunity to consolidate the anti-Bush, anti-Republican vote. But the proof will be whether or not we can really deliver. If we do, if we accept the challenge and produce, then I think we can turn this into an election that leads to a long term Democratic majority.

Q So you see the Democratic Party's future inextricably tied to Bill Clinton's ability to deliver on policy promises?

A Absolutely. I think the prospects for this party nationally and for Democratic candidates are linked to Bill Clinton's success as president. If Bill Clinton succeeds, then Democrats will succeed.