For the third straight election (including the 2002 midterms) the Democratic Party has taken a severe beating. As one Republican said, "It seems to me that the Democratic Party is in a shambles." Many Democrats are wondering how to connect with "values voters" and how to become stronger on national security. Some are criticizing John Kerry's campaign. However, the real question is whether the Democrats should move more to the left or more to the center.

This debate may get sparked soon because Terry McAuliffe, the Democratic National Committee Chairman, will soon step down. Liberals want Howard Dean, the former Vermont Governor and presidential candidate, to get the job. Moderates want Harold Ickes, a former Clinton White House aid, Tom Vilsack, the current governor of Iowa, or Simon Rosenberg, chairman of the centrist New Democrat Network.

Some liberals are already complaining about the new Democrat leader in the senate, Harry Reid of Nevada. Reid, who is anti-abortion, has been criticized by many liberals for voting for the "partial-birth" abortion ban. However, Reid does have a strong record in favor of the availability of contraceptives. Reid also helped in an eight-hour filibuster of one of Bush's radical right-wing judges. Many liberals have also pointed out that one can be anti-abortion but not be in favor of banning all abortions.

Democrats are all acknowledging that one coherent, over-arching message is required to win future elections. The question is what that message should be. If the Democrats were to swing to the left they would be successful in firing up the base. However, some Democrats think this might turn off swing voters.

 "That's not a recipe for winning," said Mark Warner, the Democratic governor of Virginia. "That's a recipe for disaster."

On the other hand, some Democrats point out that Karl Rove, Bush's chief strategist, rested his entire strategy on getting out the right-wing Christian base. Many liberals, including Ralph Nader, point out that the best way for Democrats to win is to present a real alternative to the Republican Party. Nader often points out that if Al Gore had gotten 10 percent of the 39 percent of the union-vote that Bush had won in Ohio, then he would have won the election.

Many Democrats fear being too different from Republicans on issues like "moral values" and national security. However, in 2002 and 2004 Democrats did not distance themselves very much from Republicans on national security, and they were trounced in both elections. It is a common fact that if the choice is between a Republican and a Democrat acting like a Republican, voters will pick the Republican.

If Democrats were to swing to the left on national security, a good model for them would be Wisconsin senator Russ Feingold. Wisconsin, a state that Kerry won by only one percentage point, was a "battleground" state the entire election. Republicans hoped that they would be able to defeat incumbent senator Russ Feingold by running a strong, wealthy opponent.

Feingold has worked hard in the Senate on many issues. He co-sponsored the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill, which limits big donations from corporations to political candidates. Although many Democrats and Republicans have criticized the bill, it was an important step toward stopping the "corrosive influence of money in politics," as Feingold calls it.

 He takes strong economic positions that show he is willing to stand up for the middle class against corporations. He has been a strong opponent of many free trade agreements including NAFTA, which ship American jobs overseas. He has advocated what he calls "fair trade, not free trade." He has an excellent voting record on enforcing tough environmental regulations for corporations. Feingold has also been a fiscally responsible senator.

Feingold has also shown willingness to break with and criticize his party on many issues. He has been referred to as an "independent thinking Democrat who puts principle ahead of politics." He has criticized the Democratic Party for its "lack of backbone" in 2002 and for failing to stand up to George Bush's policies.

Feingold was the lone senator to vote against the USA Patriot Act because he felt it endangered civil liberties. He was also one of the few senators to vote against the war in Iraq because he correctly concluded that the war would be a distraction from the war on Al Qaeda. His Republican challenger said Feingold was too weak on national security. However, in a state where Kerry won by only one point, a senator with more liberal views succeeded in winning re-election by eleven points.

Feingold is the perfect example of what Democrats need now. He is someone who has genuinely liberal economic views: he opposes free trade and stands up to corporations, and he fights for tougher environmental regulations for corporations. He is also fiscally responsible. Feingold is willing to stand up to Republicans on their favorite issues--terrorism and national security. Finally, Feingold has shown that he is willing to work with Republicans on important issues.

Feingold's race provides a good lesson for Democrats. The only way to beat the Republicans is to advocate a truly different position. One thing the Democrats failed to realize during this past election is that people are hesitant to change leaders during a time of war. The only way for Democrats to win in future elections is to advocate a clear coherent message that shows a fundamental difference on a whole range of issues.