It's no longer a blue world, Max.
Posted on 12/03/2002 1:47:44 PM PST by Utah Girl
Democrats spent the first weeks after the election telling themselves pleasing stories about why they got an unexpected drubbing. It was because they hadn't been themselves. If Democrats had only opposed war in Iraq and come out for the cancellation of scheduled tax cuts — and done both these things loudly — they would have been able to motivate their base to vote, and might even have convinced swing voters that their policies were better than the Republicans'. This theory is now the consensus of the Democratic party, reflected in the House Democrats' decision to make San Francisco liberal Nancy Pelosi their leader. The left wing of the party was emboldened by success in 2000, when several liberal senators were elected and a "populist" Al Gore and Ralph Nader won a combined 51 percent of the vote. Now it is emboldened by defeat. The Democrats' leftward tilt may become more pronounced as presidential candidates compete for primary voters.
Sometimes a party needs to sharpen its ideological edge to give people a reason to vote for it. That is what Republicans did between 1976 and 1980, and again between 1992 and 1994. But it is also true that political movements can become more radical as they decline, and that appears to be what is happening here. There is no evidence that vocal opposition to war in Iraq would have helped Democrats. Walter Mondale was admirably candid about his opposition, and he lost. The public knew the Democrats were less gung-ho than the Republicans. They punished them for it. After the election, Gallup asked voters whether the parties were "tough enough" on terrorism. Sixty-four percent thought the Republicans were, and 57 percent thought the Democrats were not. Those numbers ought to give Democratic strategists heartburn. Yet the party seems intent on making itself more anti-Bush when it comes to the war on terror.
Actually, the Democrats' worst problem wasn't that they weren't tough enough; it's that they weren't serious enough about security. They demanded a debate on Iraq, then complained when they got one. They criticized the president without offering a credible alternative. Democrats lost at least one Senate seat over homeland security, where they put the interests of public-sector unions ahead of national security. But that fight was emblematic: All year, Democrats' positions on security issues have been transparently driven by political calculation.
So they continue to be. The Democrats' self-criticism is that their officeholders voted for a war, or declined to be vocal in opposition, even though they were really against it. Have Democrats stopped to consider what this critique says about them? It says that they thought that an Iraq campaign would throw American lives away while undermining Americans' security — but gave it a green light for political reasons. That their chief regret about this behavior is that it backfired as a political tactic. The Democrats are making an indictment of themselves more damning than they realize.
The Democrats' left turn will cost them, and it could start costing them in December. Having denounced sell-outs, how will the national party rally to defend Mary Landrieu's Senate seat? She voted for the war and even the dreaded tax cut. She has made her ability to work with President Bush a selling point. A lot of Democrats, especially in marginal seats, are not going to follow the party's march of folly to the left. Apart from its other disadvantages for Democrats, the new strategy will also split them.
The party's approval ratings have fallen to levels they had not touched since before the Clinton administration. A revival of pre-Clinton ideological impulses is unlikely to raise them.
Conservatives will be tempted to cheer on the Pelosis as they make of the Democratic party an ineffectual rump. We are not immune to the temptation ourselves. But we would rather have a bipartisan consensus in favor of military action to eliminate threats to us than have 47 percent of Congress determined to throw up roadblocks to such action. It would be better for the country if some Democrats were open to pro-growth tax cuts. Democratic presidents will happen every once in a while, and we would sleep easier if those presidents were not left-wing.
But conservatives' hopes are beside the point, since our influence on the Democrats is microscopic. If the Democrats choose to go left, we will just have to redouble our efforts to keep them from the levers of power.
It's no longer a blue world, Max.
The Democrats' leftward tilt may become more pronounced as presidential candidates compete for primary voters.
That’s the hope over here and, oddly, over at DU.
It says that they thought that an Iraq campaign would throw American lives away while undermining Americans' security — but gave it a green light for political reasons. That their chief regret about this behavior is that it backfired as a political tactic. The Democrats are making an indictment of themselves more damning than they realize.
They’re just stating the obvious.
That is because Clinton lied and hid his left agenda under the "Centrist Democrat" label. Too win the democrats need to find a person who can get away with lying to the people about what they really stand for. I hope it does not happen this century.
I kept thinking that would happen too. Now I keep waiting for the Dems to wake up and realize that power and governing is not an entitlement for the so-called Democratic Elite.
Very clever I might add...
All the Democrats that HAD/HAVE principles (other than socialism) are now Republicans or Independents. Pelosi's election is simply indicative of that.
This, I think, is the real key. It's been two years straight of the Dems nudging one another and telling yet another "Bush is dumb" joke while sneering at him as the "president-select," and not only did it get stale but it masked the total absence of constructive alternatives, as if that were an afterthought. I have told several Dem friends of mine how they can win the House back - it isn't a problem, they won't listen. But all they really have to do is to do precisely what Newt Gingrich did in early '94, come up with a list of specific programs to vote on, up or down. This was so successful that Clinton was reduced to suborning at least two of the items in the Contract With America, welfare reform and the balanced budget, and claiming them for his own. That was labeled "triangulation" instead of "theft," and many of the radicals labeled it "sellout" with more than a grain of truth. But had he not done so he would likely have been defeated in '96.
The reason I feel safe telling the Dems this is that when ideologues do this they lose all discipline and produce a list of the most radical programs imaginable, the wilder the better, in order better to "differentiate" themselves from their opponents. In the absence of a srict disciplinarian such as Newt to restrain the "progressive" tendency to shoot for the moon every time, the Dems will be unable to exploit this inherent vulnerability of incumbency. And I don't see such an individual on the horizon, certainly not Nancy Pelosi. She is of the other school, wherein if every item on the list makes the other guys scream it must be a good idea. That's quite self-satisfying but a sure ticket to defeat. Because offering such a list means having to defend the points individually instead of simply making a cheap overall appeal to emotion. They've been stuck in the latter mode far too much of late.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.