Posted on 12/19/2003 11:28:47 AM PST by Reagan is King
The left has taken over the Democratic Party
The probable nomination of former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean marks a turning point in the modern history of the Democratic Party. The left has taken over. The tail is no longer wagging the dog. The tail has mastered the beast.
The moderates ran the Democratic Party from 1960 to 1972. Then the left took over, ruling until 1992 — a period in which the party controlled the White House for only four out of 20 years, when Jimmy Carter, a moderate southerner, was president. Capitalizing on their failures, the centrists regained ascendancy in 1992 with the nomination of Bill Clinton. They ruled for 12 years and are losing power now.
Al Gore and Hillary Clinton are moving to the left to make their peace with the party’s new masters. Hillary goes to Iraq and then signs up for every Sunday talk show to blast President Bush and the war. Gore backs Dean to court favor with the liberal anti-war faction that has taken over. The Ralph Nader fringe is now in charge, and Gore is moving left to accommodate them.
How did the left take over? Yeats had the answer when he wrote that the “worst are filled with a passionate intensity” and that the center doesn’t hold. The war galvanized such activism among those who felt kicked out of the mainstream when they refused to join the flag-waving patriotism unleashed by the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that it empowered the left to take over the party.
Using the Internet to compensate for its lack of capital, the anti-war faction made its alliance with social liberals who were attracted by Dean’s approval of the gay civil union bill in Vermont. It is the equivalent for the left of the deal Ronald Reagan made with the Christian conservatives, signing them up for his crusade in the 1980 election.
This coalition of peace advocates and supporters of gay civil unions has mobilized online and amassed enough money, manpower and excitement to outdistance the conventional candidates in the Democratic field. They have taken over the party, and they are not planning on leaving anytime soon.
Their ascendancy is paralleled by the solidification of the Democratic minority in Congress, cemented in place by the 2001 reapportionment in which GOP leaders drew district lines to concentrate Democrats in Democratic districts and keep Republicans and independents in marginal areas.
The result has been an inoculation of Democratic congressmen against defeat in general elections. But, with huge numbers of Democrats in their districts, they do have to fear primary contests, particularly on the left. This realization impelled the election of California’s Nancy Pelosi as minority leader and marks the House Democrats’ move to the left and to irrelevancy.
The dilemma for moderate Democrats is similar to that which afflicted moderate Republicans until George W. Bush came along. To win nominations, they must appeal to the extremists in their own party and move so far to the left that they become unacceptable to the mainstream of American voters.
A vicious circle sets in. Moderates, repelled by the liberal stances of the Democratic Party, will move to Republican ranks and abandon their Democratic affiliation. This movement will empty the party’s ranks of its moderates and make takeover by the left more likely and more permanent.
The path the Democrats are about to tread is the same that left them impotent in the elections of 1980, 1984 and 1988 and akin to that which forced the British Labor Party to lose four consecutive national elections.
The capture of Saddam Hussein and the likely withdrawal of most American forces from Iraq by Election Day — if Bush is thinking clearly and can pull it off — will leave the leftist Democrats with no issues, only bitterness at having been robbed of their thunder by a fast-moving president.
Their lament at not having the economy, Iraq and prescription drugs as issues will parallel the wails of the 1996 Republicans in not having the balanced budget, crime or welfare to use as issues in toppling Clinton.
Good for President Bush.
An interesting interpretation of those years.
Make no mistake: I liked Nixon, and I worked on his re-election campaign while in college in 1972. I even attended the Hamilton County (Ohio) Republican victory celebration that night, and hooted wildly as the states fell to President Nixon. But the tragedy of his paranoia and the stupidity of his staff at Watergate were not trivial issues. His was the election since McGovern was a boob (and still is). Nixon should have exposed the idiots who threatened and did indeed ruin his presidency.
This, too, is an example of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory....tragically...
Morris actually right, the center so far left, the country is flying circles.. makes one dizzy just watchin... just a few flaps of a right wing should straighten us right out.. unless we pile into the ground first. Because the eagles eyes are also crossed.. and we are loseing altitude..
Thanks for the post RisK
FMCDH
One of the things that makes the Dems look so stupid is that the Clintons are playing the party like a Strativarious (sp?), and the party refuses to admit it publicly. It is, I think, obvious that Hillary is running for the Presidency, the question is not if, but when.
When Bush wins in '04, Hillary will be in perfect position to win in '08, due to the cylical election preferences of the nation (Rep-Dem-Rep). That cycle was only broken by Bush I, in recent times. That is why the GOP '04 VP is so important. Hillary will beat Cheney, she may not be able to beat Rice. This is why I want Rice to be VP in '04.
"Sun discovered to be Hot"
"Career Welfare discovered to discourage Work Ethic"
add your own...
Every man and woman who ever served in the US armed forces will forever remember her key participation in the Democrats' attempt to throw-out all absentee ballots from Florida servicepeople during the 2000 election.
IMHO, I would modify that to read:
"Clinton, allowed himself to be perceived by the voters as a centrist in comparison to ....."
Clinton was two things, if nothing else: an ultra liberal and a survivor. Since he has no principles, he had no problem hiding his true leftist ideology in favor of survival (ie. governing as a centrist).
Earth to Dick Morris-- where have you been? That happened in back the 70s!
I agree, but I think Bush is very good at sort of pushing issues and placating at the same time. He will try to keep things focused on national security and away from domestic disputes in anticipation of November '04. Assume Bush wins in '04 and the GOP picks up a few Senate seats-- things will REALLY hit the fan in '05 and '06. I expect there to be some Supreme Court nominations and I expect it will be the fight of a lifetime. The Dems would try anything possible (literally)to roadblock Bush or even bring him down. Partisan Dem supporters are going to go ballistic, and our side will respond in kind. It could be quite a spectacle.
You contradict yourself.
How so? Clark was sent in for several purposes:
To possibly defeat Dean and then the Clinton's would have a candidate that the Clinton's could control
To test him in a safe environment to see if he had the potential to be a VP possibility under Hillary in '08 or remotely in '04.
Worse case (from Clinton POV):
Clark wins nomination, then wins the Presidency w/o Hillary as VP.
Clark's entry into the race must be viewed from the "What is in it for the Clinton's?" perspective. I think I see what you mean. When I said "that Clark would lose", I was referring to losing to Bush, not losing in the primaries. Hillary benefits from losing as the Dem VP candidate, just as Morris indicates above.
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.