The Democrats Richochet to the Left

FrontPageMagazine.com ^ | January 8, 2004 [sic] | Dick Morris

[xsysmgr]

Why does the opposition party tend to become dominated by its own extremists when it is out of power? Why did the Democrats follow liberal leaders like Walter Mondale and Mike Dukakis while Ronald Reagan was president? Why did the right under Newt Gingrich take over the Republican Party during the Clinton years? Why is Howard Dean dominating the Democrats these days?

Call it the ricochet effect. In the Clinton White House, we consciously used this theory to help the right dominate the Republican Party so that the centrists throughout America would vote to re-elect the Democratic president.

Here's how it works. An incumbent president tends to catalyze opposite reactions among the moderates and the extremists in the opposition party. Because he is adopting policies which help the nation and echo the demands of the broad center, he attracts moderates in the other party. But as he pursues the core policies of his own party, he generally triggers greater hostility from the true believers on the other side.

Thus, President Bill Clinton's policies of reforming welfare and balancing the budget attracted moderates among Independents and Republicans. But his position on core Democratic issues like gun control and abortion drove the right-wing extremists crazy.

Similarly, President Bush's embrace of prescription-drug benefits for the elderly and his stalwart stand against terror lures the centrist Democrats and Independents. But his backing for the war in Iraq and the Patriot Act alienates the extreme left and whips them into a fine fury.

Even the Reagan administration benefited by the ricochet theory. His tax cuts produced a feeling of "morning again in America" which gave him high ratings among the moderate voters - the so-called Reagan Democrats - who normally sided with the opposition. But his strong pro-life position and his budget cuts sharpened the animosity toward him among feminists and minorities.

As the moderates leave the other party and move toward the incumbent president, the leftists of the Democratic Party or the GOP's rightists come increasingly to predominate in primaries. At the same time, their alienation and anger at the policies of the incumbent chief executive generate a new activism on the extremes of the opposition party which kindle increased flows of money and manpower into the minority party.

The ricochet theory, in a sense, is the concomitant of triangulation. If one steals the other side's centrist issues, one becomes attractive to the moderates in the enemy camp. But because an incumbent stays faithful to the core issues of his own party (gun control, abortion, etc.) he generally drives the extreme members of the opposition crazier than ever.

Because George W. Bush is attracting moderates with his forthright stand against terrorism, his willingness to go to war to defend our security, and his relatively compassionate social agenda, he is winning over Democrats and Independents who might once have voted against him. Those moderates who remain Democrats find themselves weakened by the defection of these moderates and become outvoted in the Democratic primaries.

This phenomenon is precisely why Joseph Lieberman is losing to Howard Dean in the Democratic race for president. His constituency is voting for Bush and has left his party.

But Bush's strong Republican stands on the war in Iraq, defense spending, intrusive measures to fight domestic terrorism, support for conservative judges and opposition to powerful environmental measures leads the Democratic left to oppose him in ever stronger terms.

The increase in their vitrol, donations, activism, and primary election turnout that this anger generates swamps the outnumbered moderates and leads to the nomination of an extremist like Howard Dean as the party nominee.

How does a party break this vicious cycle? Usually it takes two or three defeats before the party regains its senses and realizes that catering to its extremist elements only courts disaster. After a Barry Goldwater, it embraces a Richard Nixon. Recovering from the disaster of George McGovern, it nominates Jimmy Carter.

But sometimes it takes repeated defeats - as with Mondale and Dukakis in the '80s - before a party recovers its senses and nominates a Clinton.

It will be interesting to see how soon the Democrats wake up and realize that they can't let their party be hijacked by the left without writing off the general election. But the wake-up call is unlikely to come until after Bush is safely re-elected.

[BenLurkin]

"The Democrats Richochet to the Left"

And why not, the Republicans are doing their work for them in Washington.

[Support Free Republic]

Rank	Location	Receipts	Donors/Avg		Freepers/Avg		Monthlies
26	Alabama	230.00	7	32.86	215	1.07	339.50	19

Thanks for donating to Free Republic!

Move your locale up the leaderboard!

[Land of the Free 04]

Why does the opposition party tend to become dominated by its own extremists when it is out of power? [...] Why did the right under Newt Gingrich take over the Republican Party during the Clinton years?

Nothing "extreme" about Newt---his Contract With America won the House for the GOP for the first time in several decades. Slick Dick Morris would love for Republicans to think they must steer clear of conservatism to win, but it just ain't so.

[jsbankston]

And why not, the Republicans are doing their work for them in Washington.

Exactly, If the Democrats were to stay where they were 10 years ago the The Republicans would now be the leftest Party.

[Billthedrill]

President Bill Clinton's policies of reforming welfare and balancing the budget attracted moderates...

Sorry, Dick, this isn't quite right. Gingrich was such an "extremist" that he achieved a majority in the House for his party, and Clinton stole credit for the very policies that effected this, i.e., welfare reform and a balanced budget (and eight more). The thesis doesn't really hold water in light of that.

[My2Cents]

Not only this, but I would hardly categorize Bob Dole -- GOP nominee when the party was out of power -- as a fringe right-winger.

[My2Cents]

Hey, let's cut a deal. Let's let the GOP lurch to the center, gobbling up moderate statists in the Democrat Party, thereby precipitating the complete demise of the Democrat Party, and once the Dems are dead, you can start a new viable second major party to the right of the Republicans to take the Democrats' place. Deal?

[reed_inthe_wind]

"This phenomenon is precisely why Joseph Lieberman is losing"

It is Dick Morris that is the phenomenom. He has us all shaking our heads in agreement that Lieberman is a moderate. Shrewd is as shrewd does.

[Alberta's Child]

Excellent point. Gingrich didn't acquire the "extremist" label until after his movement had succeeded.

Even after he had been out of Congress for several years, some Democratic candidates were trying to appeal to their moronic voting base by running against "Newt Gingrich's extremism" -- Hillary Clinton being one of them.

[Alberta's Child]

Morris has it all wrong. Lieberman is losing because no more than 5% of the people in America would ever tolerate a "leader" who spoke in that pathetic whine of his.

[WOSG]

Well, Newt was *called* an extremist the whole time.

But in fact, although Newt's rhetoric was strong (we could USE more Repubs with rhetoric like that these days!), his policies were center-right, not "right-wing".

Dick Morris is talking in marketing terms, not reality terms. Liberman is a Liberal, Clinton was a liberal. The "center" is whereever the midle of the voters are.
JMHO.

[futureceo31]

Exactly.. Cant believe all the conservatives who could even think of sitting out this election for an issue. "Heard someone on Hannity who said that he would much rather have a president Dean and fight against him than support Bush... I am like.. WHAT??? He thinks the repbs can get even anything done if Dean becomes president. The media will paint the repbs as obstructionists and hate mongers and the rest and will effectively reduce the party to nothing...

[futureceo31]

Dean still uses Newt Gingrich in speeches, if I am not mistaken last week..

[BenLurkin]

"Center"? Massive social programs such as recently enacted in Medicare are not in the "center" of anything except the center of socialism.

"Right"? All I want is for governance in the U.S. to comport to the intent of the Constitution. That's the true "Center" as far as I'm concerned.

[My2Cents]

Funny, I thought Medicare was put on a course toward privatization...a noble goal. I guess to simply see the Medicare reform as a "massive social program" depends on the spin on wants to entertain.

[My2Cents]

All I want is for governance in the U.S. to comport to the intent of the Constitution. That's the true "Center" as far as I'm concerned.

Then you should be 100% behind Pres. Bush's re-election, because his judicial nominations have given every indication that that is what they will do. I support Bush for his judicial nominations alone...that is enough for me.

[BenLurkin]

To truly "privatize" Medicare IMO would mean terminating Medicare, BUT if as a result of the Bush plan our tax dollars are never used to pay for the increased drug benefits, then . . . good.

Now on to doing away Social Security, agreed?

[BenLurkin]

I've voted straight Republican for nigh on twenty-five years. Not likely to change in 2004 . . . but am really feeling taken advantage of lately.

You see the difference between the democrat party and the Republicans is that the Republicans have one hand in your pocket: the democrat party has BOTH hands in your pocket.

[Joe Bfstplk]

The democrats must stay in a dead run to the left to keep left of Bush!