THE PARTY'S OVER - Sam Smith on the Demise of the Democrats

What happened on November 5, 2002 was the culmination of a hostile takeover of the Democratic Party that began more than a decade ago under the leadership of a group of conservatives, corporadoes, and con men who convinced their political colleagues that the salvation of the party lay in destroying its purpose.

Called "moving to the center," the recipe had certain similarities to a Saturday Night Live sketch in which an actor pretends to be George Bush or Trent Lott, but unlike the sketch, it was neither funny nor convincing. It was conceived by the "Democratic Leadership Council," a group whose underlying message was not leadership but abandon ship and which chose as its agent a conservative governor of Arkansas of salesman-like charm and conviction.

Clinton had been the beneficiary of what one journalist called the Great Mentioner. He had been noted, remarked upon and welcomed in the smokeless salons where national politics are created. How one comes to matter in Washington politics is guided by few precise rules, although in comparison to fifty years ago the views of lobbyists and fundraisers are far more significant than the opinion, say, of the mayor of Chicago or the governor of Pennsylvania. This is a big difference; somewhere behind the old bosses in their smoke-filled rooms were live constituents; behind the political cash lords of today there is mostly just more money and the few who control it.

Thus coming to matter has much less to do with traditional politics, especially local politics, than it once did. Today, other things count: the patronage of those who already matter, a blessing bestowed casually by one right person to another right person over lunch at the Metropolitan Club, a columnist's praise, a well-received speech before a well-placed organization, the assessment of a lobbyist as sure-eyed as a fight manager checking out new fists at the local gym. There are still machines in American politics; they just dress and talk better.

There is another rule. The public plays no part. The public is the audience; the audience does not write or cast the play. In 1988, the 1992 play was already being cast. Conservative Democrats were holding strategy meetings at the home of party fund-raiser Pamela Harriman. The meetings -- eventually nearly a hundred of them -- were aimed at ending years of populist insurrection within the party. They were regularly moderated by Clark Clifford and Robert Strauss, the Mr. Fixits of the Democratic mainstream. Democratic donors paid $1,000 to take part in the sessions and by the time it was all over, Mrs. Harriman had raised about $12 million for her kind of Democrats.

The play was also being cast by the Democratic Leadership Council. Although lacking any official role in the Democratic Party, the DLC claimed it was the voice of mainstream party thought. In fact, it was primarily a lobby for the views of southern and other conservative Democrats, yet so successful was its media manipulation that it even got away with calling its think tank the Progressive Policy Institute.

By the late 1980s there was a wide-spread consensus among both the press and the Democratic leadership that the party's problems could be traced to several factors:

- The loss of control by party bosses due to excessive democratization of nomination and convention procedures.

- Undue pandering to such traditional constituencies as blacks, liberals, and women.

By the 1988 convention, this consensus had taken root. US News & World Report reported: "That the Democrats went beyond all bounds to appear bland and 'normal' is incontrovertible. The brief, boring and bulletproof platform gave 'platitudinous' new meaning. 'Notice,' complained New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, offering only one example, 'that the word city does not appear in our platform. We talk about suburban hometown American and I figure that doesn't mean the South Bronx.'"

With the rise of this orthodoxy, the media's language changed. What was once a civil rights cause now became "demands of special interest groups." The conservative Democrats' self-definition as "moderates" or "mainstream" was uncritically adopted. And "liberal" began to be used, even in purportedly objective articles, as a pejorative. It made someone like Clinton look very good.

What followed is presumed to be well known, but isn't. The same journalists who overwhelmingly supported Clinton's candidacy began writing what amounted to an eight year mythology that created a personal legend even as the party he led collapsed. Missing from the legend were some key facts about the Clinton administration:

- the discrediting in the public mind of such fundamental liberal programs as social security, economic policy, and public education. In such ways Clinton served as a warm-up band for the Republicans.

- a replacement of traditional Democratic programs with a smarmy and disingenuous agitprop, most noticeable in Clinton's handling of his black constituency. The same man who was brought to tears in black churches sent young black males to prison in unprecedented numbers and escalated a drug war that became more deadly to these blacks than Vietnam had been to black fighting men.

Of course, you can argue about such things, but there was something else - also unreported - that you couldn't argue about: the disintegration of the Democratic Party itself. An analysis I did in 1998 found that during Clinton's administration, the Democrats had lost:

- 48 seats in the House
- 8 seats in the Senate
- 11 governorships
- 1,254 state legislative seats
- Control of 9 legislatures

In addition 439 elected Democrats had joined the Republican Party while only three Republican officeholders had gone the other way.

While Democrats had been losing state legislative seats on the state level for 25 years, the loss during the Clinton years was striking. In 1992, the Democrats controlled 17 more state legislatures than the Republicans. After November 2000, the Republicans controlled one more than the Democrats. It was the first time since 1954 that the GOP had controlled more state legislatures than the Democrats (they tied in 1968). Among other things, this gave the Republican more control over redistricting.

In fact, no Democratic president since the 19th century suffered such an electoral disintegration of his party as did Clinton.

This unreported truth helps to explain why the Democrats didn't do better in 2002. The Republicans merely continued their successful assault on a party that had become hopelessly weakened by an exploitive, ungrounded, self-indulgent elite that had swept through Democratic politics much like the Enron cavaliers treated the energy industry, not to mention their own shareholders and employees. They were, as F. Scott Fitzgerald put it, careless people: "They smashed up things and creatures and then retreated into their money or their vast carelessness or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made."

There are few signs the party has figured this out. It still clings to Clinton like a abused spouse in denial and accepts other leadership that runs the gamut from the unappealing to the indefensible.

For the party to recover, it must divorce itself from the con men who have done it so much damage. It must find its way back to the gutbucket, pragmatic populism that gave this country Social Security, a minimum wage, veterans' programs, the FHA, civil rights, and the war on poverty. It must jettison its self-defeating snobbism towards Americans who go to church or own a gun. It needs to be as useful to the voter in the cubicle as it once was to the voter on the assembly line. It must find a soul, a passion, and a sense of itself. Most of all, it must get rid of those false prophets and phony friends who have not only done it so much damage but have left the country fully in the hands of the cruel, the selfish, the violent, the dumb, and the anti-democratic. -- SAM SMITH

I watched an interview with Ford before the vote. The guy sounded like a Republican. I can foresee many southern Dems finding a home in the Republican party after the Pelosi take over. I say, come on in the water's fine.

What Sam misses is that what the Republicans have is the TRUTH. Our solutions are free-market ones which WORK because they jive with human incentives and use those incentives for greater achievements. The PURE Democrats that Sam describes believe in socialism as a domestic policy and appeasement as a foreign policy. Both have failed every time they were tried. A majority of Americans in time of danger have rejected the appeasement policy most clearly identified by Jimmy Carter, and will never again put a man in the White House in times of trouble. Slowly but surely, with the % of Americans investing in the stock market, more and more of them are realizing the truth about socialism.
So by all means Democrats, go back Left and the wrong side of History.

You didn't read it right. The snobbing is BY Democrats AGAINST those that go to church and own guns. He's complaining about the same thing many on FR do, the fact that the liberal left looks down it's nose on just about everybody that lives in "fly over country" and that's alienated a lot of people.

"deadly to these blacks than Vietnam had been to black fighting men."

Here is one lie. A quick check of the wall will show that 7264 of the names belong to black men out of 58,000 and change. This is 9% of the total and less than their proportion of the U.S. population which is about 12%. Veterans know that the military services have a high proportion of blacks compared to the population of the U.S. The truth is that blacks in Vietnam were killed in very low proportions.

Anyway, the point is the author is a damn lier.

The premise of this article is the the opposite of the truth. The Dems are on the way out because of their ultraleftist stands on the issues, and their contrariness with President Bush, not because they are "too far to the right." The only Dems to win a Presidential election since 1964 are the ones that were centrists. I'm not sure how anyone can argue that the Dems "lost" because they are too "conservative;" there's no evidence of that.....

I remember the jokes before Clinton. Even the Dems made fun of their own inability to find good presidential material. Clinton was an aberration. The march of history has resumed and the Dems will drift further into irrelevance. What interests me is the nature of the next opposition party. Is it already in existence? Maybe the Libetarians? The Constitution party? Who knows.

cruel - okay, I did pick on my sisters; selfish - it is my stuff, don't mess with my stuff!!; violent - I told you, "it is MY stuff"; dumb - welllll, I am blonde!; anti-democratic - hmmmm, drop the "ic" and you probably describe me

I watched an interview with Ford before the vote. The guy sounded like a Republican.

If you look at Ford's voting record, he's really pretty liberal. He would be another RINO at best. A pragmatist would say to pick up all the bodies we can. A purist would say that the last thing we need is another Lincoln Chafee or Olympia Snow. We may gain some crossovers, especially in the South, as happened after the '94 massacre.

In the midst of this polemic, the following line stood out for me:

In addition 439 elected Democrats had joined the Republican Party while only three Republican officeholders had gone the other way.

Now, how does this support Smith's position that the Democratic party has lost influence because it has become too conservative? If that were the case, you would not have had 439 Dems switching to the more conservative Republican party. This would only make sense if the country itself has shifted to the right.

If you look at Ford's voting record, he's really pretty liberal.

Yep...his American Conservative Union rating is 8 while Pelosi's is 4...which makes him a rabid right winger among the lefties!

I admit I'm basing my opinion only on that one interview since I never heard of the guy before then but he was pro tax cuts and pro free trade. Sounded pretty good to me but your information is far more informed I'n sure.

By all means, Democrats should be openly for redistribution of wealth and government control of everything not now controlled by the government. They need to openly side with Marx and Lenin as they do privately.

Democrats are losers because the people know them TOO WELL, not because people don't know for what Democrats stand.

It is a good post-mortem. But I believe Sam has missed a huge point-hillary and bill and their war room, as well as the dem leadership council are not CENTRISTS, they are marxists. They only lie to win-then their stripes creep up. Witness her heinous's universal health care plan.

What kind of thought process could bring a seemingly intelegent person to these conclusions about the Republican party. The man can obviously see the faults of his preferred party but cannot see the virtues of the opposing party. I don't know the man's back ground but I would say that he has undergone some serious brainwashing from a early childhood.

They were, as F. Scott Fitzgerald put it, careless people: "They smashed up things and creatures and then retreated into their money or their vast carelessness or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made."

That's about as good a description of Bill and Hillary Clitnon as I've ever read. The entire world is cleaning up the mess they made, and will be for many years to come.

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.