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

The Progressive Review ^ | 11/18/2002 | Sam Smith

[facedown]

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.

He's been on Hannity & Colmes many times. Don't take me wrong - Ford is one of the more moderate Dem's especially on economics. He is, however, pro-union, pro-immigration, pro-choice, etc. (Note that he did vote for ending PBA).

BTW you notice there are all kind of Dem's now talking about tax cuts. No doubt the result of W's use of them in this campaign.

[Kevin Curry]

Smith offers a fascinating insight into the woes of his party. He correctly points out that Clinton won by essentially disguising himself as a conservative on certain key issues. But Clinton's success did not translate into broader and lasting success by his party.

Where Smith gets off track, I think, is when he suggests that if the Democrats would only return to their roots they would again be successful. What does it mean to return to their roots? Apparently it means to create new social welfare and entitlement programs along the lines of social security and medicare. But entitlement programs are expensive and require tax increases. Democrats are getting beat bloody on the tax issue and many of them wince when the suggestion is made. Oh, they would love to raise taxes. Unfortunately for them, the people who pay taxes are the people who are most motivated to vote.

On the civil rights front the "noble" causes are all gone. Democrats have been reduced to defending marginal professional victim groups that define themselves by personal sexual behavior most Americans find immoral or sick. Many Americans may fancy themselves tolerant of homosexual behavior, but precious few find anything praiseworthy or laudatory about men rollerskating down Main Street wearing nothing but osterich feathers, leather jockstraps, rouge, shocking pink lipstick, and buggering each other within the loosey-goosey convention of "gay marriage."

Sucks to be them.

[Dems_R_Losers]

Exactly right. Democrats prospered while they were advancing equality and prosperity for laborers, women, and blacks, all of whom arguably had been held back by the wealthy white male power structure in America. But that hard work is essentially done. There isn't anyone left to liberate except fringe groups making different lifestyle choices.

[RoseofTexas]

WHERE IS THE BLACK'S COMMUNITY OUTRAGE!! I hope they have AWAKEN from their stupor! WHAT A ROYAL SLAP TO FORD AND BLACKS IN THEIR PARTY!! Electing Pelosi over Ford was like TELLING MRS. PARKS to go to the end of the BUS!!

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Yeah Sam, it's the Republicans with the big money donors, not the Democrats

The dirty little secret of Campaign Finance Reform is that the money used to operate, never mind startup, a journalistic enterprise is no cleaner than campaign donations to the Republican Party.

The First Amendment says I can print something on my computer on the day before the election, and I can give it away free. It doesn't say I can only use money I made by entertaining folks with the conceit that I am giving them the whole, unvarnished truth about "what's going on."

[rdb3]

Whatever you think about Sam Smith's political views as an old-school liberal, this is the best post-mortem on the Clinton Dems that I have seen yet.

Yes, it is a good "eulogy," but there's an elephant in the room (no pun intended) that the author refuses to acknowledge.

Clinton's handlers were not stupid. They played the political game as if they wrote the book, their media sycophants notwithstanding.

The one fatal misstep they made was "Hillary-Care." Trying to force one-eighth of the nation's economy into the public sector is the card that they now wish they didn't play. This was the catalyst for the taking of the Congress in '94.

The author is correct in noting that Clinton is the face to blame for the Democrats' demise, but not the reason why. "Why?" is always the most important question to have answered if it can be answered.

Policy is the reason. The author can't bring himself to admit that his precious Leftism has been shown the door. There is a small but noticeable swing to the Right in our nation today. For example, look at Oregon. Granted, Oregon is not California, but it gives California a run for its money for being the most Leftist state. Oregon's voters rejected a similar "Hillary-Care" bill. If it won't pass there, it most certainly won't pass in Nebraska or Kansas.

He won't admit it, but his precious Leftism has been seriously wounded. Now it is up to us to give it its final push into oblivion.

Shine on you crazy diamond.
Coming soon: Tha SYNDICATE.
101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that Internet Explorer cannot.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Oh, maybe it's the individual donors?.

Guess not.

Nice. Be interesting to see the running total of the contributions to the two major parties coming from this sorted list, going down in contribution level and upward in total contributions.

The Democrats would start out with the advantage among the fearsome "rich", and be overtaken when the large number of middle class contributors to the Republicans came into play.

Wouldn't that make a pretty picture?!

[Capt. Tom]

OH MY....I go to church AND own guns!

I don't go to church and I don't own a gun.(yet)

But I won't vote for the socialists who have taken over the democrat party. Socialism is the problem. Since the mid 60s the socialists have slowly but surely taken over that party and socialism is un- American, and it shows more and more as the socialists become more powerful.

The unending barage of right wing propaganda eminating from talk radio and Fox News has pointed this out to the people and the voters are reacting to it. - Tom

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I saw Ford on C-Span, and my take was that you had to read between the lines. Ford was inconsistent on taxes, tho I can't now cite chapter and verse.

You can't admit that the sovereign remedy for the economy is reduced taxes, and still complain that Bush hasn't cured the economy.

Not when you're leading the party of no compassion for the taxpayer.

[m1911]

Excellent point.

[11th Earl of Mar]

The author's premise is that Clinton was too conservative. And THAT'S why Democrats lost. My questions are these: Does this mean that if Clinton would have pushed harder and farther for gays in the military, Democrats would have been better off? And if Clinton would have raised taxes HIGHER than what he did in 1993, then the Republicans would not have taken Congress in 1994. Right? And if Hillary's health care plan had been adopted, a Democratic majority would have been secured?

Personally, I like the way this guy thinks. If we could get him to replace McAuliffe as the head of the DNC, we could get a fillibuster proof majority in the Senate and a veto proof majority in the House.

[dirtboy]

It must jettison its self-defeating snobbism towards Americans who go to church or own a gun.

He hit the nail on the head with this one.

That line struck me as well - as being particularly insightful, and probably the best advice the Dem Party has had in some time - there are lots of blue-collar union guys here in Pennsylvania who would be be inclined to vote for a Dem for president but don't like the gun-control agenda of the left. I may disagree with what Sam thinks will help the left, but his diagnosis of the impact of the Clintons on the Democratic Party, along with the pathologies of those who spent over eight years defending them, is as spot-on as it comes.

[Political Junkie Too]

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

Which is why many now want to see the Electoral College abolished?

-PJ

[okie01]

Thanks for the post and the ping. As you put it, Sam Smith is "old school liberal".

Which means a.) there are immense areas of disagreement between him and conservatives on virtually every political issue, but b.) he's honest and c.) he's a patriot. He recognized Clinton's corruption before any other liberal and called it what it was.

If you're thinking "loyal opposition", Sam would be a good model. He's wrong on just about everything, but he is an honest American -- something a lot of the libs can't say.

[m1911]

Since FR is FReaking out and it thinks this is the last thread I posted to, I took a look at what was on it.

My calculator says 7264/58000 = .125, that's 12.5%.

I agree with the point of your post, just not the math.