Radical left eats its young, asks for seconds
We've been tracking the accelerating radicalization of the left, which may have hit a new high-water mark today. Here we noted the tendency to demand litmus tests. Cindy Sheehan's handlers care more about looking good to their fringe constituency than about doing what it actually takes to change minds. Now the Daily Kos has declared war on the Democratic Leadership Committee.
Any Democrat standing up to declare 'This is no way to prepare our party to win an election' will be shouted down. That is, assuming there's anyone left in the party who is willing to do so. As for the bloggers... well, let's just say it's safer to run Pat Robertson stories.
We're finding it difficult to find many Democratic-leaning sources that love their party enough to risk criticism from their more radical elements in order to tell the party what it needs to hear. It's simply politically more expedient to blame outside forces for Democrats' problems than to demand change. We did see Camille Paglia stand up against the standard party line the other day (best line: "The left looks down on everyone"), and no doubt she will continue to fight for the dictates of her conscience. But she's by far the exception proving the rule.
Categories: Politics
posted by Mister Snitch! at 3:55 PM
8 Comments:
The Democratic party has been a slow train wreck for going on six years now. The lemming wing is gaining traction, I guess because it's just more fun to be out there.
On the one hand it's pure joy to watch and, if the Republican party were a little more trustworthy, you'd think we were on the verge of a golden age.
On the other hand, in this country we need two functioning, responsible parties to make this thing work. Schadenfreude won't get us past the problems we face.
Couldn't agree more. That's also why I want a Republican for Governor. It almost doesn't matter who - you just can't have one party with no checks on 'em, because.... Well, this is Jersey, what am I telling you for. And Schadenfreude is a great word to visit, but not a place I want to live.
I think there are actually three parties wandering around the country at the moment. You have obviously, the Democrats.
But then you have two parties within the Republican party. You have Kitchen Convservatives [I just made this term up, unless someone else has used it, in which case, they made it up] who want to promote a socially conservative agenda based on Judeo-Christian teachings. And then there are the traditional Republicans who want smaller government and simply are fiscally conservative, laissez faire republicans.
I think what will happen in terms of the national parties is that the Republican party is going to be destroyed when their unholy alliance falls apart. Its already beginning to happen. People like Pataki or Forrester or Schwarzenegger are not really into the whole religious bit. So what will happen is there will be very centrist republicans and very conservative republicans, and the only place left for Democrats will be to move to the left.
Of course, to some extent, Democrats aren't so much moving to the left as the perception of what is centrist is shifting. But that's another debate.
Ian, I could not have asked for a more apt illustration of the point made by this post. Tell a Democrat the Party is going to have to face some difficult changes in their approach to politics, and in response you get "Boy, it sure looks like those Republicans are in trouble".
However, you do bring up the point of how a party seeking national office responds to pressures from the fringes. That's a real issue, but you act as if it's a new challenge. In fact, this has always been the case in national politics. And it is the case for BOTH parties.
Basically, any candidate faces a tough balancing act with party extremes. SInce you bring up Schwartzennegger, he probably is more capable of pulling it off than anyone. Even CA Dems have have found common ground where they could work with him, let alone Rep Party factions. But he cannot run for president, since he was not born here, so that's a moot point. Pataki has no chance at national office, as I have mentioned before, and we are unlikely to hear much from a fromer Governor who declined to run for re-election because he knew he'd fail. Forrester has his hands full running for Governor, he's not going anywhere else anytime soon (especially if he loses). Why you choose those names is beyond me, since none of them will be in a position to run for national office in the forseeable future (possibly ever). For that matter, why is managing the fringes is suddenly a problem that will split the Republicans in two? There's no grounds for this, all youcan reasonably claim is that this is a challenge, which it is for both parties in the best of times. It's wishful thinking for Republican Party malaise, not a reasoned argument for its existence.
As far as the Dems go: Maybe they aren't moving to the left so much as your perception of what is centrist is shifting. But everyone else's? Tell that to Michael Totten, see how he responds.
If you believe the Democrats have fewer internal challenges than the Republicans, and that the Republican Party is on the verge of collapse, it's really fine by me. Kerry has been going around telling people the Party is fine, and he just lost an election, so if he's not convinced by his loss I don't suppose there's any way I could convince anyone else whose mind is made up.
I've sort of been toying with a theory over the last few years about party politics in the US. [I think party politics is perhaps, the most interesting aspect of political theory, in terms of academics at least].
Most people would describe the American system after George Washington as a two party system, despite his farewell address condemning party politics. I think this is a bad model to explain the American party system. Instead, I think we have a precisely three party system [and I dont mean an institutional Republican and Democratic party]
Instead, I believe there is a Majority Party in Power, a Minority Party in Power, and a third party either in decline or on the rise.
Now if you subscribe to the theory that the nation has had major political shifts roughly every 32 years [this is a very over simplified explanation]. Modern theorists have basically declared this theory bunk because Clinton interrupted the shift, and because democrats controlled Congress for the majority of Reagan's term. But essentially, historically speaking, a majority party has controlled both congress and the presidency for significant blocks of time, or roughly 32 years.
However, in each political shift there has usually been a third party pressing at one or another of the parties in power. The Populists, the Whigs, ect. In almost every case, one of the major parties consumes, is consumed by, or out right replaced by one of these third parties.
Now like I said, Democrats had power in Congress under Reagan, Republicans had power in Congress under Clinton, and we're back to full republican control. Some theorists have come up with this whacked out theory based on "Divided Government" that trys to explain this contradiction as merely a period where the people like dividing powers between two major parties. I disagree. I tend to think Clinton, for the most part, was not so dramatically different than Bush 1 and Reagan. At least not in the same way as Roosevelt and Hoover were different. Or JQ Adams and Jackson.
Anyway, my point is, I wasn't trying to ignore the problems of the Democratic party by talking about the Republicans problem, merely I was trying to explain why Democrats are moving left, and need to. I don't think we'll see a real change in 2008. By 2012 though, I think there should be some real fears of a repeat of the 1824 election. Democrats are not going to win moving to the center. Look at John Kerry, who is pretty much as moderate as they come [you can't believe campaign ads that say he is the most liberal senator since Ceasar Augustus. Its bullshit, and anyone with common sense should know that 90% of campaign commercials coming out of both sides are out right lies]. In either case, nationally, Democrats will probably not be taking back very much power until the Republican alliance falls apart as the federalists did in 1824, and even then, only if they have moved significantly further left to energize a large enough group to overcome the scraps left behind by the Republican party
Oh, and the reasons I mentioned who I mentioned was not necessarily their national aspirations, but convience. I could have thrown out Bob Franks [but who remembers him], or Guiliani [but he's a media whore, so wants to give him more press?] or a large number of national republicans. I didnt because I was commenting on a blog in hasty manner and didnt want to take the time to research a few hundred congressman, governors, or senators and come up with a top list. I threw arnold in there bcause, yes, he fits the profile, and I felt like I was leaning a little to hard on the metro area with Pataki and Forrester.
OK well that explains a lot. Thanks for taking the time, I know how much effort it is to put thoughts in order and how it takes away from other things (that are probably more important).
Your theories are interesting. I can't find any political vectors that I could ride out past the next election, in fact I'm even shaky on the next election. I disagree about the direction for the Democrats, and I think it's a question of carefully parsing out one's thinking on this. There is simply no way on Earth the Dems win by going "more left", at least not nationally. You just can't embrace a fringe group and run with it, because you alienate the majority and winning requires a majority. Winning politics is all about making compromises that everyone can live with.
I think what you really mean is: How do the Dems differentiate themselves from Republicans if they move to the center? That of course is a question for a top political strategist to deal with. But that needs to start happening now, because right now the Dems are the party of Cindy Sheehan yahooism. That might play fine on the Daily Kos, but the Daily Kos' audience won't elect the next President. What Sheehan is doing is exactly what I described - they are energizing Bush's base. Come next election, stories like Sheehan's will be replayed. Intemperate quotes like "America is not worth dying for" have a way of coming back to haunt you. So if there is going to be Dem strategizing for the next go-round, it needs to start yesterday. The next candidate needs distance from the fringes, the fringes need to be less identified with the party's direction, the party needs redefinition, and as I said there is a major damage control issue. Then we have the fact that the next election will happen in a resurgent economy - bad for Dems good for Republicans, who will assume credit for it (and will be believed). The war will be ongoing (good for the Dems), but it's less of a factor than Dems would like.
I'd suggest the Democrats kill two birds with one stone: hire Karl Rove.
Well there is a great difference between political theory and political practice, though for the most part in the sort of greater scheme of things, both usually hold up.
The real thing that changes things up is the electoral college. By moving left, Democrats will only be more secure in the states they routinely win. And by moving left, I don't mean Cindy or Ralph Nader; instead I mean taking clear stances on traditionally liberal values rather than a compromising centrist sort of thing they've been flopping around with.
Of course, obviously, merely holding onto the states they've traditional held doesn't win an election. But, assuming I'm right and at some point in the near future a conservative fringe candidate runs in the general election [or conversely, a moderate Republican], and Republican resources are split, a left leaning Democrat could easily pick up the scraps. In Florida and Ohio, if a third candidate takes just 5 to 10 % of the vote, both those states go Democrat.
On the other hand, a centrist Democrat does not play as well to liberal northest states and puts into play Connecticuit, Maryland, Deleware, maybe New Jersey, making it harder to pick up the scraps in Ohio and Florida because resources are going to patch up what should be their stronghold.
Clinton had a great advantage in 92 because Perot took away from Bush 1 more votes than he took from Clinton. Bush 2 had an advantage in 2000 because of Nader. Strictly speaking, I'm not blaming Nader for 2000 nor am I totally crediting Perot in 92, but lets face facts, everything comes down to the electoral college which can be manipulated, especially if there is discontent in one of the in power parties.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home