Will They Listen?
That's the question. Because the Galston/Kamarck report, discussed in this Washington Post piece, challenges some cherished liberal myths -- arguing both that Democrats can't win simply by boosting base turnout (they're not "the majority") and that the energized left-wing bloc of the party is alienating normal Americans. In short, the Dems are going to have to moderate if they want to win.
It goes without saying that this isn't a message that's likely to win a positive reception from a party headed by . . . Howard Dean. Whose icon is . . . Cindy Sheehan.
But what's worse (for them), it sounds like the Democrats have a problem that's hard to fix. The report repudiates the idea of a "Karl Rove" strategy -- working to turn out the base. Given that the most active and energized part of the party is the far-left, it's a pretty substantial sacrifice to have to keep silent on the (wacky) issues that motivate those on the left who are inclined to work the hardest and give the most.
According to the piece, the authors recommend the party's candidates "replicate Clinton's tactics in 1992, when he broke with the party's liberal base."
The significant word here is "tactics." In a post-9/11 world, tactics may not cut it . . . voters may actually be looking for some policy. And although Clinton's political expertise has been deemed legendary, let's do a thought experiment: He could have broken with Jesse Jackson and Sister Souljah all he wanted, but if the Islamofascist attacks had occurred on 9/11/91 (instead of a decade later), does anyone really think that a plurality of Americans would have thrown out George H.W. Bush for a sweet-talking but largely unknown governor who had been a draft dodger with links to the "counterculture"?
The point is that in the 9/11 world, the Democrats are (rightly) seen as weak on defense. And that isn't something that even a tactically savvy candidate can fix, nor even one that seems tough personally (an ex-Marine?). That's because everyone knows that with a candidate comes a party -- whose support he needs on a variety of matters, foreign and domestic, if he's to succeed. A
For now, and for almost any Democratic presidential candidate, the baggage that accompanies him (or her) -- Teddy Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi and all the rest -- is simply too heavy.
And if they "moderate" too far? Paging Ralph Nader . . .
It goes without saying that this isn't a message that's likely to win a positive reception from a party headed by . . . Howard Dean. Whose icon is . . . Cindy Sheehan.
But what's worse (for them), it sounds like the Democrats have a problem that's hard to fix. The report repudiates the idea of a "Karl Rove" strategy -- working to turn out the base. Given that the most active and energized part of the party is the far-left, it's a pretty substantial sacrifice to have to keep silent on the (wacky) issues that motivate those on the left who are inclined to work the hardest and give the most.
According to the piece, the authors recommend the party's candidates "replicate Clinton's tactics in 1992, when he broke with the party's liberal base."
The significant word here is "tactics." In a post-9/11 world, tactics may not cut it . . . voters may actually be looking for some policy. And although Clinton's political expertise has been deemed legendary, let's do a thought experiment: He could have broken with Jesse Jackson and Sister Souljah all he wanted, but if the Islamofascist attacks had occurred on 9/11/91 (instead of a decade later), does anyone really think that a plurality of Americans would have thrown out George H.W. Bush for a sweet-talking but largely unknown governor who had been a draft dodger with links to the "counterculture"?
The point is that in the 9/11 world, the Democrats are (rightly) seen as weak on defense. And that isn't something that even a tactically savvy candidate can fix, nor even one that seems tough personally (an ex-Marine?). That's because everyone knows that with a candidate comes a party -- whose support he needs on a variety of matters, foreign and domestic, if he's to succeed. A
For now, and for almost any Democratic presidential candidate, the baggage that accompanies him (or her) -- Teddy Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi and all the rest -- is simply too heavy.
And if they "moderate" too far? Paging Ralph Nader . . .
posted by LadybugUSA at 9:35 AM
3 Comments:
I think the democratic party has far less of a problem than republican pundits seem to point out. I also think your prescriptions reveal a central problem with the major parties. They are stuck in a right, left, middle mindset that most of the country has long ago moved on from. It's why both republicans and democrats have been alienating the vast majority of americans. They are SICK of this limitation. Which incidently only leaves room for mudslinger as the strategy that finally makes the difference. It's lowest common denominator politics at its worst. Looking at the world through this oversimplistic prism of left, middle, right - DOESN'T WORK. Clinton got elected in part, because he offered his "third way". He at least started the conversation of getting away from this oversimplistic view. He moderated the democratic party, but politics doesn't exist in a vacuum. Bush Sr. lost because he nominated a judge accused of sexual harrasment, we had race-riots in Los Angeles, the banking system almost tanked and our economy stunk. These are much more important reasons for voter decisions what any candidates rating is on the LMR political scale. I believe, Iraq, Katrina, Social Security, the Deficit, the Housing Bubble, and Washington scandals will have far more impact on upcoming elections than democratic political strategy.
Yeah and Bush won because of Ralph Nader. What's your point?
By the way, Tectonic, as soon as you use the word "permanent" in politics, you've already lost the argument.
Post a Comment
<< Home