The battle for the soul of the Democrat party Posted by: mcq
on Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Who knew that Hillary Clinton's call yesterday for party unity within the Democrat party would fracture it even more?
Come on, tell me? Who knew?
It would seem, given the party's almost total ineffectiveness (except in an obstructionist sense) that such a call would be welcomed and considered earnestly.
The reaction highlighted the dilemma Democratic politicians face trying to satisfy energized activists on the left—many of whom are hungering for party leaders to advance a more full-throated agenda and more aggressively confront President Bush—while also cultivating the moderate Democrats and independents whose support is crucial to winning elections. The challenge has become more acute because of the power and importance grass-roots activists, symbolized by groups such as MoveOn.org and liberal bloggers, have assumed since the 2004 election.
Clinton, who everyone but the most politically clueless knows is setting herself up for a presidential bid in '08, is trying very hard to move herself and the party toward the middle. This should come as no surprise, since it is the strategy which was so successful for her husband, Bill Clinton. It doesn't particularly matter, ideologically, if she's much more left of center than she presents herself, it only matters, politically, how she's preceived. And the same goes for the rest of the party as a whole.
But it appears, for some factions, that the only way they'll move in the direction of the center is by being dragged kicking and screaming. And evident in that faction is the rising power of the internet and blogs:
The most pointed critique of Clinton came in one of the most influential blogs on the left, Daily Kos out of Berkeley, Calif., which called Clinton's speech "truly disappointing" and said she should not provide cover for an organization that often has instigated conflict within the party.
"If she wanted to give a speech to a centrist organization truly interested in bringing the various factions of the party together, she could've worked with NDN," the blog said in a reference to the New Democrat Network, with which Daily Kos's Markos Moulitsas is associated. "Instead, she plans on working with the DLC to come up with some common party message yadda yadda yadda. Well, that effort is dead on arrival. The DLC is not a credible vehicle for such an effort. Period."
The DLC, the Bill Clinton vehicle to the White House, is now completely out of favor with the more radical elements of the left. So the fractures remain. It's also not helpful when, as Clinton did, you call for unity while supporters are ripping those you want to influence within the party:
Marshall Wittman wrote from the DLC meeting in Columbus, "While someone from the daily kosy (misspelling intended) confines of Beserkely might utter ominous McCarthyite warnings about the 'enemy within,' here in Columbus constructive committed crusaders for progressivism are discussing ways to win back the hearts of the heartland."
Of course, Republicans are eating it up. Even as inept as they've been in the last 6 years, they still don't compare to the disarray the Democrats find themselves in.
Roger Hickey, co-director of the liberal Campaign for America's Future, said Clinton had badly miscalculated the current politics inside the Democratic Party and argued that she could pay a price for her DLC association if she runs for president in 2008.
"There has been an activist resurgence in the Democratic Party in recent years, and Hillary risks ensuring that there's a candidate to her left appealing to those activists who don't much like the DLC," he said.
Clinton, like her husband, is the master of political disguise. Will she again reform herself, based on this little kerfuffle? Or will she stay the course with the DLC?
Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson tried to deflect the criticism. "Her point was simply to say that the goals and issues that divide us are less consequential than are the ones we share in common, and that unity is needed in the face of our shared challenge," Wolfson said.
John D. Podesta, who was White House chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, said he interpreted Clinton's remarks as critical of those on both sides—centrists as much as liberals—who would devote more energy to internal party battles than to confronting the right . But he said Clinton may have underestimated the bad feelings within the party. "I think she was trying to push the DLC back a little bit, but she walked into a crossfire maybe she should have realized was out there," he said.
Heh, of course she was trying to "push the DLC back a little". She walked into an ideological buzzsaw and now is trying to stitch the effort back together. Look, if the Dems are going to have any chance in '08, they are going to have to settle their internal dissonance. They are going to have to come up with a unified strategy and a candidate who is capable of carrying it through. The sort of in-fighting being witnessed now is how it will be done. But based on the reaction to Clinton's speech, she may not be as strong a candidate for that position as many on the left would like to believe. When you have old lefty war-horses like Jesse Jackson in full bore criticism (although not of Clinton presonally, but certainly of the organization within the party she now represents), you're not in the strongest position.
Meanwhile, Jesse L. Jackson reopened his decades-old battle with the DLC by accusing the group of fronting for corporate interests while ignoring labor and civil rights leaders. "The DLC embraces CAFTA and sells admission to its conference to corporate lobbyists," he said in a speech to the AFL-CIO convention in Chicago.
I'll watch with interest how this all lays itself out, but suffice it to say, the more radical left is making its play for the soul of the Democrat party.
Who were the closest thing to "DLC-preferred candidates" last round? Gephardt and Lieberman, weren’t they? Unless things change greatly in the next couple years, I don’t forsee anyone the DLC starts out supporting (as opposed to throwing their support to the frontrunner) as likely to win the primaries.
I never underestimate her. Hillary will get the nomination. Remember how toothless the Kos/Howard Dean left turned out to be in their own primaries last time. Plus, those nitwits are so obsessed with the "chickenhawk" argument they’ll all line up behind some empty suit with medals again (note that Kos’ polls keep getting won by Wesley Clark).
Just curious but why do you insist on calling the party the "Democrat Party". The party is called the Democratic Party. Individual members of the Democratic Party can be called a Democrat, but the party is the Democratic Party. As far as I know, referring to it as the Democrat Party was a creation of Joe McCarthy because he thought it sounded demeaning. Sort of like using the word "Jew" as an adjective instead of Jewish.
This raises the possibility of a leftist "Ross Perot" candidate to split the nominal Democratic voters with a "centralist" as Clinton is positioning herself. Who is a likely player? Dean? Clark" Is Nader shot? What difference does it make that Clinton gets the Democratic nomination if the party splits?
Of course, what the Democrats need is a centralist like Evan Bayh but it sounds like they will never unite behind someone who could win.
The left won the soul of the democratic party back in 1972. The DLC and similar efforts have been fighting a rear guard action ever since. They managed to sneak Clinton in, but the left of the left has generally prevailed at all national levels - and the result has been the alienation of the leftish center - the reagan democrats, dlc, blue dog democrats or whatever you want to call them.
Both democratic presidents since that date have been anomalies. Carter nearly didn’t get elected despite the fact that the incumbent administration was heavily tarred with the watergate scandal. Clinton would never have won without Perot splitting the center/right vote. In neither of his victories did he get a majority of the vote.
An incumbent vice president couldn’t quite manage to win, despite the fact that Bush Jr. is arguably one of the weakest candidates the republicans ever nominated. And they couldn’t defeat him the second time, despite the problems in Iraq and the President’s abysmal job approval ratings.
And, they’ve progressively (sorry) lost ground in both houses of congress, even in off year elections where the opposition usually gains seats.
Even if Hilary wins the nomination on DLC chops, she won’t have a chance unless the republicans nominate another W. She won’t have a sufficiently large base, and she’ll have to do too much to appease the left that is the strongest part of her party.
I submit a slightly different scenario. The radical left won the battle for control of the Democratic Party years ago. (In that win, the Democratic party lost whatever soul it may have had)
What we are witness to now is a feeble but growing attempt by the rest of the party to wrest control away from the radicals. However, I think it too late; the party has rather gotten used to the idea of being the party of Howard Dean and Michial Moore, and Jane Fonda.
Thus, is the Democratic party doomed... both as it’s current config, and also as any kind of a party at all. It will cease to exist as a party within a decade.
