November 16, 2004

Bloodletting

TNR's Peter Beinart notes that the Democratic Party seems unusually complacent in defeat, pointing out that post-defeat "unity" is not necessarily a virtue. He really has a point: many Democrats appear to believe that the thing to do in 2008 is to run essentially the same campaign with a different spokesmodel.

Beinart:

[Kerry] never viscerally grasped America's post-September 11 anxiety about liberalism. That anxiety is understandable, and thinking it can be assuaged with new cultural packaging is as condescending as thinking it could be overcome by nominating a Vietnam veteran.

The Democrats need an ideological shift on foreign policy akin to the domestic policy shift ushered in by Bill Clinton. When that shift begins, division will replace unity and the bloodletting will begin. It can't start a moment too soon.

Posted by Dr. Frank at November 16, 2004 09:08 PM | TrackBack
Comments

Re: "different spokesmodel",

You forgot to add the other half of the diagnosis, which is that winning next time will require the left to state their positions LOUDER and MORE SLOWLY, and make them more PURELY Liberal. They underestimated how STUPID, DENSE, and BIGOTED we are. Thus, they will need to do a better job of EDUCATING the rest of us Red-necks than they did this time.

Posted by: Blixa at November 16, 2004 10:08 PM

I've never read anything else by Beinert, but this piece seems like more New Republic "run for the center/right" claptrap to me. Some of his assertions are on the mark -- the DLC has pretty much purged genuine leftism from the Democratic party (that's why Nader was so popular in 2000), as Beinert points out. Others, like claiming that African-American voters slid to the Republicans are simply asserted without any evidence. In fact, the numbers I've seen indicate that the African-American vote was about as pro-Dem as it's been the last few elections.

The biggest disagreement I have is with Beinert's argument that, "If you're not making liberals uncomfortable, you're not going to win." You know what the definition of a liberal is now? Anyone who's running against a Republican. Brad Carson in Oklahoma was accused of being a Liberal, for god's sake, and the guy is obviously a conservative. On the other hand, Russ Feingold won overwhelmingly in a very close state, and he's unabashedly left-wing. Wellstone was another consistent winner who was openly liberal. Politics was very different in 1992 -- the Dems still held Congress and felt much less threatened on the national scene. There were more genuine liberals in office and in national politics. Lastly, Clinton had everything going for him in that election -- Cold War over; lousy economy; crappy, effete WASP opponent -- and he still would have lost if Perot hadn't run. Emulating Clinton is no way to win. And many people are beginning to appreciate the Left's anger at Clinton for conceding so much ideological ground to the GOP -- Big Government is bad, taxes are bad, deregulation is inherently good -- that the Dems now have nowhere to stand.

And that last point about "an ideological shift on foreign policy akin to the domestic policy shift ushered in by Clinton": WE ALREADY DID THAT! What do you think voting for the Iraq war was? What do you think running on a platform of INCREASING the size of the military was? What do you think all that "kill the terrorists" stuff from Kerry was? Does Beinert consider all of that some kind of McGovernite, fellow-traveller appeasement peacenik hippie crap? And if that's the key thing for the Dems to do, why doesn't he explain what he's talking about?

The bloodletting has been going on for a decade in the Democratic party, but despite the stereotype of dissent-loving Dems and disciplined Republicans, the Dems have tried very hard to stay unified to prevent disaster. I think it's dawned on more and more people, however, that the DLC are successful only at losing anything they get their hands on. All those center/right, non-incumbent southern Senate candidates? Loser, loser, loser, every single one. The DLC's centrist message is empirically a big, fat loser -- so unless you really, really disagree with left-wing political views there's no more reason to trust the DLC Dems who dominate in Washington with the future of the party.

The Democratic Party has had 2 opportunities for "Goldwater Moments" -- times when ideological activists take control of the party after a big loss to an incumbent President: McGovern in 1972 and Jesse Jackson in 1984. Both times, the Party leadership got cold feet and figured out how to drag the Party to its safe center. That strategy was a failure in the long run, and in the short run (like Jesse would have done worse than Mondale in '84?). An open Pres race in 2008 won't be a likely time for this, but if the GOP wins again in 2008 I predict another Goldwater opportunity in 2012, and I hope if it comes to that that the 3rd time is a charm.

Posted by: Nick at November 17, 2004 01:06 AM

Who the hell are the democrats, anyway? If you're talking about people, can you really ask for an "idealogical shift"? If you're talking about a bundle of policies and platforms aimed at garnering 51% of the vote, you probably will change more votes with a better spokesmodel. Brittney Spears didn't make Pepsi taste any better than Coke.

Posted by: josh at November 17, 2004 01:27 PM

I think PB's point is that the party needs to develop a way to talk clearly and convincingly about national security and the threat from Islamist terrorism.

Posted by: Dr. Frank at November 17, 2004 04:10 PM

Yes, but I think first the party needs to decide what it thinks would be an ideal policy on terrorism, the Middle East, arms control, then it should decide how to persuade the public to support it. To me, doing a Clinton on foreign policy would mean first asking "What does the public currently want?" and then "How can we persuade them that the Dems are what they're looking for?" I think the ideological commitment to militarism and imperialism are already there (okay Blixa, time to get your caps lock loaded again...), and if PB is just talking about fiddling with language and talking-points, I think we'll get crappy policy proposals (since they're based on misguided premises) and continued losing politics.

Lastly: I've begun to think that many Americans aren't so much afraid of AQ as they are ashamed that "they got us" on 9/11. That is, they don't want the President to make them feel safer, they want the President to make them feel stronger, and Bush does that by talking tough and sending the military overseas to kill people. The idea of the Iraq War, emotionally (and that's how key issues play in a campaign) is not so much to objectively reduce the likelihood of a terrorist attack by X percent, but to reestablish America's status as the Alpha Male of international politics. To get people to fear us rather than pity us, or something like that.

Posted by: Nick at November 17, 2004 06:19 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?