Michael Grunwald has a good column in The Washington Post this morning, yet another installment in the litany of suggestions that Democrats have received since 2004. His characterization of the prescriptions of centrist Democrats tallies with my ideas pretty well. I don’t think we should forget that the only Democrat elected to the presidency in a generation was a centrist.
Meanwhile the progressive wing of the party is busily trying to purge leading Democrats whose positions most closely resemble those of the Clinton Administration’s e.g. Joe Lieberman.
All of this closely resembles my take in the immediate aftermath of the 2004 election. And the purge that I predicted back then is now well underway.
I wonder how the netroots will take it when the Democrats fail to re-take the House in the fall.
Your advice is unlikely to be heeded, primarily because the netroots believe that they actually are the mainstream; it’s just that nobody knows it, yet.
Gotta agree with you and Daniel. The ideological center of the Party continues to drift left, making Bill Clinton a moderate-conservative and Kerry a centrist. Dave’s purge will be a reality; Netroots are combative and view compromise as tantamount to weakness. I’m unsure whether Hillary can get the nomination based upon her Iraq stance.
Dave, your linked 2004 post referred to Scoop Jackson Dems. The reality is that there are precious few Scoop devotees in the Party. Most of us have moved on to pergatory. It’s not a recent phenomenon. It began in 1968-’72 and accelerated in the 80s.
One essential dynamic remains unchanged: approx. 35% of voters are self-identified conservatives; 20% liberal. While there’s much Bush dissatisfation, unless the self-identification %s change or unless compromises are made, progressives will continue to find themselves out of power.
The best line in the Post piece was we make a mistake if we think that just becausee people are fed up with George bush they want George McGovern. Bing.
That’s similar to an observation I’ve made occasionally with respect to the war in Iraq: just because the polls say that a majority of Americans are dissatisfied with how things are going there doesn’t equate to a majority in favor of immediate withdrawal. For example, there’s some number of ultra-hawks out there who aren’t satisfied because they think we should be nuking everything in sight.
Another thing that’s happened with the Party. There are no Scoops or Sam Nunns left- experts in military affairs. Lieberman may qualify but represents a wing of one. Biden, perhaps? I don’t think Joe has the gravitas of Scoop or Sam- and his expertise is more in foreign affairs. Dems continue to be hampered with the (accurate) perception that they are uncomfortable with the military.
How will the netroots take it when they fail to retake the House? I think we already know:
1) It’s a moral victory.
2) We didn’t get our message out.
3) The races turned on local issues.
4) The Republicans stole the elections. Yes, all of them. Yes, even the ones in Utah and Texas.
5) You see why we keep saying the people should turn over governance to us? They’re too stupid even to know who to vote for!
6) Democrats running for office refused to embrace our platform, instead sounding like rethuglikkkans.
7) Well now George Bush can’t blame any of his failures on us, that’s for sure!
8) (secretly whispered behind closed doors, or on the NY Times editorial page) Well now there’ll be a terrorist attack on the US, and lots of people will die, all because people didn’t vote for us. That’ll show ’em!
Have I missed any?
Actually, I wouldn’t be surprised at significantly worse from the the less hinged.
As others have pointed out, the Democrats’ center of gravity is moving leftward. Leading Democrats — Reid and Pelosi included — have been making the rounds of “progressive” gatherings. Hillary hasn’t; in fact, she declined an invitation to YearlyKos.
Pretty clearly, the further their leftward drift, the lower the chances that the Democrats will reap the fruit of the disenchantment with Bush in this fall’s election.
Three questions. First, if they snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory, will they have the common sense to tack back to the center in time for 2008, or do the progressives have so much control that the party will commit suicide? Second, if common sense prevails, is it a foregone conclusion that Hillary will get the nomination? And, third, is Hillary really a “Truman Democrat?” Right now, it looks like she is, but it may be a posture that allows her to distinguish herself from the other would-be candidates.
To your questions, Marc:
1. No. I’m confident that ideology will prevail over common sense (people forget that Kerry was the compromise common sense candidate.) Moral victory will be declared, as suggested by Jeff and the faithful will be told that they need to move further left.
2. Yeah, if common sense prevails, it’s probably a foregone conclusion that Hillary gets the nomination although Edwards is still out there. Warner and Bayh are DOA- too conservative.
3. Hillary isn’t a Truman Democrat though I wouldn’t want to go to war against her. She’s walking a definitional tightrope. In Red States, she’s still seen as a socialist. In her own party, she’s seen as a quasi-reactionary.
Here are my answers to your questions, Marc: