Skip to comments.2005: The Splintering of the Democratic Party
Posted on 02/03/2005 9:04:20 AM PST by Publius
click here to read article
Do you want the people who run Amtrak to take out your appendix?
LOL, that's a winner!
I've never done this professionally, but I've written a lot of Publius Essays over the past 8 years. The better ones are available in the "Links" area of my FReeper home page.
Remember the "hard hat" demonstration, I think in NYC, and "The Great Silent Majority?" They were about the war.
I would agree that on balance, Vietnam energized the split more thoroughly than race, although the Wallace democrats used the general backlash, fuelled by resentment of the urban riots which occurred intermittently throughout the sixties, including 1968.
Remember, a higher percentage of Senate and congressional Republicans voted for the 1964 Act than Dems and the Nixon administration was known for zealous enforcement. The Republican Party wasn't a very attractive alternative for Dems who might want to leave the party over desegregation.
You Know, You Da Man Right ?
Glad you enjoyed it. I hope I called it right.
Deans accession to the party chair pushed the Democrats too far to the left. Soros was underwriting him, Move On and the entire party.
But for a Democrat to win, he (or she) would have to peel off a significant chunk of Republicans and independents, and occupying the Sensible Center is the only way to do it. Otherwise, its McGovern time all over again. Hillary has spent her first term setting herself up as a pragmatist and centrist, no doubt receiving a lot of coaching from her husband who was a master of triangulation.
With Dean pushing the party to the Hard Left, it becomes necessary to replace him, preferably with Harold Ickes, but that would open up a fight that would split the party. Hillary doesnt need to be the heavy in an internal war to purge the Hard Left. They, after all, are the base. What Hillary needs is to control the purse strings. If she has that, then it doesnt matter who chairs the party.
The coup is her seduction of Soros. If hes underwriting Hillarys effort, that means he has abandoned Move On and Dean, its avatar. It means that Hillarys shadow party will harvest the unions for money while Dean will harvest the Hard Left. But Ickes will have the power while Dean becomes merely a figurehead.
In politics, always follow the money.
Bingo. And in re Soros: Double Dittos. Soros has used countries to manuever his own moneyed interests in past. I saw his dealings with MoveOn to be no different -- to manuever the Dem Party. Secret deals and handshakes.
I always did see Soro's move to support Move-on as only a blackmail economic tantrum in a tea-cup. Seems to me Hillary has agreed to whatever economic deals Soros wants in order to promote his financial agenda. I know it's something to do with "communications" especially in the mid-east. He was buying up stock in such companies last year like crazy.
Read The Bubble of American Supremacy, which Soros wrote for the Atlantic. He would like to bring this country back into harmony with the UN and the EU.
Soro's has been dabbling and manipulating in the European Markets for overlong. Some countries cannot abide the man.
The lefties (Soros included) wish for a "unified", all things equal" world wherein only the moneyed puppet masters behind the world governments run the show. This is Soro's world goal, IMHE.
I get the impression that possibly the only human Soros ever idolized was Henry the VIII.
"Yours Truly" is so thoughtful. :)
<Let's not loose sight of the fact that Iraq was a mess and the absence of WMDs led to many people feeling lied to.<
Oooo! What do you call Savin and Mustard Gas?
I disagree here.
The one thing I think you left out of the Dem pedigree was its labor roots. But the Dems morphed into a lifestyle party, leaving the labor wing marginalized.
If the blue-dog labor Dems find common ground with the anti-illegal-immigration conservatives, that could be the nucleus of the new party. And the corporatists pubbies and DLC Dems would be inclined to form the other party. Leaving the lifestyle types as an angry minority.
Barone is right about blacks being the "glue" of the party in terms of the voter base that keeps them competitive. But I think abortion cannot be overlooked. The pro-abortion bunch is genuinely afraid of pro-life people and reflexively votes Democratic. Abortion is the great fault-line in American politics, second only to the Boomers' romanticization of their 1960's opposition to Vietnam. My daughters find it quite amusing to spot the anti-Iraq demonstrators waiving signs at intersections - they all have grey hair!
Both issues could evaporate faster than people think, if the Iraq war is basically turned over to the Iraqi's in the next year and if Roe is overturned. Abortion could disappear as a major issue if Roe is overturned, the issue is returned to the legislatures, and the country discovers, contrary to NARAL, that women aren't being thrown in jail and abortion remains legal in most of the blue states.
Extremely well thought out and spot on re the RATs. Congrats!
I am also a leider lover and was saddened today to hear of the death of the incomparable Elizabeth Schwartzkopf.
To most Americans in the Nineties, Bill Clintons behavior was not outside the mainstream.
I believe this assertion is false. I don't believe that in the 1990's most American men received oral sex from interns less than half their age and lied about it under oath. Clinton's behavior was not mainstream.
People did not favor impeachment because 1) Clinton successfully portrayed Republicans as sex-obsessed legalists (a popular charicature to hate) and corrupt to boot; 2) People held Clinton in personal disdain, but believed the lie that this was unconnected to his Presidential performance; 3) Because of these reasons, they saw it as "all about sex" and ignored perjury. All in all, it was a piece of Machiavellian art by the Clinton White House, maybe the greatest piece of political self-defense in American history.
By couching the 1998 election as a referendum on impeachment, Gingrich misread the situation.
I believe this to be a popular historical myth. I was working in politics during the 1998 campaign, and from my vantage point Newt Gingrich tied desperately to make the election about something other than Clinton's lies. His base wanted to hear about nothing other than that. Ergo the base refused to vote. I could be wrong, but that was my read of the 1998 campaign, the worst-run in my lifetime.
I agree completely. Just noticed that this was written in 2005!
I count among my acquaintances a number of the Hard Left types, but we simply agree to disagree. Classical music is our common denominator. I'm comfortable enough in my beliefs to not worry about what the locals think.
Wow thanks for sending that to me. What a great read! Thank you very much, I really enjoyed your essay.
I gotta tell you man, that was a damn good analysis that was actually worth reading. It was much better than the garbage pumped out by the recently unemployed journalist from the LA Times and NY Craphole newspapers.
bumped and bookmarked
They are displaying a lot of a**holery aren't they.
One part of that is answerable. When World War I broke out in 1914, TR wanted us to get involved on the British side immediately, which was pretty much the Republican Party's position, with Sen. Lodge of Massachusetts leading the charge. As president, TR would not have waited until 1917. (I'm not sure that would have been a good thing.)
bump for later
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.