Posted on 08/10/2003 8:33:05 PM PDT by new cruelty
TARRYTOWN, N.Y. — A battle for the soul of the Democratic Party has broken out, pitting a predominantly liberal field of presidential hopefuls against moderate party leaders and political strategists. While Howard Dean and John Kerry have been stirring up crowds plainly eager to have at President Bush, Democratic officials have been trying to tamp the fervor down, warning that "extremists" will take the party back to the dark ages of 1972 and 1984.
True, with Mr. Bush looking formidable and the Republicans in control of Congress, the urge toward moderation may seem sensible. But it ignores a glaring fact: Republicans have repeatedly won elections in recent decades largely by taking the opposite approach: giving free rein to their raucous base and choosing candidates who excite the party's rank and file. And isn't that, after all, what political parties are supposed to do?
Certainly, none of the top Democratic contenders are truly radical. Mr. Kerry, who happens to be the wealthiest member of the Senate, perhaps went overboard when he read aloud the pay packages of several business executives at an A.F.L.-C.I.O. event the other day. But if he's an extremist, so was Franlin D. Roosevelt, who railed against "unscrupulous money changers" in 1933. And to exaggerate the threat of an imminent "far left" takeover of the party — as Senator Evan Bayh, head of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, recently did — really implies a repudiation of much of the party's traditional beliefs.
Besides, it is not at all clear that far-left ideology was the cause of past Democratic defeats — or that ideology plays a truly decisive role in presidential elections. While political strategists and pundits tend think in terms of sharply delineated issues, most voters do not. "The American Voter," the landmark study by University of Michigan researchers published in 1960 and still a very useful guide to its subject, found that only one-fourth of the electorate held a clear opinion on most issues and identified those positions with one party or the other. A mere 2 percent could be classified as holding a consistently "ideological" position on overall policy.
And to judge from recent elections, little has changed. In the 1980's the public supported the anti-Soviet, anti-government views of Ronald Reagan. In the 1990's the same public favored the globalist, pro-government politics of Bill Clinton. And neither president was held to the bar of consistency, whether it was the conservative Mr. Reagan creating huge deficits or the liberal Mr. Clinton dismantling welfare.
So, too, with President Bush, who now seems a small-government conservative (tax cuts for the rich), now a big-government liberal (prescription drug benefits), now a social liberal (favoring some types of affirmative action), now a social conservative (opposed to gay marriage).
But if abstract ideology plays a limited role in presidential races, the importance of ideologues and extremists — that is, of people who cling to strong beliefs — can't be overstated. It is they who bring passion and energy to politics, as Dr. Dean's Web-linked legions are now doing. Without these "radicals," parties can lose their way.
The Republican establishment learned this lesson almost despite itself in the 1964 election. Democrats would do well to study that campaign, too, since its circumstances were remarkably similar to those unfolding today.
Back then, of course, the positions were reversed. A strong Democratic incumbent, Lyndon Johnson, was buoyed by a national crisis that rallied the public behind him: the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Republican Party chieftains, facing almost certain defeat, wanted to anoint a moderate candidate like Nelson Rockefeller or William Scranton, who could at least make a respectable showing.
But the party rank and file, tired of me-too politics and demanding "a choice, not an echo," ardently backed the conservative Barry Goldwater. Party moderates, sounding just like today's worried Democrats, warned that Goldwater was an extremist whose nomination might marginalize the party for decades to come. They mounted a last-minute offensive to stop him, but Goldwater squeaked through, shocking his adversaries (and thrilling his followers) when he declared in his acceptance speech: "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. . . . Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." After that, most agreed, he was finished. And indeed he was trounced by Johnson.
But for Republicans this was not the devastating setback it appeared. On the contrary, it was the crucial first step toward a historic victory. Goldwater's "extremism" turned out, on closer inspection, to be a form of idealism that revitalized the conservative movement in the years ahead. Youthful veterans of the Goldwater movement — including Lee Edwards of the Heritage Foundation and Howard Phillips, head of the Conservative Caucus — help set a new policy agenda. Richard Viguerie, a member of the pro-Goldwater group Young Americans for Freedom, became an innovative fund-raiser. Patrick Buchanan, another Goldwaterite, helped formulate the more conservative components of Richard Nixon's agenda as a White House speechwriter.
Over time the party shed its "me too" approach and developed a more sophisticated ideological style, which culminated in Ronald Reagan's 1980 victory. Today it is Lyndon Johnson's big-government heirs whom centrist Democrats say are on the fringes, while the Goldwater-influenced conservatives plausibly claim to occupy the mainstream.
The Republican Party would never again underestimate the uses of zeal and continues to exploit it. In fact, even as the Democratic Leadership Council sounded its alarm in Philadelphia, some 1,000 young right-wing firebrands assembled at the Republican college convention in Washington. They excitedly discussed Ann Coulter's new book "Treason," which depicts liberals as the enemy within, and heard from a prominent lobbyist who described Democrats as "the ascension of evil, the bad guys, the Bolsheviks." Other highlights were speeches by Tom DeLay, the vociferous House majority leader, and Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's political maestro, who looked delighted by the enthusiasm of these extremists.
Our two major parties seem to have swapped identities. The Republican establishment, presumably allied with the rich and privileged, embraces its populist core of hard-edged activists, while the Democratic elite, supposed champions of "the people," evidently fears them. Only one party has learned the lesson of 1964 — that extremists should not be lectured to but listened to, because they may have something important to say.
What has done far more damage to the party than honorable but sincerely wrong liberals like Humphrey, Mondale and Howard Dean is the so-called centerists like the Clintonistas who have weaved and dodged on issues long enough to grab power and move us closer to dictatorship.
The family must be thrilled. A female for once.
Pinch isn't mouthing off about how he would prefer Viet Vong kill Americans than Americans kill Viet Cong.
Exactly! They seem a bit hysterical and more than slightly confused by the turn of events in "Kolyfornya".
Americans tend to hold a hostile view towards the concept of socialism, hence why democrats don't call themselves such (even John Edwards, in a foolish move, called Bush's policies "the worst thing to hit these shores since socialism").
Goldwater, did not lose because of his views, he lost because he was viewed as an extremist by the liberal media, and LBJ's famous "daisy" commercial. Jimmy Carter didn't run as a big time liberal, he governed that way, and lost. Ironically, Ted Kennedy even saw what was happening, and knew that Carter's presidency was such a disaster that it would set liberals back at least a decade or 2 and ran against him.
The new fad now, is to run to the center, not draw the center to you, this strategy, while good for democrats, since they can lie, back fires badly for republicans. Ronald Reagans gift, was he could draw the center to the right, in politics today, only Governor Jeb Bush seems to understand this concept.
Will you be eating at "the club" tonight? We can't make it; charity balls, you know.
Love to the wife and kids; see you at the polo matches this weekend!
*Snicker*
It's simple math: 40% of the electorate describes itself as "conservative" and only 20% describes itself as "liberal".
A candidate who appeals to conservatives excites the base and only has to reach out to a minority of the moderates to win.
A candidate who appeals to liberals excites a much smaller base and has to gain a huge majority of the moderates to win.
That's why the only Dems who've won in the last 30 years were allegedly moderate southern governors. The liberals, especially the northeastern liberals, all lost and lost big.
We've been saddled with socialist programs that don't work since the days of FDR. I agree, FDR was an extremist.
However, their moment will come. History turns on big moments in hard times. The biggest changes in the last century occurred in 1932 and 1980, both times of huge economic problems. At other times, we will not vote for great Conservatives or great Liberals. The winners of elections tend to be those who best portray themselves as moderates.
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.