Democrat majority died from old, Vietnam-era wounds

Democrats are having an awful time making peace with Republican victories in the recent election. A few rich and famous revolutionaries, like Bill Moyers and Garrison Keillor, are throwing embarrassing tantrums, proclaiming the fanatic's eternal faith that everyone who disagrees with him is evil.

Meanwhile, liberals with better manners and more stable brain chemistry are nonetheless genuinely dismayed. They're perplexed about what has gone wrong with the Democratic Party and the progressive movement. The answer — however unwelcome — seems rather simple.

The radical counterculture liberalism of the 1960s has finally completed its demolition of the New Deal Democrat majority — a task begun more than three decades ago. We have here one of those historical trends that is impossible to miss once you step back far enough to see the long-term pattern. Go back 70 years, to the last definitive realignment of American politics, in the depths of the Depression in 1932. In the nine presidential elections beginning with that watershed, Democrats won the White House seven times — losing it only to the Dwight Eisenhower, the likable war hero of the century. During the same 36 years, Democrats controlled both houses of Congress in all but two sessions.

It was an awesome domination of national political life, built on a philosophy that won the hearts of ordinary working Americans. That philosophy centered on protecting the rights of the laboring class and restraining big business excesses; establishing a social safety net to prevent destitution among those who could not support themselves; and pursuing a strong, assertive foreign policy to protect American interests and the security of the free world.

This Democratic dynasty's problems began in 1968, with the election of Republican Richard Nixon (neither a war hero nor especially likable) at the height of the Vietnam War and the '60s social turmoil. In the nine presidential cycles since 1968, Republicans have won the White House six times, nearly matching the Democrats' earlier dominance. Only gradually has the GOP been able to seize control of Congress as well. But its advantage there now begins to look solid. It's a striking reversal of historic fortunes that Democrats need to study.

A closer look points to the one issue that is proving deadly for Democrats. In the period since 1968 (discounting the 1976 post-Watergate election), Democrats' presidential successes came recently — with Bill Clinton in '92 and '96. Al Gore also ran very well in 2000, winning the popular vote. Then things fell apart again this year. What might this reveal? While not ignoring the powerful personal appeal of Clinton, there is a more important common characteristic about the elections from 1992 to 2000, when Democrat presidential candidates did well. Those elections came between the end of the Cold War and Sept. 11, 2001 — a period when issues of national security, for the first time in memory, were not preoccupying Americans' minds. In this month's election — the first since national security came back as a critical concern — Americans turned decisively back toward the GOP and George W. Bush.

Democrats must fearlessly consider the implication of this pattern. Whatever other problems they face, it simply seems that too many ordinary Americans lack confidence that modern liberals will boldly defend the nation and its interests. It's a long-term problem, born with the anti-Vietnam War movement's declaration that America was the villain in Southeast Asia and continuing today in suggestions among progressives that America's enemies have legitimate reasons to hate us. It's not a problem old-style liberals like Truman or Kennedy had.

Those who honestly believe America should restrain its use of military might will, of course, have go on expressing those convictions and fighting for those policies. But as a political matter, Democrats may continue to have trouble winning national elections so long as voters have doubts about their willingness to confront the nation's foes.

There are, of course, a dozen other issues on which Democrats are hobbled by the '60s mindset, which hasn't digested a really new idea since the Beatles broke up. The basic malady may be the pseudo-religious, political fundamentalism of many Woodstock-era faithful, which produces (now as decades ago) a breathtaking self-righteousness and a stunning lack of self-awareness.

But conservatives are not as overjoyed these days as liberals are overwrought. Anyhow, they shouldn't be. One of Democrats' problems winning elections just now is that liberalism has already delivered on many of its historic promises, while '60s values are triumphant in the culture, if not in national politics. The era of big government is not "over" — it is apparently here to stay, with Republicans in charge. So, it seems, is a looseness about sexual mores and pornography and family ties that would have amazed (and displeased) liberals of the Democrats' glory days.

Strangely, perhaps, the pacifist, anti-war sentiment that was the heart and soul of the '60s is the one legacy of that era Democrats need most to discard to win more elections.

Write Tice at dtice@pioneerpress.com. or at the Pioneer Press, 345 Cedar St., St. Paul, MN 55101.

The Democrats are tearing each apart, not over policy differences but over their lack of people with stature in the party. The party of dwarfs is both infuriating and amusing to watch. And the past election which revealed them to be a hollow shell, is the least of their problems. Can any one say the Dems are going to make a comeback? With all the good advice being offered them on how to do just that, they insist on continuing the formula that led to their defeat on the grounds it hasn't been tried nearly hard enough! If they keep shrinking in the next few election cycles, perhaps, just perhaps history will deliver the verdict: R.I.P Democratic Party.

clinton never uttered a policy statement that was not tuned by polling and focus groups. Bush uses focus groups also, but only after the policy has been decided on merit. the difference is notable.

A lot of conservatives are bitching about potential excesses in "homeland security". there is nothing new in this. I can recall in the 50s, my mother threatening to resign as a teacher rather than be fingerprinted. Police excess comes and goes in this country.

I think this article presents only half of the story. Yes Republicans are stronger when defense and foreign affairs are issues, but the country has been moving to the right consistently on economic and social issues for the last 20 years. The only Democrats to occupy the white house in the last 40 years were southerners, who at least pretended to be moderate Democrats. Gore could have beat GW, had he run slighly more to the right (and not being a doofus would have helped too). The south will never elect a Democrat who is not one of their own, and without the south the Democrats cannot win presidential election.

"Most of the anti-war activists during the Vietnam War were not "anti-war" at all. They just thought we were fighting for the wrong side."

As evidenced by the North Vietnamese flags they used to carry around at those rallies. Interesting how that little fact gets glossed over when the media romanticises the "young idealists" of that era.

Whenever I see pictures of that, I wonder what would have happened during WWII if a bunch of idiots went around college campuses carrying swastika and rising sun flags. If they had lived to tell about it, they sure as hell wouldn't have had viable political careers when the war was over! The thing that the Democrats don't realize is that when it comes to foreign policy, the attitude of the average American today is a lot closer to the mood of 1942 than that of 1968.

First of all, it's irrelevant because of the electoral college system.
It is irrelevant and not. Given that 2000 was only the second time the winner of the popular vote wasn't the winner of the electoral college vote.

I wish someone like Scaife or Klayman would put up resources to investigate this and show to the world just how much corruption and fraud there actually is in our electoral process.
There is a pulitzer prize just waiting to be picked up by someone. Weather someone will pick it up....

While I'm still enjoying the results of this election now is not the time to rest on our laurels as the rats are going to be coming back meaner than a junkyard dog. 2004 will be the watershed election for them, if they don't make a major comeback it's over for the post 68 democrat party. They know it and they are going to get nasty.

Al Gore also ran very well in 2000, winning the popular vote

Not just that, but if the elections were about winning the POPULAR vote, then GW spends much more time and money in Texas, where his popularity there gets him a couple million more votes.

I mean, if you want to change the rules, change them BEFORE the game. Dont bitch and moan AFTER.

Sounds something like this:
"Well, even though your football team scored the most points, mine got the most yards! Woo hoo!"

Pathetic..

IMO, this article makes some good points. I'm hoping Republicans will take good advantage of the current window of opportunity to strengthen the American two parent family, bring US citizens of all persuasions together as Americans, put a workable NMD system in place and, incidentally, maintain the US's preeminence in space based research and commercial development.

The Dem dirty trick (oxymoron?) of unearthing Bush's 25 year old conviction for drunk driving had more of an effect than anyone has imagined. In the long run, it hasn't had much of an effect but during the extremely short interval between the time it broke and the election of 2000, many people subconciously were led to the conclusion that Bush was a dumb fratboy. And lest our lunatic left friends forget: It was the "Republican biased" Fox News that broke this story and repeated over and over! Contrast this to the despicable NBC News which censored and later very reluctantly reported on Juanita Broaddrick, all under the pretext of "We don't want to influence the impeachment vote." In fact, I heard more promotion at the time on NBC of Barbara Walters' interview with Monica than they did of Lisa Myers' work. I remember the night the report aired, Tom Brokaw told viewers about the upcoming Dateline report as "And tonight on Dateline, a woman's astonishing accusation" not saying against whom or of what. The fact is that the management at the news networks is completely corrupt and makes conscious choices to aid Democrats--probably because many of them have worked for them.

LOL. Thanks but just letting a few people know that my prediction came true is reward enough. I'm usually wrong. ; )

Awwww, come on....I was hoping to have a little fun with you. LOL! Ask and you shall recieve.

Don't forget the single biggest factor in swaying the popular vote, the early call of Florida for Gore by the media. This suppressed not only the conservative voters in Florida, but across the nation, as it made it appear that Bush had been elinated.
It is my firm belief that Bush would have won the popular vote, and that one or more of the senate losses would have been reversed, making Jeffords defection moot, if not for that premature call.

Freepers should remember that Rupert Murdoch supported Al Gore for the presidency. He paid the costs of the Democratic convention, and he put a leash on the conservative writers for the NY Post. The Times (UK) went full-bore against George Bush for months.

Drudge also did a lot to publicize the Bush as frat-boy image. He also pushed hard for that fake biography of Bush that the publishers withdrew when they learned that the author was a lying felon. At that time Drudge was working closely with Murdoch, although he seems to dislike Bush personally as well.

Murdoch presumably made the decision that Gore was going to win and that he was tired of fighting against a hostile federal regulatory atmosphere, as he did for 8 years against clinton. He wanted to expand into satellite TV, and clinton was blocking him.

On November 6, Murdoch dropped Gore and changed sides. Evidently he decided that Bush would win the chad war. But Fox cannot always be counted on. For instance, it will never speak the truth about China, because Murdoch has too many interests there.

So, enjoy Fox while you can. But don't be under the illusion that it is absolutely reliable in the clutch.

Yes, and to further the notion of corruption, the fact that Florida went for new electronic voting machines and the fact that Jeb won by a higher than expected margin may be due to the fact that the Dems generated a hugh number of false ballots for Gore in 2000.

Unfortunately for the Dems, they have bet their political mortgages on the Left.

They need the Left, or they lose. But to appease the Left, they turn off a significant portion of the center, and barring stupidity on the part of the GOP, they lose 99 times out of 100.

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.