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.

This is really good: Now the Democratic party has turned into the "Donner Party" with the election of Nancy Pelosi!

I look at the Rat Party as the experiment of socialism/communism that actually got started in 1932 under FDR.

There was a break during WWII from their march to socialism/communism.

So we are at the 70 th anniversary of their cycle minus the 4 years of WW II.

I think that we will see the Donner Party as you so aptly called it do a total implosion between now and the election of 2004. Then when President Bush is sworn in for his second term with massive majorities in Congress in 2005, that will be the final year of the current Rat cycle. That will be close to your 75 year cycle observation.

In the next two years we see the financial collapse of the socialist/communist states like Kalifornicator, Oregone and other states who tax and tax and then spend more than they can tax. This will destroy the Rats at the state and local level.

Goron Cities like NYC, DC, Atlanta, Houston, LA, San Francisco, Portland, Or and Seattle will become enclaves of the last of the rats. As they kill each other off, abort their children before they are born and die with short life spans due to aids and drug related health problems, in about two decades they will be gone. These dying cities filled with dying Rats will become hell on earth for the surviving rats until they leave us alone.

During those final years, these Rat enclave cities will make the Donner Party look civilized. Travel in and out of the Donner Party controlled cities will be banned with armed guards preventing people from coming and going to these dying Donner Party Cites.

Remember everyone talking about the "Peace Dividend" that we would get from not having to spend money on defense?

Media Insurgent, I remember it well. The 'PEACE Dividend' was to have been National Health Care, and would have been, had not the national destraction that became the WACO Atrocity occurred.

Newt is given far too much credit for the 1994 takeover of Congress. Yes, the Contract With America contributed, but the sense that we needed, SOMEHOW, to put a brake on an out of control Administration, was overwhelming!

Clinton spent the rest of his political capital trying to destroy the Republican Party, and the rest, as they say, is History.

But, make no mistake, the Peace Dividend, in the early heady days of 1993, was to be National Health Care.

And, Yes, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Fall of the Twin Towers mark the bookends of a very unserious Decade.

Hmmm.........let's see........well, I've always wanted to live in Northern or Central California or Oregon or Washington State. Can ya set me up? But seriously, the way things are going today I just might get my wish. You see, since I last posted to you I was laid off from my job of 16 years in the advertising/print publishing industry. I also know a fair amout about web stuff and as everyone else here is, I too am a rock ribbed Conservative--which btw makes it less difficult to leave the old job as they were a bunch of clueless Liberals--for the most part.

I'm a healthy hard worker of 47 years, no wife, no kids, and I'm always willing to put out the extra effort to get the job done and not cry about it. And I'll work any shift. So if you know of anyone who needs a guy like me drop me a FreepMail. BTW, I'm not against changing careers either. I've always dreamed of being a Greyhound bus driver or even a cab driver. Yeah, I'm kinda nutty like that : ) And I'm thinking about maybe helping people who are less fortunate than I, like an old folks home or something. If something different and interesting comes my way, I'll go for it! I've got a nice severance cushion so I'm not in any immediate danger thankfully.

I suspect I'll be spending a lot more time on FR for a while. : ) Now don't get all maudlin on me or anything. Like I said, I'm pretty well set up for a while.

Thanks for listening and send those prospects! : )

If you look at the ridiculous approaches by liberals to Vietnam and apply them to the real world, you get in trouble pretty fast. Some favorites:

You left out 3. The Tet Offensive was a great victory for the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese. In reality, the Viet Cong in the South was largely destroyed and the only city they held for a significant amount of time was Hue.

To say that the North won the Tet Offensive would be like saying the Germans won the Battle of the Bulge because they surrounded Bastogne. Not surprisingly, it was not reported that way in the US.

And now the Democratic party has turned into the "Donner Party" with the election of Nancy Pelosi. If you recall, the Donner party was the wagon train of settlers heading west that went down the wrong trail and got stranded for the winter and had to resort to cannibalism to survive. How did this happen? The Donner's et. al. bought a trail book from a shyster purporting to show the way for a faster route to the west coast.

Well then, Bon Appetit! I've heard tell it tastes just like chicken.

"Newt is given far too much credit for the 1994 takeover of Congress."

Looking back on it, I agree. I think '94 was much more of a referendum on Clinton then it was a response to the Contract with America. In fact, it doesn't seem like anyone talked much about the Newt and the Contract until after the election. I don't want to sound like I'm dismissing them altogether, but the role that anger over Clinton's foibles with health care, gays in the military, Somalia and Waco seems to be largely forgotten.

Thinking about it now, it's likely that overestimating Newt's part in that victory is what led to all the troubles the GOP had in getting outmaneuvered by Clinton '95 & '96. We thought we had won the hearts and minds to a greater degree than was actually the case.

I agree though others on this forum seem to have partially bought the liberal lie about Fox being conservative. However, I think Murdoch has less control over FNC because of Ailes' strong personality. I believe Rupert's son runs the NYP, doesn't he? Murdoch's newspapers are much more in tune with him since that is his background. I know that the Weekly Standard has never had to censor its very anti-China coverage because of him.

But fact is that the majority of the super rich in this country vote and give to Democrats. I've said this (and provided numerous examples) many times on FR.

The idea that businesses are "conservative" is a complete lie.

Not only has the Democrat Party become the party of appeasement and isolation, but as evidenced by those three goofs who went to Baghdad before the elections (McDerrmott, Bonior, and Thompson), they are the Party of sedition.

But not only are they defeatist in terms of issues of war and peace and foreign policy, they remain the party of big government, and not since Lyndon Johnson's Great Society has a platform of big government really been widely accepted by the voters. The election of 1968 also was a watershed election because it marked the turning of the American people away from the concept that government could be or should be the "be all" and "do all" in our society. Granted, Nixon was hardly a classical conservative, but the Republican Party has always promoted a limited government view, to some extent, and 1968 marked the beginning of the death of the liberal faith of big government. Reagan, of course, solidified this even more. Today, more people probably agree with Reagan's statement that "government isn't the solution -- it's part of the problem," than the number of those who still look to an activist government to solve all of our problems.

Historical note: Two of the Donner party, when they finally made it out of the Sierras, opened a restrurant in Sacramento. I joking refer to it as "The Donner's Cafe...Home of Fine Family Eating."

Given that 2000 was only the second time the winner of the popular vote wasn't the winner of the electoral college vote.

Actually, considering all of the reports of voter fraud and irregularities in the 2000 election (e.g., students in Oregon selling their mail-in ballots to Democrat operatives, students in Wisconsin bragging that they'd voted more than once, the judge in St. Louis who left the polls open beyond their required closing time only to have another judge overrule her hours later, the rumors of upwards to two million illegal aliens on the voter roles in California, these to mention a few; plus that fact that some states did not count their absentee ballots for President because the number of absentees wouldn't have changed the result in their states; plus the fact that election officials readily admit that vote tabulation errors mean of error rate of upwards to 2% of the votes tabulated), I think it's debatable that Al Gore actually won the popular vote. That's what the official results show; but were they correct, and free from fraud and error? Let's just say that the popular vote was a toss-up, because statistically speaking, it was. The Dems like to point out that Gore got 500k more votes that George W., but let's remember that 48 million people voted for Bush.

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.

I think that this is the most true statement in this entire article. The left seems to fear the religious right--they are terrified of prayer in schools and wither at the notion of not having access to abortion on demand. They always seem to extol the rights of animals over people and seem almost religious in their devotion to the environment. It's as though having walked away from their religious backgrounds, they have embraced a secular pagan lifestyle about which they are very fundamentalist in their attitude.

They also don't seem to like freedom or real diversity--they are addicted to being cool and part of the 'in' crowd--except now they're part of the loser crowd!!! LOL.

That and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee. :-)

You jest, surely!

Here, a decent cup of coffee will set you back between $2.50 and $3 .. even Macdonalds brewed gunk is a dollar-fifty!

But back to the real subject ... I am (by the standards of most here) a liberal, but I am amazed at how many progressives have lost sight of the fact that sometimes you just gotta fight.

It's a lesson that the left will have to learn if it wants a place at the table again.

Sadim

"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."

And they were also primarily anti-draft. The anti war protests ended when the draft ended. As long as sombody else did the fighting, so they could be free to smoke pot, these hypocrites had no problem with the war.

and they were not peacful. They bombed police cars, burned buildings, attacked veterans, and started riots.

The left seems to fear the religious right

Could it be they fear the religious right because they have a set of beliefs and standards of behavior that the left forgot about long ago?

Now I'm a factory worker(lower middle-class, dirt under the nails) and I work with just the kind of people that the democrat party is suppose to repesent(you know the "working man" whatever the heck that's suppose to mean). I can tell you they are losing these folks as they continue to push the animal-rights,gay-rights, and all the other leftwing special interest groups, that have nothing to do with how most people live their lives. All that is required for the GOP to continue to win is getting good candidates out there and hammer the dems about all the nonsense they keep pushing.

Today I'm thinking the glass is half full.

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.