I was born in 1962, so my knowledge of the Vietnam era is viewed through the prism of history. In the the 50’s it seems to me that that the goals of the Democrats and Republicans were nearly interchangable. I think the folks on the left were more concerned with civil rights, which they should be honored for. But segregationist George Wallace ran as a Democrat, if I recall correctly. The political territory staked out then does not resemble that of today. But when Vietnam started to divide the country, the left came down on the side of opposing it. The idea that a “better society” could be built came into vogue. And to me that is a central tenet of liberalism. Try to build utopia and make the taxpayers pay for it. The establishment folks that wanted the Great Society of Johnson find common intellectual ground with the anti-establishment war protesters and an alliance was born. But today, the harsh political reality is that the votes are in the center. Ted Kennedy will never be elected President…and Kerry’s leftward voting record will bring him down as well. And we all remmeber what happened to Pat Buchanan’s presidential aspirations. The point of this post is to make the case that liberalism in post 9/11 America is no longer a numerically viable political philosophy.
I think that the Democrats are stuck in the past…they still think that this is 1964! The fact is, the “Great Society” has been a massive expensive failure! Read Senator Barry Goldwater’s 1968 convention speech…every prediction he made about the Great Society has come true in spades! He predicted:
-the destruction of the inner cities
-the racial division of the USA
-the failure of public housing
- the failure of public education
Let’s face it, 90% of Lyndon Johnson’s GS programs didn’t work ($6 trillion expended and we STILL have poor people?).
The American people aren’t stupid…they see the massive government built up in Washington, causing the tremendous tax burden. What do we have to show for it?
This is a case where the reality of politics stands in the way of accomplishing something. Republicans didn’t want to give Democrats credit for education reform. The Democrats returned the favor by trying to discredit the prescription drug benefit for Medicare. They don’t want Republicans to get any credit for what they consider to be “their” issue. Cynical…counterproductive…and engaged in by both sides.
As the Democratic Party moved left, they left behind the South on a number of issues. A democrat in the south would be considered a republican in the northeast based in political positions. This brings me again to my central point. There are many liberals in america today…but not in sufficient numbers to have political power anymore. They are now considered a liability by Democratic candidates. If that were not the case, Kerry would be talking about his Senate record instead of his season in Vietnam.
Because of 9/11 on the national security side and the coming storm over social security and medicare on the social service side, I don’t see this happening for a while. We will soon have to decide as a society if we want to have a socialist level of services or a capitalist level of taxation. You can’t have both at the same time.
Malodorus beat me to this exact point, and the cite to the NPR show, but I agree with the analysis wholeheartedly. If you’re anti-gay rights and pro-life, the big wigs in the Democratic party want nothing to do with you. Meanwhile the Republicans at least listen to the Log-Cabin gay rights Republicans and have done nothing so far in 30 years to actively overturn Roe v. Wade, even though they pay lip service to being against abortion.
Untill you can equate ‘good intetions’ with lower taxes and less government, you’ll never step away from the problem.
If you could do both and be strong on defense, you’ll have it made.
I’ve heard the exact arguements from the right directed at the left. That the left fight dirty and are at war and the ends justify the means, etc.
From 1932 to 1972 or 1980, a lot of folks thought they saw the Republican Party circling the toilet. The Democrats are having a hard time getting anyone to listen to them these days, but predictions that their doom is sure are greatly exagerated.
The last serious challenge to the current hegemony came from the People’s Party in the 1890s. That fizzled when the establishment co-opted enough Populist issues to steal their thunder.
I can’t see either party dying out in my lifetime. But the surprising support for Ross Perot indicates that the huddled masses are not at all happy with the status quo. Here’s hoping they someday break their huddle and get back in the game.
Your thesis seems to be that the democrats are suffering because they’re clinging to a liberal policy thats out of touch with the main stream (do I have to pay the RNC royalities to use that phrase?). I agree with half of that, I think the Democrats are suffering because they are clinging to their philosophy too hard, but I dont think its because liberalism is the dying philosophy in the U.S. that you make it out to be. I’ll try to find some cites when I have some more time, but my gut feeling is that while hardcore liberals might not be numerically viable, I dont think that they’re any less so then hardcore conservatives. The reason the democrats are on the decline, as I said before, was because in order to be a democrat, one has to be a hardcore liberal far more then one has to be follow the hardcore conservative repub platform to be a republican. The republicans have a message of warm-fuzziness with things like patriotism, individual rights, etc. that goes along with their very conservative platform, making it more palatable to moderates like Gulliani, Swazzenager (both prochoice), etc. It is also worthy of note that these moderates are the face the repubs show to the world during the convention. They show that they are welcoming to all, that people who disagree with major parts of the party platform still have a large roll in the party.
Witness too the liberal face that G.W. put on to be elected in 2000, with his compasionate conservatism. Despite ITRchampion’s earlier claim that McCain was “against everything the Repubs are for”, its worth noting that McCain was the conservative candidate in the 2000 primaries. Now that Bush appers much more conservative to most voters, he’s still posed to win the election. The reason, conservative issues, one way or another, aren’t the reason the repubs vote for their candidate.
Aw, come on, would this “liberalism is dying and the Democrats are powerless” even be voiced if the Florida vote had been fully counted? The Democratic candidate has been the people’s choice in every Presidential election since 1988. We’re seeing reactionary policies put into place only because the occupant of the White House decided to abuse his power rather than be the uniting leader he sold himself as.
Tell us, Evil One, what do you think the country would be like right now with President Gore running for re-election?
Despite the conclusion that some have jumped to when reading my posts, I have not a hardcore conservative either. But with the two party system we have, you have to make a choice or be marginalized. For example…I am pro-choice and pro-sex ed in school. I thought the tax cuts were a bad idea in the face of the war on terror. But overall the Republicans seem to have a closer relationship with pragmatism than the leftward Democrats do. I don’t agree with the “fix everything my way and let ‘the rich’ pay for it” attitude. I think personal responsibility is the answer rather than a culture of victimhood. I could go on…but I think most will see my point. The Republicans have learned that the further right they move, the less success they have. The true believers are already in the tent. Which leads back to my original thesis. The further left the Democrats move, the less support they will find. And that is why liberalism is a liability for them. Kerry’s voting record plays fine in Massachusetts…but not in Texas. That’s why he’s not talking about voting for a nuclear freeze or all of the weapons systems he voted against. He is clinging to his Vietnam service and talking like a moderate to appeal to the middle.
Or, maybe they actually thought it was a bad bill…that it was basically payback to the pharmaceutical companies for their generous support (because it didn’t allow for the negotiation of lower drug prices among other things).
Well, who would have ever predicted racial division back in 1968? That is prescient! But, my question to you: What keeps you from looking at all this and reaching the same conclusion about laissez-faire capitalism? You could argue that it has clearly been a horrible failure in failing to lift people out of poverty and in some cases excerbating it.
The difference between this point-of-view and yours is that this one would better explain why these problems are worse in our country that has a worse social safety net than in other Western countries that have better ones. Unless you are arguing that we implemented these programs much less effectively than those other countries (which is possible) or that our problems are somehow unique to our country and those other nations just didn’t have them (in which case, it could be that neither approach is effective, I suppose)
Indeed. If you want to look at the big difference between the time that the Dems were doing better in Presidential (and Congressional) elections than now, particularly in the South, the difference is that the Democrats have gone from being a party with segregationists to the party of civil rights and the Republicans have gone from being the party of Lincoln (and perhaps some segregationists too) to being the party of the “Southern Strategy,” opposed to civil rights and often making thinly veiled and not so thinly veiled appeals to the white majority in these regards.
I think you are on to something but I am not sure it was the point that you meant to be on to…unless you are saying the Democrats ought to try to recapture the racial issue like they had it in segregationist times.
This is very much an “IMHO” statement. Would you care to back up with evidence this claim that the Democrats are demanding unity on these issues to a greater degree than the Republicans. And, while the Republicans have not succeeded in overturning Roe v. Wade, they have tried and have eaten away at the edges. And, considering the way the votes are on the Court now and the sort of justices that Bush says he wants to appoint (ones like Thomas and Scalia but of who are strongly in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade), a second Bush term could very well lead to Roe v. Wade being overturned.
That last post was by zamboniracer. I’ll also note that the NPR show, as described by Malodorous, certainly has a different spin on it than what many people are trying to argue here. To repeat what he got from that show:
So, perhaps the solution is for the Democrats also to try to distract voters from the actual issues and just make appeals to vague intangibles and to practice character assassination against their opponents?
The arguement seems to have the blinding fault that the Democratic Party has moved rightward, not leftward. Other than that… well, the punctuation and spelling is pretty good, so let’s give a round of applause to Evil One for a great OP!
At least one pro-life Dem spoke at the Dem convention.
(In 1992, Gov. Casey of PA was denied a speaking slot at the Dem convention, not because he was pro-life, but because he hadn’t endorsed Clinton.)
But being against gay rights should be just as unacceptable as being against minority rights or women’s rights - and someday it will be so.
They’ve only made it a litmus test for appointing judges to the Federal bench.
Given that the GOP has become more successful as it’s moved rightwards, ISTM that the problem with the Dems isn’t that they’re too far to the left. (Too far to the left on what, exactly? Aside from a few civil-libertarian quirks, their positions are pretty much in line with America.)
What the GOP gained as it moved right was clarity. Like it or loathe it, there’s no doubt about where the GOP is coming from. The Dems would profit from something similar. I don’t think that means they need to move left to gain a similar degree of clarity - and I doubt they ever will attain the hive-mind state that the GOP has, for the most part. But they need to make it clear to Americans just what principles and issues are fundamental for the party, that they’re willing to fight for, year in and year out. If they can do that, they’ll gain a lot of credibility, not only with their base, but with independents and even Republicans.
I think so, the majority of governorships, the senate and the congress are in Repub hands, as are many formerly Dem state legislatures (I dont know the precentage, anyone…). This after 50 years of Dem dominance. The presidency is just the most visable of many public offices that are now repub. That said, i agree with ** BJMoose’s** (B=Bullwinkle perhaps?) observation that it is unlikely to actually mean the end of the party, and think Evil One may be using some hyperbole in the thread title. The Dems lost the Civil War, after all, and managed to stage a come back. Which brings me to…
This is the problem with the big tent strategy. In the 30’s, Roosevelt managed to build an increadible coalition that managed to include white racists and poor blacks, urban, socially liberal jews and rural, socially conservative WASPs, allowing the Dems to win 7 out of 9 the Presidentaial race and frequent control of congress until Lyndon Johnson. The problem, in the end, was that once you have control of the gov’t, you have to start delivering to the conflicting needs of your constituents, and the Big Tent starts to shatter (tear, leak, fall down, whatever the hell it is tents do). When your in charge, the time for sloganism and speechmaking stops and you have to start actually making choices. The most obvious sign of this was the break away of the Dixiecrats, who disagreed with the various civil rights legislation the Dems were handing down, as well as other forms of liberal laws that the leaders of the party started to pass. Meanwhile, the Repubs started to gather all folks who didnt agree with what was being done, forming a broading coalition.
The same, I think, will happen to the Repubs. They have the power they need now. The evangelicals will want Roe vs. Wade overturned and Gay marriage blocked, the libertarians will want fewer gov’t controls over private life. The voices of industry will want the environmental protections lessend while moderates will want to continue the increase in environmental law, the fiscal conservatives will want a balanced budget, everyone wants lower taxes. The Repubs will have to start actually have to start changing the way our country has been run. Already the Log Cabin Repubs have not endorsed Bush, the paleoconservative are fairly equivocal on his interational adventures, the moderates are watching the religious right start to pass christian morallity into the law, etc. In truth, i think the best thing that could happen for the Repubs continued dominance is a Kerry victory, as that will give them someone to blame for stymining their efforts for another 4-8 yrs.
It would depend on his reaction to 9/11…a seismic event in our culture. Addiitionally, the performance on the economy would be crucial. If the current economic problems exist in that parallel universe, the Republicans would be hammering him just as Kerry is trying to hammer GWB. And would Bush be running again after a close defeat last time?
Would Gore have attacked the Taliban and established a doctrine of preemption? Or would he have waited for international consensus which might never have come? Failing to respond militarily would sink him in a reelection campaign. Gore would also have no place to hide from the last 12 years. This would make the post-9/11 time period very difficult as he tried to justify not hitting Osama and minions sooner and harder.
Dude, there most certainly was “international consensus” about the Taliban. Not the same issue as Iraq, despite Bush’s constant attempts to mix them. Nor is there any reason to believe that Gore wouldn’t have gone after Osama in Afghanistan, the way Bush hasn’t for the last 2 years.
But the overall point is still that your OP is not derived from fact.
Allow me to meander off the meandering of this thread.
One important reason why the Democrats are dying is due to the Real George Bush interpreting the Voting Rights Act to require majority-minority congressional districts.
If you allow the broad-brush assumption that Black Americans vote overwhelmingly for the Democrats, we can see that creating a mostly-Black district ensures a huge Democratic majority in that district, and puts all the other districts in play for the GOP.
That is to say the GOP has a fair shot at a lot more seats when Blacks are gerrymandered out of the picture.
The really remarkable thing is the Voting Rights Act is thought of as a ‘Democratic’ law and the Democrats cannot change it, as members of their caucus would loose their safe seats.
In the long-term, the Democrats are doomed.