IF YOU DON'T STAND FOR SOMETHING, YOU'LL FALL FOR ANYTHING (OR ONE) :

What Does the Democratic Party Stand For? : Daschle-Gephardt-Clinton Waltz (Nat Hentoff, Village Voice)

Sam Smith is right when he points out that the liberal establishment in the Democratic Party--which includes the current congressional leaders of the party--"yawned as the Clintons disassembled their own cause and became incensed when Ralph Nader dared to defend it."

Moreover, the policies and the forces in the Democratic Leadership Council--epitomized by presidential aspirant Joe Lieberman--continue to control the Democratic Party's increasing centrism. What do the Democrats fundamentally stand for except winning elections?

Although the phrase "Sam Smith is right" causes one physical pain, even conservatives have to feel sorry for honorable liberals like Nat Hentoff who no longer have a party that represents their political viewpoint. For all the satisfaction we may take in watching the Democrats turn into Eisenhower Republicans, this process does not serve them or the nation well.

It would be far better for the Democrats to offer serious alternatives to the GOP--even if these big government, high tax, egalitarian, racialist policies are unpopular right now--than to have them always trying to split the difference. In the same way that liberal Republicans--Dewey, Eisenhower, Nixon, etc.--exacerbated the problems of the New Deal/Great Society era by not enunciating differences and then by leaving the rotten system intact when they attained office, so does the increasing "me-tooism" of the Democrats deprive the American people of a necessary debate on the issues and of a choice when they go to the polls. Democrats might do well to consider nominating a liberal ideologue in '04 who, though they likely would get swamped at the polls, could reinvigorate the party, restore its sense of purpose, and motivate a new generation of young activists, as the Goldwater campaign did for Republicans in '64.

Posted by Orrin Judd at May 2, 2002 9:06 AM