May 8, 2004
LOST IN THE ECHO CHAMBER:
Dismal Democrats: The Republicans will remain in control even if John Kerry wins (Robert Reich, May 2004, The Prospect)
Even if John Kerry wins in November, the right will remain in control of America. Democrats have almost no chance of winning back the house or Senate. Most state governorships and legislatures are also in the hands of Republicans, which gives them power to draw the lines of future congressional districts and thereby keep hold of congress. Right-wing conservatives now claim most of America's airwaves - they are in full command of "talk radio" and "yell television." They run most Washington think tanks. They inhabit some of the most influential positions on Wall Street and in American corporate boardrooms. Radical conservatives are, in short, America's new governing elite. [...]We failed because we failed to build a political movement behind us. America's newly ascendant radical conservatives do have such a movement, which explains their success. They have developed dedicated sources of money and legions of ground troops who not only get out the vote, but also spend the time between elections persuading others to join their ranks. They have devised frames of reference that are used repeatedly in policy debates (among them are: it's your money, tax and spend, political correctness, class warfare). They have a system for recruiting and electing officials nationwide who share the same worldview and who vote accordingly. And they have a coherent ideology uniting evangelical Christians, blue-collar whites in the south and west, and big business.
Democrats have built no analogous movement. Instead, every four years party loyalists throw themselves behind a presidential candidate who they believe will deliver them from the rising conservative tide. After the election, they go back to whatever they were doing before. Other Democrats involve themselves in single-issue politics but these battles have failed to build a movement. Issues rise and fall, depending on the interests at stake.
As a result, Democrats have been undisciplined, intimidated or just silent. They have few dedicated sources of money, and almost no troops. The religious left is disconnected from the political struggle. One hears few liberal Democratic phrases that are repeated with any regularity. In addition, there is no consistent Democratic ideology. Most congressional Democrats raise their own money, do their own polls and vote every which way. Democrats have little or no clear identity except by reference to what conservatives say about them. [...]
As we head into the 2004 election, Democrats should pay close attention to what Republicans have learned about winning elections over the long run - lessons that may be useful for New Labour as well. First, it is crucial to build a political movement that will endure after elections. Second, any movement derives its durability from the clarity of its convictions.
A fierce battle for the White House may be exactly what the Democrats need to mobilise a movement behind them. It may also be what America needs to restore a two-party system and a clear understanding of the choices we face as a nation.
In the Democrats favor it should be pointed out that the GOP did the same thing for thirty years--1932 to 1964--before returning to its core principles. Democrats will likely need to spend long enough in the wilderness to get their base truly fed up before they return to an honest platform of statism/socialism. Posted by Orrin Judd at May 8, 2004 7:58 PM
Who knew Robert Reich could improve my mood so dramatically today? I love the smell of Democrat defeatism in the evening, especially after enduring days of their treachery on Iraq.
Posted by: Melissa at May 8, 2004 8:31 PM'As a result, Democrats have been undisciplined, intimidated or just silent. "
Silent? A two-year old in full, blue-faced tantrum mode is silent compared to the Dems this year.
The Dems have built up a philosophy that says "someone else will do it for you"-- take care of your kids, pay your way through life, etc. The problem is that they've extended that philosophy to their own party, and it turns out there's no one there to do it for them, and they no longer know how to do it themselves.
And you know things are bad when even the obligatory insults and distortions of conservatives and Republicans are as half-hearted as those he uses. Talk about empty rituals. But I will give him credit, he used the phrase "religious left" accurately.
Finally, in order to return to "core principles", you need to have principles, and I don't hear any from the Dems other than vague happy-talk of the peace, justice and "'can't we all get along' with me in charge?" variety.
The Dems have been living on borrowed time since the mid 1970's. Had it not been for Nixon's personal failings, and his hideously bad management of the economy -- price controls, we migh have been spared Carter. Bush I was bad luck. but Ross Perot beat him not Clinton. Clinton spent the first two years of his presidency trying to be a liberal got spanked in 1994 and crawled into a hole.
that's it Liberalism/socialism is dead in this country. There will still be a 2 party system. The real question is which one will be the libertarian party and which one the comunitarian?
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at May 8, 2004 11:13 PMIf you're suggesting a national party will form to the right of the Republicans, I have my doubts. The Libertarians have been around for thirty years and their views largely known to the politically-minded (their commercials now show up on talk radio during elections) but, excepting Alaska, have not elected much of anyone beyond the local level. Some of the other rightist third parties, including the U.S. Taxpayer/Constitution Party and Prohibition (yes, they're still around) have more of a Religious Right flavor to them, and as such are unlikely to turn mainstream. (If the media turns blue in the face over Bush's convictions, how would they react to Prohibitionists?)
The two parties in recent times that have come closest to becoming genuine third parties are the Reform/Independence Party (to the left of Republicans, to the right of Democrats) and the Green Party (to the left of both parties). This suggests that the next big party would be to the left of Republicans: a choice between right and center-right is not a real choice, whereas a choice between right and far left or center-left would be. (And yes, I know the Democrats consider themselves center-left, but I don't - they're sort of a basic left, and some of the party faithful seem to want either more "fire" or more "electibility".) Right now, the likeliest party to replace them would be the Greens, and I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Posted by: John Barrett Jr. at May 9, 2004 12:03 AMIt was the guns, stupid. It really was. Democrats, Liberals, leftists, whatever you want to call them, were a bunch of Marxists at heart, and dreamed of taming America by transforming the "Gun Culture." It turned out that we had rather not had our culture transformed, thank you very much, and that we wish to remain the people who have wrested the land from the savage against the policy of kings, and drawn kindred souls to ourselves from the four corners of the earth.
Posted by: Lou Gots at May 9, 2004 2:09 AM"And they have a coherent ideology uniting evangelical Christians, blue-collar whites in the south and west, and big business."
Talk about a rogues gallery. Someone call Madame Tussaud.
John:
A party to the Right, based on anti-immigration and other racial issues, doesn't seem unlikely--it will just be terribly minor. But it's easy to see a charismatic and openly socialist Green candiodate turning it into the main party of the Left at the expense of the braindead Democrats.
Posted by: oj at May 9, 2004 8:30 AMLou --
[We are] the people who have wrested the land from the savage against the policy of kings, and drawn kindred souls to ourselves from the four corners of the earth.
I really like that. Is it yours?
Posted by: David Cohen at May 10, 2004 11:38 AM