The Direction Of The Democratic Party

My polemic on the Democratic Party’s struggles, and the Feingold path to victory.

The Democratic Party is crippled. Personally I have been saying this for years – ever since I watched Gore agree with Bush on practically every single issue in the 2000 presidential debates. And then lose.

Democrats acting like Republicans is nothing new. One can just look at Clinton’s conservative fiscal policies, and rather hawkish foreign policy. Clinton was popular and able to win re-election on charisma, and the state of the economy – which may or may not have been tied to his policies. His policies were nothing to write home about – even looking back after four years of Dubya Bush. Clinton was, afterall, the man who gave us the Defense of Marriage Act.

But this is the essential problem facing the Democratic Party. Nader can be a lunatic, but his premise on the two party system is sound. In the last decade or two, the Republican Party has been moving further and further to the right. “Born-again Christians” now account for about a third of the voting populace, and Republicans have a strangehold on them, the south, and middle class suburbanites. Bush Senior essentially won his first term on the backs of the born-agains. In ’92 the born-again vote was split, allowing Clinton to move in.

But what has been the Democrats’ response to this increasingly conservative Republican Party? Follow them to the right, of course!

I have already seen the calls for this shift again, following the latest election. Cite “The New Democrat,” a project by a colleague of mine, Max Burns (his seldom-updated blog can be found in my affiliates list).

His plan, although hosted on my space, is exactly the sort of shift that I cannot accept. The basic tenants, as I see them, are to “moderate” the Democratic Party, especially on those wedge issues which the Republicans and Karl Rove use so skillfully. Things such as gay marriage, abortion, and recently, welfare, must be approached differently by the Democratic Party. I see this call everywhere, and indeed, they have been heeding it.

I agree that issues should be approached differently. However, how they should be approached differently, is in contention here. During the debates, on such issues, Kerry never provided firm stances, pandering to the center and right of center. His talk on abortion amounted to “Yes it’s wrong, but it’ll remain legalized.” Who is satisfied with that answer? Who was satisfied? No one.

On issues such as gay marriage, Kerry could scarcely move anymore right, since he is against them – according to campaign rhetoric.

Welfare was, fortunately, a non-issue. Yet we could have expected a lot of the same coming from both candidates.

This election came down to personality, and “moral fabric,” because issues alone could not hold afloat the campaign. The very fact that Bush is seen as have more moral authority than Kerry is disturbing, especially since the majority of people are not supportive of the War in Iraq.

How can a leader be moral if he partakes in wars which you don’t agree with – wars which maim and kill hundreds of thousands? But I digress.

Kerry pulled a Gore in this election. He pandered to the center and to the right, and failed. Why would they take someone who is pandering, when they can have an honest-to-goodness neoconservative?

Is moderating the real path towards the redemption of the Democratic Party? I certainly hope not, because as the Democrats move right, their electorate will have to move right out of necessity. If both of our parties continue to grow conservative, is this indicative of our population, of our society? It does not matter! For there are only those two choices, and they will be the ones running the government.

The Democrats are already pandering to the center and to the right. Yet they still cannot win an election. This should be a wake-up call to those calling for further “moderation” (A euphemism really. At this point they are honestly growing conservative.) Right now, the Democrats cannot win with this centrist platform, unless the candidate has real charisma. But if Democrats can’t win an election without a Bill Clinton-esque candidate, we won’t be seeing a Democratic president for awhile.

The article that beget mine, was this one, speaking of Senator Feingold’s win in Wisconsin. I encourage everyone to read it, especially those who push for the Democrats to move further right. An excerpt:

After mounting a campaign in which he proudly proclaimed his opposition to the Patriot Act, his opposition to Bush’s war-making and his determination to keep the banner of Wisconsin progressivism flying even in an increasingly conservative age, Feingold was re-elected by a comfortable margin of 55 percent to 44 percent over Republican businessman Tim Michels.

Feingold faced serious opposition. Michels was a self-financing millionaire who beat better-known GOP contenders in the Republican primary and then received strong support from the Bush White House – which targeted Feingold for defeat – and from former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who went so far as to appear in television commercials supporting Michels.

But Feingold prevailed. He did so not in spite of his record but rather because of it. Wisconsin gave a resounding vote of approval to a candidate who spoke frankly and frequently about the failings of the Patriot Act, the misguided occupation of Iraq and the need to assert progressive values on issues ranging from trade policy to health care.

There is a lesson in Feingold’s victory for Democrats at every level of the struggle to reclaim this country from the forces of reaction.

Feingold campaigned enthusiastically for Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, not so much because he agreed with Kerry on every issue but because he disagreed with President Bush on just about every issue.

It is notable that, as Feingold was winning easily, Kerry was struggling to win Wisconsin.

Read the rest here.