History's hints for Democrats

[Larkspur]

http://prorev.com/demhist.htm

A STUDY OF the past brings forth some strong hints of how the Democrats might recover from their present difficulties.

For example, while the media has inundated the public with talk of blue and red states, such a dichotomy does not reveal which states won by the GOP are vulnerable to change. If you define a safe Republican state as one in which the candidate received over 55%, then the GOP states plummet to 21 in the last election. In all the other states, the Democrats were either safe - there are five of those - or one needs only change the mind of not more than 5.1% of the voters to win - voters who are already uncertain or fed up with the choices of the past and susceptible to the most hated thing in today's politics: a new approach.

Even more significantly, the number of safe GOP states is less than half as many as in Richard Nixon's comfort zone and about half as many as Reagan enjoyed. In other words, GOP support is broad but it isn't as deep as it has been in the not too distant past. Furthermore, the number of safe states shows a clear downward trend over three decades from the 46 under Nixon to 21 in the last election.
<SNIP>

And historical analysis dispels the "Clinton magic"
Yet while the presidential base for Republicans has become less secure, Democrats have lost ground in the House and the Senate. Their margins actually peaked in 1937, but checking the last 60 years you find something that directly contradicts the popular assumption that Democrats do best when acting like low-carb Republicans. For example, party margins in the House increased under classic Democrats Truman, Kennedy, and LBJ. Even when the party was out of the White House during the Eisenhower years the Democrats did well in Congress.

Then began a descent into confused messages combined with a rightward drift. By the time Clinton came along, the Vichy Democrats were strongly in control. Clinton won - largely because Perot was in the race - but was of little or no help getting Democrats into Congress - up two in the Senate, down 18 in the House. Clinton was the first incoming Democrat in 60 years not to have any coattails. Worst, during the Clinton administration, elected Democrats at every level did worse than under any incumbent since Grover Cleveland.

In short, despite the propaganda to the contrary loyally dispensed by a gullible media, the politics of the Democratic Leadership Council, the Third Wave, and the Clintons has been a bust.
<SNIP>

[AP]

1. I'm not convinced by that analysis.

I think Clinton did well without having coattails because he had such a powerful, clear argument for himself at a time when the congressional democrats and the party as a whole didn't have a clear message about what they stood for.

Firstly, most serious congressional dems thought Bush was going to win in 92 and didn't bother getting involved in the race (Jerry Brown and Paul Tsongas were never serious candidates).

Secondly, Perot wasn't a sign of Clinton's weakness. In Condorcet analysis of the '92 and '96 races, Clinton would have beaten Bush and Perot in head-to-heads by a mile. I don't see how you can blame Clinton for the fact that Perot was so rich he could stay in a Quixotic race for the presidency despite the fact that he was never going to win.

Thirdly, the '94 victory by Republicans happened not because Clinton was weak, but because Gingrich presented such a clear vision of Republican principles while Congressional Dems were trying to distance themselves from Clinton rather than develop powerful progressive arguments.

I agree Republican-light doesn't work. But I also think Clinton gave Democrats all the tools to build a coherent argument about progressive values which Democrats didn't use. There is so much more to Clinton than a "third-way compromiser," and I feel that it's a sign of the continuing victory of the right that that is the way that even people on the left characterize him.

[Gyre]

2. Good observation

Dean gets it, but none of the DLC dems do, or they don't care. Sort of a no-brainer really.

One thing that should be analyzed is why were midwesterners creeped out by Kerry personally. I heard alot of them bitching about the chimp but they absolutely loathed Kerry. Didn't, and still don't understand it. But I would've voted for satan before I voted for chimp.

Gyre

[eallen]

3. There are many dimensions to politics.

The "classic" Democrats named -- Kennedy, LBJ, and Truman -- all had strong defense policies. LBJ made a mess of Vietnam, but his more peace-oriented successors, Humphrey and McGovern, were two of the biggest losers in presidential electoral history, even though running against the slimiest president ever. Does this mean that Democrats need to be war-like to win? I hope not! At the same time, I think Americans tend to viscerally reject the "fringe" element of the peace movement, the element that finds America wrong in every aspect of its foreign policy, that sees only oil and money as the only reasons for war, and that sometimes seems to sympathize with demagogues such as Arafat and Saddam.

So, that's just one dimension. I think it's dangerous to try to read history as what works or not, in terms of a unidimensional scale. There are policy questions on taxation, social net, international trade, health care, science research, civil liberties, etc. Each of these divide into their own areas. There is also a social dimension to this that works independently of politics, eg, Hollywood is Democrat, while direct marketers are Republican. If Clinton's third-way didn't work, that doesn't mean that what people view as "traditionally liberal" is the right answer, even ignoring the fact that each of us will have a different view of "traditionally liberal."

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. I Agree With The Thrust Of Your Post...

But keep in mind Humphrey lost by a fraction of a percent in the popular vote though it is only fair to note that the fourteen percent that Wallace got would have most likely have gone to Nixon...That's what happened in 72 when Wallace wasn't on the ballot. Nixon added Wallace's fourteen percent to the 43% he got in 68 and then some to end up at 61%


The Democrats need to reclaim the center whereever that is...


Moving hard left is not the answer and I believe the past has vindicated me and the future will as well...

[Larkspur]

5. The Vichy Dems want to move the Dem Party farther to the right

not to the center. That is the problem. What the Vichy Dems or Clintonistas call center is where the Republican Party used to stand. That's not being a Democrat.

This article agrees with Thomas Frank author of "What's the Matter with Kansas?" that the Dems have to get back to their roots.

What this article forgets is that the Vietnam War was an immoral war that tore the Dem Party apart, and after Nixon upgraded the violence there, both parties caused political apathy to grow. This is when many activists and people began to see the political parties as only serving their own interest and not the nation's as a whole.

Vietnam is the big skeleton in the closet for both political parties, but the Republicans got over it because they concentrated on the "Sexual Revolution" and the anti-war violence aspect as being un-American and causing the waning of our national power in the world. Of course they ignored the fact that other nations after World War II were rebuilding and being an economic power that was starting to challenge ours.

The Republicans "re-framed" the immoral decision to wage war against a third world nation (Vietnam), which was seeking independence from colonial rule, as be patriotic and framing honest debate and dissent from those immoral political policies as being unpatriotic. Because the Dem Party lost many "liberal" activists and these activists fragmented and did not unify to oppose the growing cancer of Reichwing politics, we are in the situation we find ourselves in today, where the Republicans intend not just to win elections but to exterminate the Democrats and any who oppose them. The Republicans want a Totalitarian system with them at the top. The Dem leaders, including the Clintonistas, either don't see this or, like the German political parties during Hitler's rise to power, underestimate the Republican addiction to power.

[autorank]

6. Excellent article. Now we have the potential to be REAL Democrats!

It's looking like the party will take on a bottom up positions and attitudes. In this case that's great since activists and just plain Democrats are much brighter on tactics and the issues than our passing leadership.

With fair voting, we should be able to make a real comeback with real Democrats who are willing to fight and connect with the public.