|
Edited on Sat Feb-07-04 05:55 PM by Tom Rinaldo
With a Clark Presidency the Democrats can become more cohesive as a party than at anytime since LBJ ran in 1964. Four subsequent decades of divisions have hurt as badly. RFK was the last Democrat who ran with a real chance of holding JFK's alliance, left over from the FDR days, together. In the immediate aftermath of RFK's assassination, his support splintered far and wide; some went with McGovern, some fell in with Humphrey, some even turned to Wallace. Working class whites leaked away from the Democrats in the South. The back to back murders of King and Kennedy caused some African Americans to step back from electoral politics, or choose more radical outlets for their involvement.
Several chasms emerged over the subsequent decades. The first and most visible revolved around the strength and fervor of opposition to America's involvement in Viet Nam. Many Democrats were radicalized, to the discomfort of some mainstream Party voices. The Republicans regrouped and went on a counter offensive against "the sixties", promoting cultural warfare along lines that were chosen to secure them majority backing on every divisive issue they promoted. Democrats in the North, and in the South, found themselves increasingly pulled in opposite directions in their attempts to gather the votes they needed in their respective regions to win close elections. The National Democratic Party increasingly weakened as the Republican Party divided and conquered.
Carter's win was a post Watergate reactive fluke. Clinton, using superb personal political skills, rode a bad economy to victory on a centrist platform, blessed by relative Party unity as a result of 12 years spent exiled from the White House. While not a fluke, Clinton offered more of a respite to the splits in the traditional Democratic Party than a resolution of them. The Democratic Party lost control of Congress during Clinton's Presidency.
Because of the ongoing crisis in Iraq, which could spin out of Bush's control at any time, and the prolonged period of job loss in America, I think it is possible that any of the leading Democratic contenders for the nomination might defeat Bush in November, though I think some are more likely to do so than others. Looking deeper though, I think only a Wesley Clark victory would fundamentally shift the prevailing currents of American politics that have been in place since 1964. There are several reasons for that.
Were Kerry or Dean to become the Democrat's nominee, little would be accomplished toward healing the fundamental North South Democratic divide. Both men are firmly associated in the public mind with North East Democratic Liberalism. Without a strong Democratic Congressional majority, neither man could engineer and put in place a dramatic and progressive enough domestic agenda to convert enough Southern Hearts and Minds to effect a permanent political realignment. One of them might win in 2004, but Republicans would overall retain a strong edge in the South. That is the very edge which reinforces their congressional majority status, which thwarts meaningful Democratic agendas, thereby cementing the strong Republican edge in the South.
Edwards presents a different set of circumstances. An Edwards victory would be the exception that proves the rule. In a sense Edwards being elected would reinforce the premise that the talent pool from which Democratic Presidents can be elected is restricted to Southern white Protestant males, hardly a broad platform from which to sustain a National Democratic Party at the highest level. It would create the appearance, if not the reality, of pandering were the Democrats to systematically select another Southerner every four or eight years, from a dwindling pool of viable prospects, in order to wage a race for the White House with any chance of victory. Having said that, a highly qualified Southerner at the top of the Democratic ticket does have prooven advantages to the Party during any given electoral cycle. However neither Carter nor Clinton, for reasons that transcend region, were able to reverse the destructive divisive trends, in place for 40 years, that threaten to transform the Democratic Party to an institutionalized minority status. The North South divide is not the only Democratic fault line.
Both Wesley Clark and John Edwards have been promoted as Southern candidates, but in reality that mantle rests more firmly on Edward's shoulders than on Clark's. Edwards spent virtually his whole life in the deep South, while Clark kept moving with his military career. Edwards represented a Southern State in the Senate, while Clark represented the United States in the Army. And of course Edwards has that strong Southern accent. But Clark is enough of a legitimate Southerner that he is not a "Non Southerner". Clark did grow up in a Southern State, and therefor he is fluent in Southern values and culture. When Clark references the history of racial divisions in our country, he relates his personal experience of going to school in Little Rock when U.S. Armed Forces had to be called in to enforce desegregation. Southerners can "own" Clark, but not as exclusively as they can Edwards. They have to share Clark with the rest of the nation that Clark served for 34 years, under an American flag. Edwards is a regional candidate with strong national appeal. Clark is a national candidate with strong regional roots. The difference is subtle but important.
By serving 34 years in the most universally accepted National American Institution, the United States Military, Clark transcends regional appeal and embodies, through long personal service to our country, leadership in a unified National Democratic Party. But the regional divide is not the only chasm Wesley Clark can span for the Democratic Party. The United States Military, from the days of Harry Truman, has been universally recognized for the leading role it has played in promoting opportunities for Americans of all races. Clark can rightfully claim that heritage, he has been a player in that tradition, not just a passenger of it. Wesley Clark's life story takes us all full circle, from forced integration in Little Rock to defending Affirmative Action before the United States Supreme Court.
Wesley Clark served in the Viet Nam War, where he was a decorated hero, and he then remained in the U.S, Army for several decades. While I admire John Kerry both for his service to his country in Viet Nam and for his subsequent organizing against that war, Kerry's life story still has the seeds of that great American divide implicit within it. I don't doubt that John Kerry can passionately and well defend his activities of that time. I don't believe any controversy his actions back then might still evoke for some today, would derail Kerry's bid for the Presidency. But John Kerry can never wipe that slate completely clean for those who thought of Jane Fonda as "Hanoi Jane". It forms the inverse problem that Clark now faces inside the Democratic Party. However if the Democratic Party embraces Wes Clark now, and goes down the path that George McGovern so graciously cleared, it will head into the Fall Election with no ancient Viet Nam fault lines exposed to Republican manipulation. Those are the exact, now deeply, embedded fault lines that Republicans have traditionally exploited at the core of their "Democrats are weak on Defense attack", even when Viet Nam itself remains unspoken.
With John Kerry we would have a Veteran War Hero running for President, but we would not leave Viet Nam behind us. With Wes Clark we have a man who served his country in a way that middle America fully respects, and he has gone on to become one of the most powerful voices against the current elective war in Iraq. Another full circle. The circle is closed, and another Democratic core divide is bridged.
Wesley Clark is a very straight man. No joint ever touched his lips, he has been a faithfully married heterosexual for 34 years, and he never even had long hair. Clark has a personal biography that would apparently place him on the Republican's side of their devastatingly effective elective cultural wars, yet Clark is firmly on the Democratic side; embracing tolerance, celebrating diversity, and promoting equal rights for all. When Wesley Clark gives a stump speech he notes that "Republicans promote family values, but they don't value families." He nails Republicans for claiming God as their Party leader, but not practicing what they preach when it comes to religion. Wesley Clark reframes Republican ideology and throws it in their faces, in the name of being a good American.
It took a barely professional politician, Ronald Reagan, for the Republican Party to regain it's footing after Nixon and Agnew disgraced it through treasonous actions. It is a clear indication of he Democratic Party's weakened standing that Reagan so easily restored the Republican Party to a refurbished patriotic image. I believe it will now take a non Politician, Wesley Clark, for the Democratic Party to regains it's footing, and once again speak as America's true voice.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
