|
There is a simple rule in political campaigns, based on three general groups: {a} those who will always support you; {b} those who will always oppose you; and {c} the "undecided," who generally determine the outcome of most elections. In a campaign, the goal is to energize Group A; to avoid motivating Group B; and to appeal to Group C. This basic rule can be applied to both primary and general elections.
In the post-Watergate era, we have witnessed a tendency for republicans at the national level to campaign in an increasingly divisive manner. While candidate George W. Bush claimed he was focus on uniting the nation, not dividing it, both his 2000 and 2004 campaigns were based entirely upon fear, anger, and hatred – the very ingredients that divide nations, states, towns and families.
Democratic primaries have a history that includes examples of ugly in-fighting. An interesting example is 1960. People of my generation remember that the JFK and LBJ campaigns engaged in some vicious tactics, including in the week of the democratic convention. It was of an intensity that made for some curious dynamics between each of their groups of supporters when Senator Kennedy decided to ask Senator Johnson to be his running mate.
But there is an equally important example from the 1960 primary, which too few people remember today. It had unexpectedly long-term consequences. It planted some seeds of bitterness that would come back to haunt progressive democrats in 1968. I think that democrats today would do well to look at the brief but intense contest between JFK and Hubert H. Humphrey.
It is interesting to compare how the Kennedy people viewed it – as a necessary conflict that set the stage for future battles – compared with resentment for both JFK and RFK that the Happy Warrior held on to for the remainder of his life. Humphrey could accept abusive treatment from LBJ from 1964 to ’68, and his sense of loyalty to Johnson was one factor in HHH’s loss to Nixon. But an equally important factor was the fracture within the democratic party, caused by the hostility that VP Humphrey felt towards RFK. The two should have been allies who could have united party. But anger united with bitterness, and elected Nixon instead.
Another example of a bitter primary that damaged the country is found in 1980. The democratic party should not have lost to Ronald Reagan and George Bush. They won by exploiting the negatives in the democratic party, and getting the support of a large Group C.
Again in 1988, hostilities within the party led to a November defeat. Michael Dukakis believed that he could take the progressive vote for granted. He started the contest against VP Bush with a significant lead. But his treatment of Jesse Jackson resulted in his losing support among many progressive voters in Group C. We see shades of this same attitude today, with democratic "leaders" taking the progressive vote for granted. We hear their saying that progressive voters have no where else to go. Yet, not all of the progressive voters in Group C are democrats. Dukakis ended up being the one with nowhere else to go.
Going into the 1992 campaign, President Bush was confident that he would cruise to re-election. His people were sure that they could exploit differences in the democratic party, and they did not think Bill Clinton would be a strong candidate on the big stage. But the Bill Clinton of 1992 understood the basic campaign strategy. After the primary, he was able to unite his Group A; be taken for granted by the republican Group B; and he proved to be a master at appealing to Group C by presenting himself as being able to lead the nation forward, into the future, in the style of JFK.
I remember using a wonderful photo of a youthful Bill Clinton meeting John F. Kennedy when I organized a group of progressive and liberal democrats to do door-to-door campaigning for Bill Clinton in 1992. It was the first time that the majority of our group had participated in this type of grass roots political activity. I remember the excitement from when we would meet to coordinate our strategy. In one meeting in Norwich, NY, I remember telling my friends about how one of my relatives ran the Kennedy campaign headquarters there in 1960. He got 5 tickets from the Norwich police that fall, the only tickets he would ever get (he drove a car up to the age of 90). I wore a tie clip RFK handed out on the courthouse steps in Norwich in 1964, when he ran for the US Senate.
Our same core group campaigned for President Clinton’s re-election in 1996. There was a lot less excitement, because Bob Dole wasn’t able to energize his Group A. What I recall as being our biggest conflict was getting the three upstate, largely republican counties to enroll the independent voters that we helped register. The same machine that told my relative that they didn’t look kindly at Irish trouble-makers in 1960 did not want a growing Group C as we approached 2000.
I was part of a smaller core group that campaigned door-to-door in 2000. Many of my friends and associates did not think it was possible for George W. Bush to be elected president. Though they were right, the lack of party unity contributed to Bush’s being able to steal the presidency.
At a time when petty differences were weakening the democratic party at the national level, I was encouraged when Hillary Clinton was elected to the Senate. She was re-elected in one of the most impressive examples of understanding the "three groups" dynamics, winning by a far greater margin that either RFK or Daniel Patrick Moynihan ever had. In fact, Senator Clinton carried almost all of the rural, republican upstate counties.
As we move through the primary season, and begin to decide who be our candidate in 2008, I am encouraged by the talents and abilities of those running for the nod. I will be supporting whoever wins the democratic nomination. Since Thanksgiving, I’ve contacted a number of the friends and associates who had been part of our local group from ’92 on. I know that it is important that we are prepared for a tough fight in 2008, and I recognize that this includes far more than the presidential election. We need serious changes in the way the congress does its job; we need to reverse the radical republican attempts to create a radical christian judiciary; and we need to build a stronger Group A foundation on the local and state level across the country.
The greatest divide I have encountered is found among progressives who say that they will support any democrat except Senator Clinton. One friend told me that he does not think that being First Lady qualifies as serious experience in national politics. I understand that in general – certainly neither of the Bush First Ladies could be considered as realistic examples of "leaders." Barbara Bush seems invested in the concept of a "royal family," and that is the opposite of democracy.
When my friend asked me for examples of Senator Clinton’s important experience on the national level, I immediately brought up her work in the Watergate era. I spoke about her work in Ireland, and her current efforts to protect rural upstate NY from the proposed power line being advocated by friends of Karl Rove (literally).
The area that I think that the Clinton campaign may lack experience isn’t with the candidate. While she may not represent all of the things I value, I am confident that she would be a huge improvement over the current president. I have more concerns about some of the people who are officially and unofficially associated with her campaign. I do not think they recognize the importance of uniting the party after a primary. That might be in part due to Senator Clinton’s lack of experience in a primary campaign, but I am convinced that it is primarily because of her supporters who are aping republican tactics.
None of the democratic candidates are perfect. None of them are running a campaign without errors. That’s okay. But what is potentially damaging to the entire party is the self-righteous and vicious personal attacks that a vocal minority of Clinton supporters is engaged in. We see it on the national level, and we see it even on the Democratic Underground. It is a divisive toxin that can only poison our chances for unity – no matter who wins the nomination – in 2008.
I wish the more experienced people in the Clinton campaign would encourage the nattering nabobs of negativism in their camp to read about the history of the Kennedy- Humphrey division in 1960.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
