On Saturday, April 22, I posted a diary entitled, "Why I Support Hillary Clinton for President". 328 comments were posted and about 60% of the comments were negative. Because the negative comments go to the core of the Democratic Party's difficulty electing presidents, I think it is worth addressing the matter further. The strategic question presented is, "what policy positions must a Democratic candidate adopt in order to win the general election for president in 2008?"
Before I address those policy positions, I will briefly summarize here the reasons why I strongly support Hillary's candidacy for those who may have missed my post:
(1) Hillary Clinton's life history shows me that she is a Progressive, even if she tacks to the right at present,
(2) Hillary and her husband have a proven knowledge of what it takes to run a successful national race for the White House,
(3) Universal healthcare is of the utmost importance to me, and I believe Hillary Clinton is the most personally committed of the candidates to achieving that goal,
(4) Please read the first diary if you haven't already. http://www.dailykos.com/...
As I said in my first diary, "I strongly support Hillary Clinton for president and I have already begun contributing financially to her candidacy, as have millions of other Americans. " Nonetheless, about sixty percent of those who commented on my diary are adamantly against Hillary Clinton. I expected that because DailyKos readers tend to tack to the left relative to the Democratic Party at large, which explains the difference between her strong showing in the polls and the significant antagonism toward her at DailyKos.
(Many DailyKos readers find Democratic politicians contemptible in general and would much prefer to support a leftist third party if it were not for the reality that such support helps to assure a Republican victory.)
Because the third party route is not viable and we don't want another Republican victory, I think readers of the DailyKos and leftists in general need to be more realistic about what it takes for Democrats to win a national campaign. My purpose here is not to condescend to others who clearly have given this a lot of thought, but rather to argue, as Senator Barack Obama has, for more realism in the demands we make of our candidates, whomever they may be.
In my diary of Friday, I argued that Hillary Clinton finds it necessary to tack to the right on a number of symbolic issues (some of which are also very substantive) in order to inoculate herself against Republican stereotypes that have doomed Democratic candidacies in the past. One stereotype is that Democrats are "soft on defense". To inoculate herself, Hillary supports the war in Iraq and takes a hard line against Iran.
On the Iraq issue, that is perhaps most important to leftists in the party right now, Hillary has publicly compromised her voice on a substantive issue in order to send a symbolic message about herself. Nonetheless, I support her because I think Bush would do exactly as he has done in any case, and because I do not think that any Democratic candidate will be elected who has publicly declared himself to be "anti-war". I think that if Democrats nominate an anti-war candidate then s/he will be defeated in 2008.
Although Hillary Clinton is not publicly an "anti-war" candidate, I am confident that she does not like war and will do all in her power not to get us into wars if she is elected president. Call me a sophist if you will, but I prefer to think of myself as a pragmatist and a realist.
Another stereotype that Hillary must neutralize is that Democrats are anti-business. To inoculate herself against this perennially repeated charge, Hillary makes a strong effort to collaborate with businesses on issues that help her constituents and meanwhile bring corporation jobs to New York State.
In addition to "anti-business" and "pacifist", Bush (and Nixon and Reagan) have claimed that Democrats are unpatriotic. To neutralize this charge, Hillary has expressed support for an amendment against burning the US flag, and has also argued for increasing funds for flack jackets for the troops in Iraq. I support Hillary's efforts to neutralize the stereotypes that were used successfully against Michael Dukakis and John Kerry.
The stereotypes do not stop there. Democrats are also said to "coddle criminals", so Hillary supports the death penalty. Although I am very much against the death penalty, I voted for Hillary's husband Bill because I understood that he would have lost the 2000 presidential election had he not supported the death penalty. Stated differently, in assembling a winning majority, Bill Clinton could not afford to lose the votes of those who believe the death penalty to be a good idea. This is a painful reality but, unfortunately, regardless of my personal views there is only so much liberalism that America can stand in its presidents these days.
When one considers that Hillary is now attempting to capture the votes of people who are very different from her and her friends, radically different from you and me and from those whom Hillary has known and depended upon since her college days, it becomes readily apparent why a woman who was once a college leftist is now taking these relatively conservative positions: After eight years as first lady of Arkansas and two successful presidential races, Hillary believes, based on personal experience and advice from competent professionals, that these relatively conservative stands are necessary to win a majority of presidential votes of Americans in the 2008 general election. Is Hillary wrong about this?
The Republicans use symbolism and symbolic votes very effectively. They never go anywhere without two flags - one as a backdrop and one in their handkerchief pocket.
Just as some Americans love to hunt and kill defenseless animals (hunting), others like getting ginned up for wars (fighting). Our major holidays celebrate past wars with real but smaller explosives. Our battleships are turned into museums while past wars are reenacted on past battlefields. War and revenge movies are among our most successful genres. How could Arnold Scwartznegger, the great movie warrior, have been elected governor of any state if this were not so?
Although a presidential candidate need not actually deliver a war, she cannot completely deny war lovers the prospect of some engagement during her tenure if she wishes to receive their votes. To have a distaste for war is, in the minds of many, simply unpatriotic. To be successful a Democrat must offer the prospect of war even if she does not deliver one. She must hug the flag and salute the troops, even if she ultimately keeps them garrisoned.
Republican "war presidents" like Nixon (Vietnam), Reagan (Granada, Nicaragua), Bush I (Iraq) are typically very popular when making war, unless and until they overreach. Almost half of those who voted in 2004 voted for Bush even though (or because?) he had started a war of choice in Iraq and had made it clear that he would like to invade Iran. With this evidence, I strongly believe that the prospect of war is an essential part of the American psyche and any candidate who can be expected to avoid all engagement cannot expect to be elected president of the United States.
Consider the example of Jimmy Carter. President Jimmy Carter's solution to the "Iran hostage crisis" (which was really no "crisis" at all in retrospect) led to almost no deaths on our side or theirs. Nonetheless, Jimmy Carter was reviled by the American public and voted out of office, because he lacked "guts". Meanwhile, the George Bush approach has led to 3000 US deaths and 40,000 Iraqi ones, and yet Bush is subject to none of the ridicule in from the public and the press that Jimmy Carter received. If asked to choose between Jimmy Carter and George Bush, many today would still choose George Bush. Yes, Bush is at war unnecessarily, but at least he is at war!
Had Carter bombed Iran and 40,000 deaths resulted, I believe a majority of Americans would have supported him and agreed that it was warranted. I am deeply grateful that Carter took the peaceful path he did, and saved so many lives on both sides, but I regret that it lead directly to the election of President Ronald Reagan in 1980.
Democrats need to deal more effectively with issues of war and peace. Although I do not for a minute believe that Hillary Clinton is a hawk, I support her efforts to present herself as one because I think it increases her chances of success in a general election. When considering Hillary for president, the patriotic pro-war voters will want to know that Hillary's got at least one good war in her, even if it's as insignificant as Margaret Thatcher's war with the Falkland Islands.
So, if Hillary now refuses to rule out an attack on "Eastern Maldivia", I strongly support her in that, with a wink and a nod. If Hillary ultimately decides she does not want the presidency, she need only say the words, "I'm a peace candidate", and all hope of winning will have vanished in an instant.
This pragmatic approach to framing issues seems less than honest to some DailyKos readers. People who responded to my last diary said they "just want honesty", and so Hillary should "say what she means". They say Hillary's policy positions should come directly from her heart and let the chips fall where they may.
This approach, while understandable, reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of representative democracy and the electoral process.
A "representative" is someone who respects the people's wishes enough to (a) identify them, and (b) give them effect through policy. Hillary Clinton knows that when she ceases to at least promise to give effect to the people's wishes, she can no longer have any hope of receiving their votes. What this means is that the policies she offers in her presidential race have to be based on her understanding of the voters' desires, not based on a lifetime of individual soul-searching on the banks of Waldon Pond.
We all know that "You can't please all of the people all of the time", and luckily Hillary does not need to please all of the voters. She only needs to develop policies that will attract 51% of them - a winning majority. But "the voters" is not a monolithic unit; it is millions of individuals who can be seen as dividing into sub-groups based upon what issues most motivate them.
Once a candidate like Hillary has identified what motivates groups of voters and she has assembled enough "interest groups" to aggregate a voting majority, then she can "put them in a pot and let it boil", as one of Ronald Reagan's advisors recalled after his landslide 1984 victory. Then, she's "ready to rock and rock", if you prefer.
But Hillary is not like Ronald Reagan. Hillary is, at heart, a progressive or more. Although she has firmly- held progressive beliefs, she knows that leftist liberals will make up no more than a third of the electorate. She knows that she cannot be elected to represent a majority if she focuses her efforts only on satisfying the left.
If Hillary is to win in a general election, she must win over at least some voters who are somewhat against abortion; some voters who are somewhat in favor of war; some who are somewhat in favor of tough penalties for criminals, and so forth. Hillary takes the conservative positions for which DailyKos leftists now revile her precisely for the purpose of winning over the somewhat conservative voters without whom she cannot win a general election. It's a very dirty job, but some Democrat has got to do it and they've got to start right now.
Critics of my recent diary are correct when they argue that a candidate must seem genuine, motivated by principal. Like George Bush. In November, 2004, he "seemed genuine" and seemed to be "motivated by principal" to at least 49% of the electorate. This is ironic considering that everything about him indicates that he has no sense of responsibility and now appears to be a stranger to the truth. We always knew that George Bush didn't go to war when others did; he drank and used cocaine in the years before his presidential bid, and he remained free incarceration while others went to jail for the same behavior. And then he offered himself as a candidate for president on the "sincere and honest" ticket!
He was able to be successful in this for two reasons: (a) He pragmatically chose policy positions that would allow him to assemble a winning majority, and (b) He won over that majority by convincing them that his carefully chosen policy positions crafted to attract their support were actually matters of principle, his principle. No, 'this was not simple pandering and not simply an effort to assemble a winning majority', Bush assured them.
For example, Bush has spoken so often about protecting the unborn that one could almost believe that this ex-cocaine- abusing ex-drunkard cares about the unborn. You could almost believe him if you didn't know what really happened: Carl Rove told Bush, "Hey, you've got to meet these lunatic anti-abortion people and commit to their cause! They've got loads of money and they're so rabid that they're bound to turn out on election day!"
If you don't believe this, just consider Bush's father for a moment: He was pro-choice his whole life until the 1980 Republican primaries were over, until becoming anti-abortion became the sine qua non for getting on the Republican presidential ticket with Ronald Reagan. At that moment, Bush-the-father made an abrupt and miraculous about face just before Reagan chose him for the presidential ticket. And that sudden revelation about abortion is how Bush's father ultimately became right-wing anti-abortion eligible for president of the United States. The Republicans simply needed those anti-abortion nuts if they were to assemble a winning majority.
Think of that. When we on the left see what we're up against, we realize that we really have only two choices: Either assemble a winning majority ourselves, or cede the presidency to the Republicans. We cannot assemble a winning majority by convincing others to be just like us any more than Bush-the-father could have convinced Republicans that human life starts in Kindergarten.
Using a metaphor now, Hillary Clinton can count on the votes of tree-hugging hybrid-engine Toyota Prius owners, but she must also win some of the muscle-car Ford Mustang and even Hummer owners as well. She will not be able to convince performance car owners to join her in the 4-cylinder club.
Instead, like Mr. Bush, Hillary Clinton must promise to advocate for some groups on some issues that mean nothing to her if she is to win votes from those for whom these issues are vitally important. And she must make these promises to represent those voters with utter conviction because that is how coalitions are built.
Unfortunately, the Left has little experience with this approach. We demand that our candidate agree with us about everything, A to Z, in word and symbol and deed, even if this purity prevents us from assembling a winning majority.
About sixty percent of those who commented on my diary are adamantly against Hillary Clinton now, because they see her as a "warmonger". I expected that because DailyKos readers tend to tack to the left relative to the Democratic Party at large, which explains the difference between her strong showing in the polls and the significant antagonism toward her at DailyKos. (Many DailyKos readers find most Democrats contemptible and would really prefer to support a leftist third party if it were not for the reality that such support helps to assure a Republican victory.)
Because the third party route is not viable and we don't want another Republican victory, I think readers of the DailyKos and leftists in general need to be more realistic about what it takes for Democrats to win a national campaign. My purpose here is not to condescend to others who clearly have given this a lot of thought, but rather to argue, as Senator Barack Obama has, for more realism in the demands we make of our candidates, whomever they may be.
In my diary of Friday, I argued that Hillary Clinton finds it necessary to tack to the right on a number of symbolic issues (some of which are also very substantive) in order to inoculate herself against Republican stereotypes that have doomed Democratic candidacies in the past. One stereotype is that Democrats are "soft on defense". To inoculate herself, Hillary supports the war in Iraq and takes a hard line against Iran.
On the Iraq issue, which is perhaps most important to leftists in the party right now, Hillary has publicly compromised on a substantive issue in order to send a symbolic message about herself. Nonetheless, I support her because I think Bush would do as he has done in any case, and because I do not think that any Democratic candidate will be elected who has publicly declared himself to be "anti-war". I think that if Democrats nominate an anti-war candidate then she will be defeated in 2008.
Although Hillary Clinton is not publicly an "anti-war" candidate, I am confident that she does not like war and will do all in her power not to get us into wars if she is elected president. Call me a sophist if you will, but I prefer to think of myself as a pragmatist and a realist.
Another stereotype is that Democrats are anti-business. To inoculate herself against this perennially repeated charge, Hillary makes a strong effort to collaborate with businesses on issues that help her constituents and bring corporation jobs to New York State.
Bush (and Nixon and Reagan) have claimed that Democrats are unpatriotic. To neutralize this charge, Hillary has expressed support for an amendment against burning the US flag, and has also argued for increasing funds for flack jackets for the troops in Iraq. I support Hillary's efforts to neutralize the stereotypes that were used successfully against Michael Dukakis and John Kerry.
Democrats are also said to "coddle criminals", so Hillary supports the death penalty. Although I am very much against the death penalty, I voted for Hillary's husband Bill because I understood that he would have lost the 2000 presidential election had he not supported the death penalty. Stated differently, in assembling a winning majority, Bill Clinton could not afford to lose the votes of those who believe the death penalty to be a good idea. This is a painful reality but, unfortunately, there is only so much liberalism that American can stand in its presidents these days.
When one considers that Hillary is now attempting to capture the votes of people who are very different from her and her friends, those whom she has known and depended upon since her college days, it becomes readily apparent why a woman who was once a college leftist is taking these positions now: After eight years as first lady of Arkansas and two presidential races, she believes, based on personal experience and advice from competent professionals, that these stands are necessary to win a majority of presidential votes of Americans in the 2008 general election.
Is she wrong? The Republicans use symbolism and symbolic votes very effectively. They never go anywhere without two flags - one as a backdrop and one in their handkerchief pocket.
Just as some Americans like hunting and killing defenseless animals, others like getting ginned up for wars. How could Arnold Scwartznegger, the great movie warrior, be elected governor of any state if this were not so? Although a presidential candidate need not actually deliver a war, we cannot completely take away these people's fantasies if we wish to receive any of their votes. We must touch the flag and salute the troops, even if we ultimately keep them garrisoned.
Republican "war presidents" like Nixon (Vietnam), Reagan (Granada, Nicaragua), Bush I (Iraq) are typically very popular when making war, unless and until they overreach. Almost half of those who voted in 2004 voted for Bush even though (or because?) he had started a war of choice in Iraq and had made it clear that he would like to invade Iran. With this evidence, I strongly believe that the prospect of war is an essential part of the American psyche and any candidate who can be expected to avoid all engagement cannot expect to be elected president of the United States.
Consider the example of Jimmy Carter. The Jimmy Carter solution to the "Iran hostage crisis" (which was really no "crisis" at all in retrospect) led to almost no deaths on our side or theirs. Nonetheless, he was reviled by the American public and voted out of office, because he lacked "guts".
The George Bush approach has led to 3000 US deaths and 40,000 Iraqi ones, and yet Bush is subject to none of the popular and press ridicule that Carter received. Yes, he is at war unnecessarily, but at least he is at war! Had Carter bombed Iran and 20,000 deaths resulted, I believe a majority of Americans would have supported him and agreed that it was warranted. I am happy that Carter took the peaceful path he did, but I regret that it lead directly to the election of President Ronald Reagan.
Democrats need to deal more effectively with issues of war and peace. Although I do not for a minute believe that Hillary Clinton is a hawk, I support her efforts to present herself as one because I think it increases her chances of success in a general election. When considering Hillary for president, the patriotic pro-war voters will want to know that Hillary's got at least one good war in her, even if it's as insignificant as Margaret Thatcher's war with the Falkland Islands. So, if Hillary now refuses to rule out an attack on "Eastern Maldivia", I strongly support her in that, with a wink and a nod. But, should Hillary decide she doesn't want the presidency, she need only say, "I'm a peace candidate" and all hope of winning will have vanished in an instant.
This approach seems less than honest to some DailyKos readers. These writers, say they "just want honesty", and so Hillary should say exactly what she means. They say Hillary's policy positions should come directly from her heart and let the chips fall where they may.
This approach, while understandable, reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of representative democracy and the electoral process.
A "representative" is someone who respects the people's wishes enough to (a) identify them and (b) give them effect through policy. Hillary Clinton knows that when she ceases to promise to give effect to the people's wishes, she can no longer have any hope of receiving their votes. What this means is that the policies she offers in her presidential race have to be based on her understanding of the voters desires, not based on a lifetime individual soul-searching by the banks of Waldon Pond.
"You can't please all of the people all of the time", and luckily Hillary does not need to please all of the voters. She only needs to develop policies that will attract 51% of them, a winning majority. "The voters" are not a monolithic unit, but millions of individuals who can be divided into groups based upon what issues most motivate them. Once you have identified what motivates them, and have assembled enough of these groups to assemble a voting majority, you can "put them in a pot and let it boil", as one of Ronald Reagan's advisors recalled after his landslide 1984 victory.
Unlike Reagan, Hillary is, at heart, a progressive. But, she knows that leftist liberals will make up no more than a third of the electorate. She cannot be elected to represent a majority if she focuses her efforts only on satisfying the left.
If Hillary is to win in a general election, she must win over at least some voters who are "somewhat against abortion", some who are "somewhat in favor of war", some who are "somewhat in favor of tough penalties for criminals", and so forth. Hillary has taken the conservative positions that DailyKos leftists now revile precisely for the purpose of winning over the somewhat conservative voters without whom she cannot win a general election. It's a dirty job, but some Democrat has got to do it, if we are to protect the environment, refocus spending priorities, reduce dependence on oil and oil companies, reduce international conflict, grow the economy, and create good jobs for working families.
Critics of my recent diary are correct when they argue that a candidate must seem genuine, motivated by principal. Like George Bush, right? In November, 2004, he to at least 49% of the electorate to be "genuine" and "motivated by principal". This is ironic considering that everything about Bush indicates that he has no sense of responsibility and now appears to be a complete stranger to the truth.
We always knew that George Bush didn't go to war when others did; he drank and used cocaine in the years before his presidential bid, and he remained free from incarceration while others went to jail for the same behavior. And then he offered himself as a candidate for president on the "sincere and honest" ticket! But he convinced voters he was sincere about the singles issues for many of them would send him to Washington as their advocates. Cut taxes, start wars, decrease regulation and appoint corporate heads to corporate watchdog agencies within the federal government . . .
He was able to be successful in this for two reasons: (a) He pragmatically chose policy positions that would allow him to assemble a winning majority, and (b) He convinced issues voters that his carefully chosen polished policy positions that were craftily crafted to attract their support were actually matters of principal for him.
For example, Bush has spoken so often about protecting the unborn that one could almost believe that this ex-cocaine abusing ex-drunkard cares about the unborn. You could almost believe him if you didn't know how his conversion really happened: Carl Rove told him, "You've got to meet these lunatic anti-abortion people and commit to their cause. They've got loads of money and they're so rabid that they're bound to turn out on election day!"
If this seems far-fetched then consider Bush's father. He was pro-choice his whole life, until an anti-abortion converstion became the sine qua non of getting on the Republican presidential ticket with Ronald Reagan in 1980. Then and there, he made an abrupt about face just before Reagan chose him for the Republican ticket. It was a matter of principal. And that's how he ultimately became president of the United States.
So, when we on the left see what we're up against, we suddenly realize that we really have only two choices: Either we hold our noses and assemble a winning majority ourselves, or we cede the presidency to the Republicans.
We cannot assemble a winning majority by convincing others to be just like us. Hillary Clinton can count on all of the votes of the Toyota hybrid Prius owners in the general election, but she must also win some of the Mustang and even Hummer-owning voters as well. She will not be able to convince muscle car lovers to join her in the 4-cylinder club.
Rather than trying to convert them, Hillary must promise to advocate for some voters on some issues that mean nothing to her if she is win enough votes from those for whom these issues are important. And she must make these promises with utter conviction. This is how coalitions are built.
Unfortunately, the Left has little experience with this approach. We demand that our candidate agree with us about everything, A to Z, in word and symbol and deed, even if this purity prevents her from assembling a winning majority.
Look how the Republicans dealt with compassionate conservatism. Nothing Bush has done has been compassionate. If conservatives had really believed that he would be compassionate, they would never have voted for him. Yet when he promised "compassionate conservatism" with a wink and a nod, they accepted this public dissembling, because they knew a subtle game was in play. They knew that Independents who were compassionate but who also wanted their taxes slashed would need to hear that Bush's intended cuts would not hurt the poor. To assemble a winning coalition, Bush would have lull some voters to sleep and convince others to "suspend disbelief".
This was dishonest and conservatives knew it, but they also knew better than to step forward and challenge their messenger's honesty just as he was negotiating a deal that would put them in power for eight years. Far from challenging Bush, the more lies he told about "compassionate conservatism", the more he convinced them that he was adept at slyly, stealthily advocating for their extreme right wing agenda. Of course they would have preferred to run with Newt Gingrich or Dan Quayle, who were openly extremist, but they knew a majority of Americans would not support such open extremism. So they chose a messenger of "compassionate conservatism" who would nonetheless unfailingly but secretly adopt their most extreme positions.
We on the Left are not at all like the Right. We leftists do not want to craft a candidacy whose appearances are acceptable to the majority and whose pretenses are consistent with majority opinion. We refuse to tuck our shirts in, even for a moment. Instead, we want to craft a platform of blatantly leftist ideas and then "educate" the country to accept our manifesto. "To hell with winning", we say, "if winning requires that we compromise what we believe".
That is entirely the wrong attitude. To win, we need not compromise all of what we believe, but we've got to compromise some of what we say.
Soon, perhaps, someone from Hillaryland will beg me to stop writing in support of her candidacy, and perhaps I will agree. But, right now I am running for no office and so I can be entirely honest with you in the hopes that you will better understand my chosen candidate. When you realize that Hillary is fighting for YOU, I hope you, too, will contribute to her campaign in every possible way.