The Historic Realignment in the Democratic Party
Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 09:14:17 AM PDT
On the face of it, the Primary campaign is all about personality and not about substance. The stated positions of the two candidates, the wisdom goes, are so close that the argument is over who can make the better against Sen. McCain. Then why is there such a heated prolonged battle between the Clinton and Obama camps?
In fact what we are seeing is a historic realignment in the Democratic Party. The Republican Party of Ronald Reagan that held such sway over the Nation ( even through the Clinton years) has collapsed. Eight years of incompetence and malfeasance, and a longer period of successes, have drained it of energy. This is not to say that the Right Wing in the country is finished. The Clinton wing of the Democratic party is moving in to fill that role. In effect they are aligning themselves with what is left of the Republicans to defeat the Liberal wing of the Democratic Party. The Liberal Wing is in effect, the continuation of the Hubert Humphrey-McGovern tradition. It was revived fiour years ago by Dean and is now led by Obama. It is the
Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party.
The Clinton wing is centered around the Democratic Leadership Council, which was established in the waning years of the twentieth century as an attempt to meet the Republicans half way. This `Third Way' allowed the Democrats to enjoy a modicum of power during the Clinton years. By sacrificing Congress, in the infamous Triangulation strategy, Clinton was able to get re-elected. For all its flaws, the Clinton Presidency showed the nation that Democrats could balance the budget and oversee an economic boom. It is no small accomplishment that we had peace and prosperity for close to a decade.
But we are in a position to ask for more. The collapse of the Republican Party means we should not any more settle for just a fraction of the power.
The Clintons, perhaps the most astute observers of the American political scene, are fully aware that they need a new base. South Carolina was their final break with the Liberal Wing. They saw that the groups that they had relied upon for decades to deliver 90% of the vote were abandoning them in droves. Because now there is an alternative, a new movement and energy.
The Clintons were not unprepared for this eventuality. They had been quietly amassing a fortune of $110M in the years out of power. They had made friends with the Murdoch family, which owns Fox News: the main channel of anti-Democratic propaganda. They also reached out to their former mortal enemy Mellon Scaife. They established strong relationship with the Washington Lobbying industry, placing one of their family factotums (Mark Penn) as the CEO of the largest lobbying firm. The delicious irony is that Sen. McCain's chief strategist (Charlie Black) worked for Mark Penn, at the same time that Mark Penn was Sen. Clinton's Chief Strategist. This enabled the Clintons to both oppose and lobby for the Colombian Free Pact. To both profit from China while asking for a boycott of China.
It is no coincidence that Hillary Clinton is good friends with the famously prickly Sen. McCain. Relations between McCain and Obama are far more tense. The Clintons saw McCain as a potential ally even as they prepared to place Sen. Clinton as the inevitable Democratic nominee. They clearly saw Dean as a threat which is why they fought tooth and nail to keep him away from the DNC chairmanship. MacAuliffe was their man,who stuffed the DNC with reliable party hacks who wrote the rules of the coming Primary contest. In another delicious twist, the Clintons are now complaining that the rules are unfair to them.
The stage is now set for a historic confrontation. What Liberal Democrats face is an unofficial-but very real- alliance of the decayed Republican Party with the Clinton-DLC wing of the Democratic Party. That is why Hillary Clinton is attacking Obama as an Elitist: the Right Wing codeword for Liberal. This continues the pattern when she said
Sen. McCain brings a lifetime of experience. I bring a lifetime of experience. Sen. Obama brings a speech..
We forget that until FDR the Democrats were the Right Wing Party. The party of Jim Crow and Segregation. That wing was strong until the Civil Rights era. Now that they have lost the hearts and minds of the Liberals (SC was the turning point) the Clintons are switching sides and recreating the old Dixiecrats. Many of the stalwarts of the Republican Party today are former Democrats who find a natural affinity with the Clintons. Liebermann and Harold Ford can be part of the Clinton Wing easily. Pelosi will be with the Liberal wing even if she has to remain neutral officially because she is Speaker.
How can Sen. Clinton be not a liberal, given that her policy positions are so similar to Obama's? This is an old Clinton trick, to obfuscate differences with your opponent. It is not the slogans, but what you actually do that matter. If you are banking money from lobbying groups for Colombian Free Trade while railing against it publicly, you are less of a Democrat than me. If you ask for a Boycott of the Olympics while making profit from companies repress Tibet, you are only a Democrat in name. If you deny that the folks in rural Pennsylvania are bitter from twenty years (including the Clinton years) of losing jobs, you are the one out of touch. And certainly not a Liberal.
A members of the DLC would bristle at the idea that he is less of Democrat. The old Right Wing Democrats also bristled when it was suggested that they were less Democratic. History shows that they were. Many of them left the Democratic Party, and became stalwarts of the Republican Party. You want me to list them? Let us start with Ronald Reagan.
The 1990's are over. The old labels don't make much sense anymore. To the extent they do, they don't apply to the same people. There is whole new media culture, an entirely new generation of voters, new ways of organizing and raising money. Ward Bosses do not need to be paid anymore, endorsements from party hacks count for less. We live at a time when a group of idealists insurgents can take over the Democratic Party. We might lose at first as with Liebermann in the GE. But each loss will make us stronger if we won't compromise .And each victory (e.g., Foster for Congress) will weaken the opposition. It was not wrong to oppose Liebermann in 2006. It is not wrong to fight the Clintons now. Politics is about making choices. Which side are you on?
To summarize:
Back in the 1990's when the country was so far to the right, the Democratic Party had to compromise to get any share of power. But the Right Wing has screwed up so royally over the last decade that, there is a swing to the left now nationally. The wind is at our back.
We don't need a DLC. Or a Third Way. The First Way, Republicanism is floundering. The Clinton wing, of which the DLC is an important part, needs to be defeated. We will win, if not in this election, in the next. Elections are not only about winning office; they are also about who we are as a Party.
Permalink | 63 comments