I was shocked by the performance of Clinton-supporting RBC members yesterday. That hand-waiving gesture Harold Ickes employed at the end of the meeting, while accusing the party of hijacking democracy itself, was so contemptuous and undignified I couldn't believe it. I expected her supporters on the committee, who will continue to serve their own constituencies and have a roll in the party, would be voices of moderation and reconciliation. Many of them struck me as more angry, divisive, and willfully shrill than any of Clinton's own rhetoric.
I am increasingly convinced that this is less about the Clintons themselves than about the end of their circle's power in the party. Terry McAuliffe, James Carville, Harold Ford, Rahm Emanuel--they and their allies will have forever lost control of the party when Obama secures the nomination. There, we might have motivation for staging a passion play.
After yesterday, I have my doubts that these Democrats will stand in unity with our party in 2008 or ever again. Could our Blue Dog problem be on the verge of getting much worse? Could it turn into an exodus from the party?
Two thoughts got into my mind this morning that have troubled me. First, the Republican coalition has crumbled and it will never win another national election with its extremists and any other group of voters who can stomach those extremists. Second, when the racist, populist Dixiecrats found a new home with the Republicans in the 1960s, they seemed surprisingly willing to abandon their populism. We've seen the Neoliberal (NAFTA) and Neoconservative (Iraq and Iran votes) streaks in the Clintons and their supporters. Could they, like the Dixiecrats, be willing to abandon key elements of our party ideology and form a new coalition with
the Republicans to get back in control?
My concerns are more for the future than for 2008. I don't see any way that any sizable portion of Democratic voters vote for McCain. The Republican party of 2008 continues to be tainted by the stink of Bush and its other extremists, and despite the window dressing McCain continues to be the Reagan Republican that is two-decades behind the rest of the country.
Even the Bush presidency has been built on a kinder, more moderate Republican party. The Bush so many Americans voted for in 2000 claimed to be a moderate, a compassionate conservative who would reach out to the very people he was trying to convince America to vote against. Again, in 2004, his campaign was largely based around shaking voters' confidence in his opponent, not on endless war and torture and the foundation of an American Stasi. As much as the party has depended on the wingnuts to win elections, they have been running from their base.
They can't recover from the electoral defeat of 2006 and probably 2008 and 2010 by consolidating that base. However, with so many of these moderate and conservative Democrats feeling left out in the cold, I wonder if the Republican party might not abandon their aging population of bigots and recenter ideologically in some form that allows Blue Dogs and their kind to make a more open shift.
Final thought:
We all have our ideas about why the Clintons have sacrificed so much of their dignity and goodwill pursuing this doomed campaign; I am increasingly convinced that this is less about the Clintons themselves than about the end of their circle's power in the party. Terry McAuliffe, James Carville, Harold Ford, Rahm Emanuel--they and their allies will have forever lost control of the party when Obama secures the nomination.
Like anything stupid or self-destructive we do, it is a lot easier to get there with a mob of friends cheering you on and telling you that you're in the right.
Please comment. I'm interested in your thoughts.