Markos Moulitsas Zùniga, AKA “Kos” has a great little anti-Hillary piece in The Washington Post. Now granted, I’m hardly one to come to the defence of New York’s junior Senator, but Kos once again proves why he lives in a little world of his own that bears little resemblance to reality. For instance:
But the netroots — the far-flung collection of grassroots political activists organizing online — proved to be a different world, one unencumbered by Washington’s conventional wisdom. Even as the establishment mocked Dean and his supporters (“like a scene out of the ‘Star Wars’ cantina,” laughed a rival campaign aide), his army of hyper-motivated supporters organized across all 50 states. This movement exploded onto the national scene when Dean began reporting dramatically higher fundraising numbers than his opponents. Had Kerry not lent himself millions to reach the Iowa caucuses, and had Dean not been so green a candidate, Dean probably would have been the nominee.
Dean lost, but the point was made. No longer would D.C. insiders impose their candidates on us without our input; those of us in the netroots could demand a say in our political fortunes. Today, however, Hillary Clinton seems unable to recognize this new reality. She seems ill-equipped to tap into the Net-energized wing of her party (or perhaps is simply uninterested in doing so) and incapable of appealing to this newly mobilized swath of voters. She may be the establishment’s choice, but real power in the party has shifted.
Yes, Dean lost. Actually, no, Dean didn’t lose – he went down in flames. Howard Dean was dumped by the Democrats because he was such a raving lunatic that he was actively turning everyone but the far left off from the Democratic Party. Instead, the Democrats went with the “safe” and “electable” choice of John Kerry – who turned out to be not so electable in the end.
Now, Kos is right that the power in the Democratic Party shifted, and his brand of far-left “netroots activists” have a disproportionate amount of control over the direction and vision of the Democratic Party. And that should scare the holy living crap out of every Democrat.
Dean’s door-knocking sideshow probably did more to turn off Iowa Democrats than anything else. The “netroots” aren’t known for their tact, their moderation, or their sanity. And while Democratic politicians like Russ Feingold are smart enough to see the potential for these donors for finances, getting too close to the “netroots” is like taking a swim at Chernobyl – you’re going to come out radioactive.
Kos veers further into Crazy-Land:
Our crashing of Washington’s gates wasn’t about ideology, it was about pragmatism. Democrats haven’t won more than 50 percent of the vote in a presidential election since 1976. Heck, we haven’t won more than 50.1 percent since 1964. And complicit in that failure was the only Democrat to occupy the White House since 1980: Bill Clinton.
Despite all his successes — and eight years of peace and prosperity is nothing to sneeze at — he never broke the 50-percent mark in his two elections. Regardless of the president’s personal popularity, Democrats held fewer congressional seats at the end of his presidency than before it. The Democratic Party atrophied during his two terms, partly because of his fealty to his “third way” of politics, which neglected key parts of the progressive movement and reserved its outreach efforts for corporate and moneyed interests.
While Republicans spent the past four decades building a vast network of small-dollar donors to fund their operations, Democrats tossed aside their base and fed off million-dollar-plus donations. The disconnect was stark, and ultimately destructive. Clinton’s third way failed miserably. It killed off the Jesse Jackson wing of the Democratic Party and, despite its undivided control of the party apparatus, delivered nothing. Nothing, that is, except the loss of Congress, the perpetuation of the muddled Democratic “message,” a demoralized and moribund party base, and electoral defeats in 2000, 2002 and 2004.
That’s wonderful advice for the Democrats – emulate Howard Dean, not the last successful Democratic politician in the last 25 years. Now, I think Bill Clinton was an amoral scoundrel who was too busy getting Oval Office oral sex to notice the threat of terrorism gathering on the horizon, but if you’re a Democrat it’s pretty damn clear that Bill Clinton was a hell of a lot better than anyone else in the party in the last 25 years.
Clinton’s failures came when he tried to be a “progressive” activist. He created the biggest tax increase in history in 1993, had Hillary try to rewrite the nation’s healthcare system from scratch and instituted “don’t ask, don’t tell” policies in the military. Between that and the House scandals of the early 1990s, it’s hardly a suprise that the audacious and disciplined Republican revolutionaries led by Newt Gingrich took power in 1994. However, the Republicans were unable to take the White House in 1996 and lost 5 House seats in 1998, and then slipped further in 2000.
What Kos doesn’t realize is that “progressive” politics appeals only to “progressives” – and in a country in which self-identified conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals 2-1, running to the left won’t win any elections. Clinton, for all her many problems, doesn’t need the “netroots” votes to win, and would probably be better off without them. After all, Bill Clinton got a lot of respect for his upbraiding of rapper Sister Souljah before the 1992 elections, and Hillary Clinton could easily show her moderate credentials by smacking down the radical “netroots” actvists whose radicalism offends more people than it invigorates.
Kos’ radical “netroots” are one of the reasons why the Democrats are drifting further and further away from the mainstream. Just about the only thing that the Republicans have going for them right now is the fact that their opposition is just as ineffective as they are and filled with an incredibly divisive partisan spirit. Kos may yet save a party – but chances are if he were to get his way, it just wouldn’t be his.
While the Kos community’s irrational love affair with Howard Dean continues to make them easy targets for demagogues like you, it’s hard to argue with the fact that Bill Clinton destroyed the Democratic Party by selling out the working-class base. Clinton essentially shoved populist Dems towards the GOP by restructuring the party platform to abandon progressive economic positions and instead emphasize a hard line on abortion rights and gun control. The number of voters that the Dems permanently hemorrhaged during the Clinton era by playing Republican-lite on economic issues is probably in the millions. The prospect of a Hillary candidacy, while winkingly embraced by people like yourself who know she’s a free ticket to four more years of Republican control of the White House, will intensify the hatred of the populists who left the Democratic Party when her husband cut their throats over trade agreements.
Kos and his minions have it exactly right about Hillary, but are clueless to the danger of what appears to be a majority Democratic position on immigration to do absolutely nothing about controlling our border. This spring’s heated debate over this issue has convinced me of its permanency as a wedge issue (although admittedly a wedge issue far more important than gay marriage, flag burning, or school prayer). If Kossacks and other Dem leaders continue to ignore the pocketbook grievances of working-class voters being priced out of the labor market due to immigration, they’ll lose even more of the populist vote that Bill Clinton shoved into the GOP camp….thus making virtually any nationwide election unwinnable for Dems.
I thought the Clinton era was supposed to have been an era of peace and prosperity?
I don’t recall Clinton being a hard-liner on abortion – his “safe, legal, and rare” doctrine was classic triangulation.
You may have a point on gun control, but he was hardly alone in that regard.
I highly doubt that. In fact, one of Al Gore’s biggest problems in 2000 was that he didn’t promise to continue Clinton’s economic policies, and instead went straight for the “people not the powerful” brand of populism. By all rights, 2000 should never have been that close, but Gore’s refusal to embrace the good side of Clinton’s record severely cost him.
Now, that’s the sort of observation that makes me realize why I haven’t booted your ass out of here a long time ago…
Indeed, you’re right – immigration is a major wedge issue – for both parties. Neither party has a coherent position, and Bush’s virtual amnesty is killing him with conservatives, while Democrats could lose in the end as well.
Now, here’s the question: if immigration continues to be a wedge issue as it has, how viable would a strong third-party close-the-borders candidate be in 2008?
“I thought the Clinton era was supposed to have been an era of peace and prosperity?”
By and large it was. Clinton got it right by holding firm on PAYGO and resisting the constant barrage of budget-busting tax cuts proposed by the GOP Congress. He also got lucky on a number of things such as limited military commitments and cheap energy prices. None of these things win you many votes though, and the growing unease of the working-class during the Clinton years made Bush’s calls for instant-gratification tax cuts all the more appealing in 2000. “Peace and prosperity” aren’t gonna be rewarded by those not sharing in the prosperity, which included much of Middle America even in the late 90’s boom. And if it seems like your party is doing NOTHING on your behalf (as plenty of working people seemed to believe about Clinton and the Democrats in the 90’s), the prospects of a major political realignment (that includes places like West Virginia going red) becomes very real.
“I don’t recall Clinton being a hard-liner on abortion – his “safe, legal, and rare†doctrine was classic triangulation.”
To an extent that’s true. Clinton did triangulate on abortion, but for socially conservative working people feeling betrayed over trade agreements, the abortion issue rose in prominence as at least the GOP was speaking their language on that front. And I’ll always remember Al Gore ridiculing Dan Quayle in the 1992 VP debate, goading him to “repeat after me….I support a woman’s right to choose”. I may very well be the only one who remembers that specific interaction, but it struck me as very symbollic of where the Democratic Party’s priorities were in the Clinton era.
“In fact, one of Al Gore’s biggest problems in 2000 was that he didn’t promise to continue Clinton’s economic policies, and instead went straight for the “people not the powerful†brand of populism”
I seem to remember Gore finally gaining some steam when he embraced populism rather than running away from it. Had Gore focused more on economic populism, I’m confident he’d have won West Virginia, Missouri, and Arkansas….and perhaps Louisiana and Tennessee as well. Perhaps it would have cost him some votes on Long Island that he didn’t need, but would have won the Electoral College with a relative landslide.
“By all rights, 2000 should never have been that close, but Gore’s refusal to embrace the good side of Clinton’s record severely cost him”
I think it had more to do with his annoying smartest-kid-in-the-room personality than anything else. Gore’s balancing act of Clinton era successes with a populist “but we can do so much more…” addendum struck me as the right approach for a campaign like his.
“Now, here’s the question: if immigration continues to be a wedge issue as it has, how viable would a strong third-party close-the-borders candidate be in 2008?”
Quite viable….particularly if McCain is the GOP nominee, essentially advocating a position of blanket amnesty for millions of illegal aliens every 20 years. If the Democrats had more Byron Dorgans and fewer Ted Kennedys, they could win back a healthy chunk of the socially conservative working people they lost in the last five years. Since that does not appear likely, the beneficiaries will probably be Republicans long-term, at least once the current public face of amnesty (George W. Bush) is off the table. But the GOP will have to ween themselves away from the Chamber of Commerce to do so, which won’t come easily. I could easily see a third-party uprising over this issue if nothing is done beyond a legalization of a cheap labor pipeline.