Austin Bay thinks that the era of the hard left is over, and the Truman Democrats will reemerge:
9/11 marked the end of multi-cultural nostrums dear to the Democrat’s hard left. It marked the end of welfare states as we know them –now the strategic game’s either globalize or die. The “die option†bifurcates: either shrink and die slowly, or submit to a fascist tyranny with borders closed by violence.
9/11 also marked the end of Vietnam as a political syndrome. Defeatism, cynicism, and anti-military anger don’t sell.
We have entered the Era of the Armed Liberal. The smartest Democrats know this. The next successful Democratic charge will ride a Truman-Jackson “defense Democrat†horse—and the candidate will be a populist. The candidate (he? she?) will damn the Republicans for fiscal irresponsibility.
Sadly, I have to disagree. The Democratic Party is too firmly entrenched with the far-left radicals to change at this point in time. When Howard Dean is the head of the party, and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are the Congressional leadership, you don’t have a party that’s concurrent with the mainstream of American politics.
Figures like Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD), Rep. Stephanie Herseth (D-SD), Gov. Phil Bredesen (D-TN), and Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) represent the old Truman/Jackson tradition within the Democratic Party, but they’re a relative minority compared to the more radical fringe. Certainly with MoveOn.org and the Kossacks becoming an increasingly influential subgroup in Democratic politics what little impetus there is to swing to the middle is being overwhelmed by a tide of partisan rancor and defeatism. The ghosts of the 60s counterculture have yet to be exorcised from the Democratic Party, and until they do the Democrats can’t quite embrace their anti-totalitarian roots.
On the other hand, with Hillary scrambling to build up some centrist street cred, at least some Democrats seem to understand which way the winds are blowing. It’s those politicians that have the best chance of electoral success, which will lead the inevitable swing of the Democratic Party back to the vital center — the question being how long will it take them to get there?
Not entirely on-topic, but here is a question that has interested me for some time. You use the terms populist and populism quite often and they always seem to have a positive connotation. Now, in my native language, “Populismus” definetely has negative connotations. A “Populist” is someone who does not have his or her own opinions, but always says what the perceived majority wants to hear; if the majority should choose to change their mind, so will the “Populist.” For a newspaper, to be labelled “populistisch” is approximately the same as being called “National Inquirer.” So obviously there must be a difference in what you guys and us guys mean by these ideas.
Basically, in my understanding of the terms, a populist government will never do anything that would appear unpleasant to the populace, necessities notwithstanding. Populism avoids anything unpopular. If a country is run on this principle, I do not think it would ever go anywhere (and I have the impression that this is what is going on in my beloved homeland…).
I would be interested in hearing your view of what populism means.
J.
A clear majority of Americans agree with Howard Dean’s position on the war in Iraq, and have for more than a year now. Considering that only one Democrat was opposed to fighting back the Taliban in Afghanistan (you know, those long-forgotten bugaboos who actually did have a role in 9-11?), the entire argument that the Democrats are a bunch of white-flag waving peaceniks is nothing more than a Republican party talking point, but sadly one that sells to disengaged “security moms” who were “changed by 9-11”, but still prefer watching American Idol to the evening news.
Now you’re attempting to sell Harry Reid as some sort of lunatic leftist (those damn liberal Mormons!!!!!!). If the Dems had selected Lieberman as their public face, you’d be equating him with some sort of radical leftism as well (as I’m sure you did back in 2000 when he was Gore’s running mate). Your party’s entire strategy has been reduced to suggesting that the opposition gets more liberal every day even as the reality has included the Dems moving incrementally to the right with each passing year.
The Dems have to be smart enough not to play your game of running Republicans against Republicans every four years and expecting the lights to out-taste test the full flavors. What passed as Democratic centrism prior to 2000 is now sold as left-wing extremism. Real liberals will not vote for Joe Lieberman and Phil Breseden, so the Dems will still lose the elections. At this point, the only question is whether we lose with the dignity of holding true to the principles of civilized societies or do we lose by trying to co-opt the platform of deplorable extremists who should be debunked at every turn rather than revered.
Mark, I think that you might need to rethionk that a bit. I agree that many Dems are moving to the right. My wife is an example of one, but her father is as big a leftwing moonbat as they come. (He thought Dennis Kuchinich was a shade to conservative(?!?!?)). While most dems that I know are tending more to the right and center, the Democratic Party and it’s leadership is hellbent for leather on it’s crusade to move further to the left. They are out of touch with there own party members. I think that is going to become more and more obvious as the next few years unfold.
Jay:
I’m with you, I don’t forsee the Dems overcoming this. What I see happening is the Republicans splitting up, as Conservatives get fed up with big government, big spending Republicans. I think we’ve got the real potential for 4 major parties: A consevative party, Republicans of the type we seem to be currently represented by the Seante, a Democratic Party the is pro-defense and follows along the JFK/Truman ideas, and a far left Socialist Party, as currently represented by the current Democratic leadership/Moveon/Kos wing.
Janek: In the US, the term “populist” has a different meaning. The Populists were a mainly rural political movement in the late 19th-early 20th Century that campaigned for land reforms, the income tax, etc. Populists were generally against the large corporations of the time like Standard Oil and would be somewhat like liberals today. Populism pretty much died out by the 1950s, although both political parties retain some old Populist ideas (the Republicans got the emphasis on religion, the Democrats got the anti-corporate sentiment.)
The reason why the Minnesota Democrats are called the Democrat Farmer-Labor Party is a throwback to when the Democrats absorbed the old Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party, which was a Populist movement.
Greg, this past election was all the evidence I need that the two-party system will remain solvent for the rest of my lifetime. I can’t see our nation drifting too far from its current state of polarization for at least a couple of decades, and the bitter partisan acrimony will keep the “left” and “right” firmly entrenched in their parties of choice out of fear that any deviation will simply ensure the election of the other side. In other words, the party of Chuck Hagel and Tom DeLay will continue to exist as one if the alternative is President Hillary. Similarly, the party of Joe Lieberman and Dennis Kucinich will continue to exist as one if the alternative is President Frist.
When it comes to the delusional myth of the Democratic establishment’s “radical turn to the left,” I’d like to remind you that Richard Nixon’s domestic platform included working towards universal health care and a federal “living wage” mandate. Comparatively, John Kerry, “America’s most liberal Senator,” would not have been able to support these proposals by the man long considered one of our nation’s most “conservative” Presidents. Beyond that, the Democratic Party’s 2004 platform also included continued support for a neoconservative doctrine of “pre-emptive self-defense”, the death penalty and yet another reduction in the corporate tax rate. Please tell me how the party of John Kerry (the most liberal person in Congress, mind you) in 2004 can be considered to the left of the Democratic Party of George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Hubert Humphrey or even Lyndon Johnson? It’s pretty sad when a candidate calling for even deeper cuts in corporate tax rates can meet anyone’s qualification of “liberal extremist.” That just spells out how radically the political spectrum has shifted to the right since Ronald Reagan.
Thanks, Jay.
That did clear up my confusion, plus now I know where to look and what to look for for more informatoin.
J.
Damn. Mark actually said something rather intelligent.