Watershed Elections and Democrats
These two images are still used to batter Democrats regardless of their personal histories. One of the great political services that Bill Clinton did for the party was to take away the club of welfare from the Republican's arsenal. Despite much whining by the Left Clinton's reforms have eliminated the charge that Democrats are opposed to work and want to take money away for the working class. However, Democrats are still accused of being against the common interest.
Besides Michael Lind's post one of the reasons that led to the above conclusion is the statement I heard over and over after 9/11 "thank goodness George Bush was president." What did Bush do that was so unusual? Wouldn't Al Gore have taken out the Taliban, wouldn't any president? When I would challenge people on their praise of Bush they could conceed that Gore and other Democrats would probably have gone after Bin Laden. Inevitably that concession would be followed with an "except Jimmy Carter." That may not be fair but Demcrats are saddled with an imagine of weakness when it comes to protecting America.
In the 1960s the heros of the Democratic Party were Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy. Too much is made of the Jefferson-Wilson idealism and not enough of the military strength embedded in the notion. Wilson went to war to "make the world safe for Democracy." Roosevelt not only worked to make America the "arsenal for Democracy"but had to overcome Republican isolationism and pro-German if not outright pro-Nazi sympathies often found in the now "Red States." Truman not only used the atomic bomb, but inuagurated the Cold War and took us into another shooting war in Korea. John Kennedy said we "would pay any price bear any burden for liberty."
As I understand from many posts here at the Cafe the McGovern-Carter wing of the Party believes that there may be no price worth bearing. Saddem was responsible for the deaths of millions in Iran, Kuwait and Iraq itself. That seems to be of little interest.It is said that America will inevitably blunder abroad. That America goes to war for oil or corporations. Most Americans, I believe, not only do not agree with this but resent it. With the attacks of 9/11 a lot of Americans are afraid of this view.
Domestically Roosevelt was not so Progressive as he is now assumed to have been. However, he created a series of programs that benefitted all Americans in need. I believe they were some of the first to be available regardless of race. He also created social insurance programs such as social security. Succeeding Democratic Presidents worked to expand opportunities for all Americans.
However, sometime in the 1970s Democrats stopped being for programs that benefitted all Americans and started insisting that Blacks and then Hispanics and woman and other groups needed to benefit from programs at the expense, or at least at the apparent expense of Whites.
Nixon's Southern Strategy and Silent Majority tactic was the first effort to exploit the split between Democrats, especially uppermiddle Class Democrats, and working class ethnic voters. (See E.J. Dionnes' Why Americans Hate Politics) None of those in the "House of Labor" have addressed the disparity between Union leadership and Reagan Democrats.
Democrats retained controlled Congress for 20 years after Americans became disaffected with the Party. The difficulty of ousting incumbents disguised the drop of support until Congressional arrogance and the failure to pass Clinton's healthcare reform, who needs Democrats if they can't do anything, led to the Republican takeover.
The problem of being a Congressional Party is the focus on staying in office and stopping being for anything. The one thing that none officeholding Democrats agree on, as the Cafe posts almost all show, is that the Party does not stand for anything and it does not fight for anything.
There was a time when Democrats supported a strong nation that pressed for our interests which was peace and stability and expanded economic growth worldwide and domestically for expanded opportunity for all people. Republicans do not win by large margins but they do control all branches of the Federal Government. They have gotten their by honing in of the Democrats desire to weaken our military and making amends for past racism, sexism and other isms all at the expense of most Americans.





I'm going to Recommend! this as I think it's thought provoking - but I'm posting this comment in almost total disagreement with it.
"As I understand from many posts here at the Cafe the McGovern-Carter wing of the Party believes that there may be no price worth bearing."
Please quote these posts. Because I've never seen any. What I HAVE seen are a lot of lefties who supported the Afghan War but thought invading Iraq would be a horrific mistake. I know, I know, you supported the war but think Bush has made a mess of it - I'm sure a Greenbaum Administration would've done it right, but as it is, it's a mess. No-one here is saying the USA should never fight wars - they just say we shouldn't have fought THAT one. Or Iran and Syria either.
It's a reasonable and honourable position and I'm sick of being labelled as some Neville Chamberlain-style quisling because I hold it.
And just for the record: Wilson didn't go to war to "make the world safe for Democracy." He'd have liked to, but the American people have never signed up for crusades like that. He went to war becvause the Kaiser kept sinking American ships and promising Texas to Mexico if they'd invade the USA.
"Roosevelt not only worked to make America the "arsenal for Democracy"but had to overcome Republican isolationism and pro-German if not outright pro-Nazi sympathies"
He sure did. He also ran on a 1940 ticket of keeping our boys out of Europe's war, and if Hitler hadn't been stupid enough to gratuitously declare war on the US after Pearl Harbor it's difficult to see how America could ever have got into the war against Germany.
John Kennedy said we "would pay any price bear any burden for liberty." It's a lovely phrase, isn't it? So stirring, and resonant. But it's just rhetoric. Think of the Ambassador scrambling onto the last chopper out of Saigon; did YOU want the GIs to stay in Vietnam indefinitely, to save South Vietnam's infant democracy? Or did you think that the price had just got too high?
August 16, 2005 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Before addressing the specifics one of the things that is so confusing to me about the comments at the Cafe is what do people feel about Iraq. Was removing Saddem under any circumstances a bad thing or is it bad only because Bush has done it so ineptly. I do not know about a Greenbaum administration but a Clinton Administration probably would have done it better.
As an opponent of Vietnam who with the rest of my Quaker School went to Washington D.C. twice to lobby against that war I never supported it.
But in a way you make my real point. It is what I perceive that many people here have a very unrealistic view of our history and especially the history of the Democratic Party.
You are right about Roosevelt but of course he ran against Hoover on the grounds that Hoover did not balance the budget. Democrats commanded the White House for about 25 years when the Presidents were committed internationalists who were supporters not only in having strong militaries but using them. The begining of the change in Democratic fortunes began with McGovern. That is not a statement of support for the Vietnam War just a statement of, I believe, of historical fact.
When I read many of the posts on the Cafe they are almost all interesting, and heartfelt. They just do not seem to me to represent the country as it really is or has been. Since Lincoln this has been a country dominated by Republicans.
It is a country that wants a strong military and a willingness to threaten its use even if their is no stomach for the sacrifices necessary that goes with their use. You don't think that Democrats continue to pay a price for McGovern and Carter?
While I am not planning my administration just yet I think Bush is a disaster and I want him gone. I think that the Republican domination of Congress is terrible. This won't be undone by us living in a fools paradise.
August 19, 2005 7:43 AM | Reply | Permalink