Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Extreme Left/Right In the Pursuit of Purity is no Virtue
One of the big reasons I’m for Hillary, and the Clintons in general, is indeed that they don’t believe in making perfect the enemy of good. Why, given that I’m a liberal on most issues? Because history has been very mean to people who run to the far left, or far-right for that matter. I like a Democrat who can win. Even if a moderate Democrat is nominated, a moderate Democrat winning is better than a progressive Democrat losing. The general electorate is not comprised of mainly ideologues.
Nate Silver says:
There’s reasonably clear evidence that voters tend to punish candidates with “extreme” (far right or far left) ideologies
Let’s look at history to validate this:
1964:
The Republican party nominates Barry Goldwater, who suggests that the US use low yield nuclear weapons (as opposed to high yield Hiroshima level nuclear weapons). He tried to nuke’splain it as “repeating a suggestion made by competent military people,” and continues to do so into the election by calling nukes “merely another weapon.” President Lyndon Johnson successfully uses ads like this:
The results made one lucky not to be a Republican. However, this hasn’t only happened to Republicans.
1972:
Democratic Party nominates George McGovern, who calls for a 37% reduction in the defense budget, larger than some other Democrats talked about, and said things that got him accused of seeking to legalize marijuana, which back then, was way out of the mainstream. (I favor legalization, but that’s not the point about 1972). How did Nixon deal with him?
And were the results brutal for Democrats, progressives, and the country. Even for the flaws in Scoop Jackson or Humphrey, they would’ve been far better nominees with much greater potential to win the electoral votes needed to save us the hell of Watergate, even if military cuts weren’t that big.
1984:
In 1982, Democrats clobbered Republicans in the House and Senate elections: the economy still had not recovered, despite GOP mythology and the Cold War wasn’t looking too good. Talk of Reagan not running again in 1984 and primary challenges were abound in 1983. Then, as Reagan did decide to seek re-election and his approvals stabilized, Democrats nominated a candidate who openly talked about broadly raising taxes (and not only on the rich) because supposed, Hart was “in with big oil” and generally economically less progressive than Mondale, especially on trade. Even tho Hart polled considerably and consistently better than Mondale, the purists won. Mondale reintroduced himself to America at his convention:
Cue the backlash:
The results were not kind to Walter Mondale, as he, like McGovern, only carried one state in the entire country. Running on raising taxes on people aside from the rich, which Mondale did, was then a losing formula, as it is today. Even for Hart’s issue with oil, he would’ve still been better than Reagan on the environment by miles, ditto on trade, another point he got hit by the purity types on.
1988:
Democrats nominate a candidate who allows himself to be painted as weak on crime and unsympathetic to victims of crime. Remember, urban crime was a huge issue back in the 1980s and one of the GOP’s pre-Clinton edges. Al Gore and Dick Gephardt supported the death penalty, but not the eventual nominee Michael Dukakis. Here’s what happened:
Dukakis actually did have a chance to redeem himself, given that the Horton ad aired in September, before this infamous little incident:
The results were indeed an improvement over 1984, but against a guy as WASPY as Bush I, only Billy Carter would’ve failed to achieve besting Mondale. While many states like IL, CA, CT, MO, PA, and VT were decided by less than 5.6% points, Dukakis still lost and was further behind in the rest of the states. Given that, its obvious a more moderate Democrat (especially during a time when urban crime was high and GE voters were concerned) could’ve come much closer to winning, or have won. The world would’ve been saved Clarence Thomas, and of course George W. Bush, the Iraq War, John Robert, Sam Alito, and Jeb!
The lesson: nominating someone to the extreme left is a recipe for GOP disaster that can resound for decades. The former three landslide disasters I mentioned were events that Democrats worked hard to avoid again, and at the presidential level, have done.
One common trait of Goldwater, McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis, is that they consistently had to try to explain their way out of the paper bags their far left/right orientations. While I’d love for another GOPer to have to do that, I don’t want to see another Democrat do it, especially given how toxic the term “socialism” is, or about his tax plan (the 90% thing) to the general election electorate. Bernie Sanders is indeed a good human being, but history says he would not be a good nominee, at least in terms of obtaining electoral votes.
While Donald Trump might be far-right on immigration, if given the chance to go against someone who is from and is mostly popular among mainly the far-left, Trump could easily make himself a centrist, given that he is not a biblical hell-fire man like Ted Cruz. Abortion rights, the economy, gay rights, our standing in the world, and 12 million hard working people seeking a better life, many of whom have American citizen children, ought not be tossed away in the name of purity.
Now is the time for all good Democrats to come to the aid of the party and support Hillary Clinton.
17 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
