General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)Party Loyalty [View all]
If one were to accept everything stated on DU:GD as fact, then the biggest problem facing the Democratic Party would be that the left -- meaning progressive and liberal registered Democrats, and the Democratic Left -- fail to support the partys candidates. This includes the lefts having unrealistic standards of purity in both the primaries and general election; failing to go to the polls on Election Day; and/or voting third party as a form of protest vote. Indeed, when people post something (anything) at this early date -- certainly before any Democratic candidate has announced that they are running -- that raises concerns about one specific potential candidate, they will be attacked for their lack of party loyalty.
Party loyalty is a curious thing. If, for example, one is familiar with the history of primary and general elections since, say, 1964 -- approximately one-half of a century -- there are several examples of a lack of party loyalty damaging a Democratic candidates chances for victory. Yet most of these were the result of the moderate-to-conservative wing of the Democratic Party. Indeed, the lone example that the moderate-to-conservative wing still attempts to blame on the left is the tired, weak argument concerning Ralph Nader in Florida in the 2000 election.
If only the left hadnt cast protest votes for Nader -- believing that theres no difference between Bush and Gore -- wed have won the election! We still see this uninformed appeal to emotion, even on DU:GD discussions. It requires one to ignore the fact that Gore did win the vote in Florida, and the republican party/ US Supreme Court stole the election. This was very well documented in Vincent Bugliosis The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President (Thunders Mouth Press; 2001).
To blame the eventual outcome of that election on the left -- some of whom did vote for Nader -- makes as much sense as blaming the elderly Floridians who, confused by the butterfly ballot, cast votes for Patrick Buchanan. More, it ignores an important reality -- one documented in Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.s Journals: 1952 - 2000 (Penguin; 2007): a good many of the establishment Democrats voted for George W. Bush. The reason? Some disliked Al Gore for creating distance between himself and Bill Clinton, while others despised his choice for vice president.
Still, Al Gore won the 2000 presidential election. Any and all blame goes to the Supreme Court.
Similar dynamics had resulted in President Jimmy Carters 1980 loss to Ronald Reagan. Again, Schlesingers journals document that a significant segment of the establishment Democrats were opposed to Carter -- even before the middle of his term in the White House. Some, like Arthur, mistakenly thought that a four-year Reagan term would be no big deal (just as 20 years later, they felt Bush would be inconsequential). Add to that the phenomenon of Reagan democrats -- who were moderate-to-conservative party members, who believed Reagan represented their values. It would be delusional to believe the left backed Ronald Reagan.
To really understand the betrayal of party loyalty during this era, one has to take 1968 -- a unique year in American history -- into account. The occupant in the White House was President Lyndon Johnson. In late 1967, Senator Eugene McCarthy had entered the primaries; in early 1968, Senator Robert Kennedy entered the race, as well. Intelligent people can differ on if one or both of them were disloyal to the Democratic Party, by doing so. However, LBJ would soon announce his plan to retire. RFK came from behind, to pass McCarthy in delegates won in the primaries; VP Hubert Humphrey entered the race, though he did not run in a single primary; RFK was murdered; and then, at the Democratic National Convention, the establishment selected Humphrey as the partys candidate.
What happened at the Convention was important. In part, because of the police riot outside; part because it was run by Chicagos Mayor Daley. Now, the mayor was a tough, old-school, machine political genius. Daley was also a stubborn, often cruel political boss. Inside the convention hall, he was a bully. But he was not alone in representing old school politics: the conflict over seating the delegates from Mississippi, which started in 64, was still unresolved. Although the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party had the legal and ethical right to be seated, the old, dehydrated, racist delegates were allowed to remain in official control of the state party.
These issues led to attempts to create a fair set of rules before the 1972 Democratic Convention. To a large extent, this created tensions between the progressive-liberal wing, and the moderate-conservative wing. (And these played out before, during, and after the convention.) The result was the most acrimonious convention -- inside -- in the partys history.
George McGovern would come from behind in the primary season, to take a lead. Some of the other candidates, led by Hubert Humphrey, began a coordinated anyone but McGovern operation, to try to deny McGovern the nomination. Even when it was clear, at the beginning of the convention, Humphrey and the establishment sought to keep McGovern from winning.
McGovern won the nomination, but lost in the general election for three reasons: he ran a poor campaign; Nixons campaign was hugely successful in using dirty tactics; and parts of the Democratic Party would support and vote for Nixon. In fact. Exit polls showed that 35% of registered Democrats who voted, cast their ballots for Nixon. More, shortly after the election was called for Nixon, Humphrey called to congratulate Nixon. A transcript of the two sharing a giggle about how Humphrey pretended to support McGovern, but really worked against him, is found in Rick Perlsteins Nixonland (Scribner; 2008).
A similar anybody but ____ coordinated establishment campaign took place in the 1988 Democratic primary season. The contest attracted a large number of candidates (as had the 72 race). In time, it became a two-man contest, between Michael Dukakis and Jesse Jackson. The democratic establishment pressured the others to drop out of the race, to help Dukakiss campaign. It was a anybody but Jesse effort.
Jesse wanted to be picked for the VP spot. He had shown the ability to bring large numbers of new people into the party. Dukakis ended up going with Senator Lloyd Bentsen of Texas instead. Although that choice resulted in a wonderful exchange in the VP debate, it wouldnt carry the ticket to victory. Dukakis ran a campaign that was less exciting than lima beans; he could neither win back the Reagan democrats, or inspire new people to join the party. While we can only speculate on how things might have been different, had Dukakis offered Jesse some position, it seems unlikely he could have done worse.
If we add the moderate-to-conservative Democrats, with the progressive-liberal wing, and attract the support of the Democratic Left, the Democratic Party can continue to beat any republican candidate for the White House. In fact, that combination has the potential to win seats in both houses of Congress, as well as state and local elections. Not everywhere, but in the majority of states. But to do that, we need party loyalty -- and not just party loyalty as defined by one wing, or the established leadership.
Party loyalty has to include sharing the rewards. But we very rarely, if ever, have seen this type of power-sharing after election victories in the past 50 years. In fact, the opposite is too often the rule: the true progressive-liberal wing rarely gets any seat at the table. (Just because the media calls a politician a liberal, doesnt mean he/she is. They are speaking of in the limited context of Washington, DC.) The Democratic Left is never seated. While their numbers may appear small, their ideas are huge. And their campaign work ethic -- going door-to-door, etc -- is why they are known as activists.
Its strange to me, as an activist on the left, to see how we continue to be taken for granted, and shown so little party loyalty. Now, Im a registered Democrat, with serious grass roots credentials. Ive been a social - political activist for many decades. And while I speak only for myself here, I am aware of others who think very similarly.
Peace,
H2O Man