For Democrats, Mr. Right is Mr. Wrong (The Nation)

[sfecap]

By John Nichols

(snip)

Lieberman's National Press Club speech signaled his intention to echo the conservative Democratic Leadership Council's theme that nominating a Democrat who shares the values of the party faithful would be dangerous. Like the DLC, he is trying to paint more liberal candidates as 2004 versions of 1972 Democratic nominee George McGovern. But the comparison that comes to mind when Lieberman bashes candidates who are popular with the party's base voters is not to the 1972 race, but rather to the 1980 contest for the Republican presidential nomination.

That year, moderate Republicans were horrified by the prospect that the party cadres were preparing to nominate former California Governor Ronald Reagan for president. Reagan's foes warned that if the conservative icon became the nominee, the November election results would be as disastrous as the 1964 campaign where standard-bearing conservative Barry Goldwater got trounced.

The pundits repeated the Goldwater-Reagan comparison constantly; even after Reagan's campaign took off, Time magazine declared that, "His biggest problem may be that the very hard-line conservative positions that appeal to the enthusiasts who vote in G.O.P. primaries are exactly those that might not attract the much larger body of people who vote in November." There was even talk that former President Gerald Ford might have to be drafted into the primary competition in order to stop Reagan. But the party faithful could not be dissuaded. They followed their principles and their hearts and went with Reagan. The November election results proved them right. Even if Americans did not agree with Reagan's ideology, they preferred his confident style to the more nuance and centrist offerings of Jimmy Carter and John Anderson.

Democrats who counsel compromise going into the 2004 contest are likely to find themselves disregarded in much the same way that Republican compromiser were in 1980. And rightly so. If the party chooses a candidate who is confident enough to aggressively challenge George W. Bush, Democrats might well find that steering an uncompromising course is far more appealing to the great mass of American voters that the circumnavigations proposed by Joe Lieberman.

http://www.thenation.com/thebeat/index.mhtml?bid=1&pid=871

[Cha]

1. I like John Nichols of "The Nation" a lot and am not surprised

he is taking this view!

[sfecap]

2. I may have to subscribe again...

I cancelled when they started accepting ads for Faux news. :-)

[Christian73]

3. They only ran the Faux News ads

twice. And if we're really for freedom of speech and expression, than I don't think that's something to hold against the Nation.

[Cha]

5. I know! THat didn't bother me because I know they are so darn

broke. I just tore the back off and started reading!

I'm not getting any more subscriptions to any magazines because of own personal tightening economy...so the mags had to go..but I can probably still get John Nichols online!

They helped my sanity for two years when I first heard of them on a cable show! ANd when I was in New York City I went into a magazine shop and asked for "The Nation"! And subsequently got a subsciption!

What I was gonna cancel over last year was "chris hitchens" ..but then he sniveled away and I was Happy! :-)

[tom_paine]

6. Have you ever read any of Nichols' books

"The Milagro Beanfield War" is the most well-known, but you should read "The Magic Journey".

Great book.

[Jim Sagle]

7. Maybe he reads your posts here.

:)

[xxqqqzme]

4. I am actually thrilled that

the Democrats have such a wide range of candidates 2 choose from during the primary selection process. All the rethugs R stuck w/ squatter - not very inspiring. All we have to do...like this is SO simple....is keep the DLC from ramming some horrid sure2lose geek down our throats!

[JackSwift]

8. Lieberman did so well for us last time

He was responsible for firing up the Florida faithful, and he couldn't carry the burden.

[ilpostino]

9. Looking in the mirror

The 1980 comparison is apt, but I don't think for the reasons that Nichols states. Despite the mythology, it wasn't Reagan's sunny disposition and rock hard conservatism that made the difference. It was the hideous interest rates and the Iranian hostage crisis that did Carter in. Bush is in the same place--an economy and foreign situation that are explosive.

Anyway, if we agree that the Lieberman/DLC critique of the serious Dem candidates is politically vacuous, Nichol's point is moot. Except in the context of Bush radicalism (and except for the ever diminishing candidacy of DK), there really is no leftist tilt to the Dem slate of candidates.

[Wonder]

10. "the Democratic wing of the Democratic party."

Kitchy. As is Harry Truman's warning, "when given a choice between a Republican and a Democrat imitating a Republican, voters would not hesitate to vote for the real thing." To both I say a well coined slogan does not a savior make. IMHO what is needed is a decisive departure from the status quo, not just candidates that coin kitchy phrases while still kicking the slop and the mud from their own shoes having just come out from another bull session in the political pig sty. The pig sty needs raking out in a big way!

While even I like a kitchy phrase or two, I am not convinced that any of these candidates can pull together the political reforms required to save the declining empire. That said, I do agree, "Democrats who counsel compromise going into the 2004 contest are likely to find themselves disregarded". By the same token the democratic party as a whole were never much good at shaking the tree either. I'd offer what we need is complete reform and the inclusion of a viable third party, but I really don't expect that will happen any time soon.