« The Case for Cities | Main | Rich State, Poor State »

Leftward Ho

26 Oct 2007 04:37 pm

Kevin Drum:

This year, though, we're in a historically odd position. The Republican Party is still in stage (b), but to a smaller extent, the Democrats are back there too. The Democratic Party spent so long in stage (a) during the 90s, moving aggressively to the center after years in the wilderness, and the GOP moved so far to the right under Gingrich and Bush, that Democrats have the luxury of being able to move modestly to the left and yet still be moving relatively closer to the center than the Republican Party. On a scale of 1 to 10, it's like the GOP is moving right from 8 to 9 while the Democratic party is moving left from 4 to 3.5. The lunacy of the conservative base is providing a huge amount of cover for liberals to make some modest progress this year.

I dunno. I think it's important to talk specifics here. On a question like health care, all three major Democrats are running on similar platforms that are considerably more ambitious than what John Kerry or Al Gore offered. On the other hand, they're considerably less ambitious than what Bill Clinton proposed in 1993 or what Bob Kerrey proposed during the 1992 primary.

On the use of force, most congressional Democrats opposed the 1991 Persian Gulf War, taking a very skeptical view of the efficacy of American arms even when deployed in what was as close to a textbook instance of liberal internationalist collective security as the world has ever seen. By 1998, most Democrats were prepared to countenance the limited use of force with little-to-know risk to American lives against Serbia with the support of most of the UN Security Council's members but in the face of Chinese and Russian veto threats that made an authorizing resolution impossible. By 2003 you had the bulk of the party leadership prepared to endorse a preventive counter-proliferation war against Iraq that was all-but-uniformly opposed around the world. Here in 2008, things have clearly evolved back in a dovish direction from where they were during the Summer of War but you still don't see anyone ruling out unilateral air strikes against Iran.

What else? To me, that seems to generally be the pattern: Al Gore ran on a very timid platform in 2000, and 9/11 then sent Democrats into a years-long defensive crouch, but the point where the party's gotten back to is pretty similar to where it was when Bill Clinton first got elected. Insofar as the party's to the left of where Clinton was in at the end of his administration, that seems to mostly be because people are envisioning a Democratic congressional majority.

Share This

Comments (11)

"GOP moved so far to the right under Gingrich and Bush..."

How far to the right is Medicare Part D, the largest expansion of the welfare state since LBJ? How far to the right is the No Child Left Behind act? There you have Bush's two biggest domestic achievements, and they are both closer to big government liberalism than any meaningful definition of conservatism. The Medicare drug benefit was something Democrats had pined for for thirty years; the NCLB was hatched in coordination with Ted Kennedy.

If you want to move left, just be honest and say that. Why the pretense about being centrists?


“We remain a hunted people. Now you think you have a destiny to fulfill in the land that historically has been ours for forty thousand years. And we’re a new Mestizo nation.”

“Our devil has pale skin and blue eyes…”

“We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him.”

– Professor Jose Angel Gutierrez, founder of La Raza


"Around the year 2040, whites will become a minority in the United States and, believe me, it will be 'payback time'."

- Pro-Immigration Activist, Jorge Sanchez


“And the one idea is, how we are going to exterminate white people because that in my estimation is the only conclusion I have come to. We have to exterminate white people off the face of the planet to solve this problem.”

- African Studies professor, Dr. Kamau Kambon


"Blond hair and blue eyes are a biological defect."

"The white race is a disease, and the only cure is a bullet. The rule of whites is history. Soon they will be our serfs. It's now the Age of the Brown Man."

- Hindu nationalist, Ramesh Sharma


“The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists. Make no mistake about it we intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as ‘the white race’ is destroyed–not ‘deconstructed’ but destroyed."

- Jewish studies professor, Dr Noel Ignatiev


.


“We remain a hunted people. Now you think you have a destiny to fulfill in the land that historically has been ours for forty thousand years. And we’re a new Mestizo nation.”

“Our devil has pale skin and blue eyes…”

“We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him.”

– Professor Jose Angel Gutierrez, founder of La Raza


"Around the year 2040, whites will become a minority in the United States and, believe me, it will be 'payback time'."

- Pro-Immigration Activist, Jorge Sanchez


“And the one idea is, how we are going to exterminate white people because that in my estimation is the only conclusion I have come to. We have to exterminate white people off the face of the planet to solve this problem.”

- African Studies professor, Dr. Kamau Kambon


"Blond hair and blue eyes are a biological defect."

"The white race is a disease, and the only cure is a bullet. The rule of whites is history. Soon they will be our serfs. It's now the Age of the Brown Man."

- Hindu nationalist, Ramesh Sharma


“The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists. Make no mistake about it we intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as ‘the white race’ is destroyed–not ‘deconstructed’ but destroyed."

- Jewish studies professor, Dr Noel Ignatiev


.

"textbook instance of liberal internationalist collective security"

Glad we saved the Kingdom of Kuwait, ruled by a thuggish royal family, from the evils of a neighboring dictator.

Whooppee! Extending that liberal philosophy one bomb and one dead family at a time.

This is slightly off topic - it's on the nomination race, but the Republican one - but there don't seem to be a lot of threads on the Republican Presidential candidates today, into which I could instead put the comment. And this comment's lack of topicality, er, pales besides that of the above double comment by a seething racist, which I would rather hope will be deleted by a moderator.

Charles Pierce has a typically fantastic paragraph on the R race, which I quote here in full:

In fact, it's long past time for simple ridicule to become the default position on the entire Republican presidential field. Romney is deeply, profoundly, relentlessly silly; he appears to be enrolled in a course in Human Being as a Second Language. Rudy Giuliani gets crazier almost by the hour and, at any meeting of his foreign-policy advisory team, he's the sanest lunatic in the room. Fred Thompson seems to have been unearthed a week ago in the Valley of the Kings. The second tier is populated by people like Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo, neither of whom you would hire to park your car. Ron Paul -- an authentic libertarian crackpot -- is treated as a serious phenomenon even by people who don't believe that the U.N. is speaking through the fillings in Katie Couric's teeth. This past week, we had a general all-hands-on-deck attempt to inflict Huckamania! on the general populace as good ol' Mike announced his disapproval of Charles Darwin. And then there's John McCain, who's spent this entire campaign doing things he'd vowed he'd never do in the last one. I swear to God, they all ought to climb into one little black car and drive into the next debate behind jugglers, high-wire acts, and a parade of circus bears. I cannot remember a presidential field in my lifetime -- not even the one that coughed up Mike Dukakis in 1988 -- that is as publicly hilarious as this one is. How dare a major political party hand this collection of shills, fakes, loons, and mountebanks on the American people? And one of them is going to win. Jesus wept.

Re: What else? To me, that seems to generally be the pattern: Al Gore ran on a very timid platform in 2000

What could Gore have run on? The country was pretty satisfied in 2000 and not looking for any big changes. Bush's platform was not very adventurous either outside the usual red meat of abortion bans and the like tossed to the Religious Right. VPs seeking to succeeed popular presidents usually do tend to coast on their predecessor's record rather than propose major changes. See: George Bush, pere, in 1988. And it actually worked for Gore, except for that 18th contraption known as the Electoral College.

Thanks for the double troll, "Wake Up America," and thanks for keeping us apprised of the brown menace that is Mexico!

Fred, I'd call Medicare part D "big government conservatism." To the extent that it provides a (dubious) drug benefit to Medicare recipients, that is more of a side-effect or political sop to further the real agenda of this program--massive subsidies to big corporations. Big government Democrats want to give government benefits to large blocks of individuals. Big government Republicans want to give government benefits to a few wealthy individuals or to large corporations.

NCLB is a more complex animal. I'd hardly call it liberal since in practice most liberals are adamantly opposed. Right-wing social engineering might be a better word for what NCLB does. Teddy did indeed work with "W" on this, much to his (I hope) subsequent regret. The formulation that a liberal program is one that expands the reach of government simply doesn't wash. Conservatives and liberals both want to expand the reach of government, only in different areas and for different reasons.

Perhaps libertarians of the Ron Paul variety really do favor the reduction of the size of the government. But they don't get to pretend that they represent the "true" conservative movement.

On a question like health care, all three major Democrats are running on similar platforms that are considerably more ambitious than what John Kerry or Al Gore offered. On the other hand, they're considerably less ambitious than what Bill Clinton proposed in 1993 or what Bob Kerrey proposed during the 1992 primary.

An opportunity for a bit of all-you-need-to-know-about Bob Kerrey nostalgia... when Kerrey ran in early '92, he said of his health care plan that if America didn't have the courage to tackle this problem, it didn't have the courage to solve any of its problems.

When Clinton proposed his plan two years later, Kerrey was the first Democrat to officially jump ship, guaranteeing that nothing would be done.

Yes, Bob Kerrey was a horrible senator.

Matt,

while i would rather not wonkify my point, Im curious how Bill Clinton '93 and Kerrey '92 are more ambitously left than John Edwards? Seriously, on the entire platform, the substance of their campaigns offered much less specificty on dealing with issues from a left/liberal perspective than JE.

In short, did they discuss raising taxes or providing universal, retirement, HC, education and global security pacts? No.

On a scale of 1 to 10, it's like the GOP is moving right from 8 to 9 while the Democratic party is moving left from 4 to 3.5.

more like moving from 6 to 5, but hey, at least it's in the right direction...


Comments closed November 09, 2007.

Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.