Weak Field

I know some netroots types are frustrated that the Democratic field hasn't yielded The Perfect Nominee, but I think it's a pretty solid set of choices all things considered. This is what a weak field looks like:

I keep meaning to recommend Noah Millman's post on this pointing out that there's no reason a field full of somewhat heterodox candidates needs to be weak. The Republicans could be having an interesting debate about the nature of conservatism and the direction of their party. But they're not:

In fact, there is no ideological fighting going on, except between Ron Paul and the rest of the field. Instead, the GOP is engaged in an identity-politics-driven contest. The GOP is not debating what it stands for, nor is it a party that knows what it stands for and is looking for the best candidate to win a general election and/or to effectively carry out the party’s program. The GOP is not trying to find a leader for the party. It is looking for a candidate who is the incarnation of the party. No wonder they’re having a tough time.

It's as if the heterodox candidates arrived four or right years too early, before the party was ready to hear that the old strategy isn't working any more.

Comments

There's only one person in the country who could truly embody the Republican party - that is, who is both a self-righteous Christian who doesn't know anything about his own beliefs; a plutocrat who has benefitted from nepotism and government subsidies his whole life while believing that nepotism and government subsidies do not exist in our free-market utopia; and a guy who is most comfortable embodying all the lowest-common-denominator stereotypes of an American because of his scorn for all other countries. And that man is currently President, and there's no one else like him. George Allen came close and would probably be the nominee today if not for his one mistake, but he's not a religious person.

Posted by Cryptic Ned | December 14, 2007 10:50 AM

To be fair, you don't often see Democrats debate the nature of liberalism (how often do they even mention "left" or "liberal"?). But I'll take the vacuous talking point-exchange of the Dems debate over the childish, hate-filled and fear-driven pandering that is the Republican field. That contest has essentially come down to who hates gays and immigrants more. Conservatives should be embarassed.

Posted by matthewc | December 14, 2007 11:01 AM

I know some netroots types are frustrated that the Democratic field hasn't yielded The Perfect Nominee, but I think it's a pretty solid set of choices all things considered.

Those netroots types are annoying to no end. When have we ever had a field that yielded The Perfect Nominee? That didn't stop a lot of netroots types from backing two obviously flawed candidates (even by netroots standards) in Dean and Clark.

Posted by Clark | December 14, 2007 11:11 AM

matthewc: The Democrats fear liberalism, and their failures are often thought of as due to being being not "centrist " enough. Republican failures are failures of will -- they just didn't adhere to Conservative dogma enough. I'm not sure if this is because of the impact of money on politics or what, but that's how it is.

"Two obviously flawed candidates" --> I told my ultra-conservative roommate at the time that Dean and Clark were "flawed messengers" who were needed at the time for the Dems. I feel like Republicans only really analyze Conservatism when there's complete realignment of the parties in general (beginning with Goldwater and Nixon's Southern strategy). Conservatism is some moral value (exhibit a: "politics of resentment") one clings to no matter what.

Posted by Chris_ | December 14, 2007 11:29 AM

I disagree about Clark and Dean-- I don't think their alleged flaws were evident until after they'd had the media beat them up. Moreover, their candidacies weren't undone by their flaws, but by their organizations being too cocksure (Dean) or too wet new (Clark) to actually deliver primary votes.

I agree with Cryptic Ned up to a point. Note that Huckabee is subtly trying to emulate Bush's style of viciousness masquerading as cluelessness, and you could make a case for Romney buying into that attitude as well. And there's always Alan Keyes, and Dan Quayle...

Posted by Michael Bloom | December 14, 2007 12:35 PM

I'm going by the netroots' standards for flaws, which means that Dean, in his previous incarnation a centrist governor, and Clark, who was despite his resume terrible on the stump and in running a campaign, should have been disqualified by the current netroots' standards for ideological purity and campaign execution. Both of those things were glaringly obvious before they wiped out early on.

But I don't fault them for pushing those two at all; it's their current fickle attitude that bugs me.

Posted by Clark | December 14, 2007 1:55 PM

I guess what bugs me is that we are finally in a position where the Democrat has an inherent advantage coming into an election and our top tier candidates give us DLC or just left of DLC policy. The progressive agenda has broad majority support in most of its platform, especially on the economic and trade fronts, but we are supposed to be thrilled with Clinton and Obama, while trusting that Edwards will actually live up to his populist billing considering his past.

It also bugs me that Bush has lowered expectations so low that we are supposed to act thrilled by our candidates, even when they are so out of step with our core beliefs, or else we are dubbed 'whiners'.

Posted by Ricky | December 14, 2007 4:26 PM

I have to disagree with the premise of the post: that there is no ideological dispute within the Republican Party. Ron Paul is admittedly a libertarian in Republican clothing, and I don't mean him.

Mike Huckabee does represent a new direction for the Republican party. He is a stone Talib, but is apparently no plutocrat. The mainstream Republican party is about plutocracy, with Talibanism, racism and fascism distractions to get the votes of a few rubes. Huckabee is directly challenging this. That's why he worries me. He almost looks like a European Christian Democrat--maybe I should call him a Christianist Democrat. If the Republican Party goes this way, and the plutocrats settle for them as the lesser evil, I think that they might become a majority party again, pretty soon.

Posted by Joe S. | December 14, 2007 9:54 PM

There is an ideal nominee, and that is Barack Obama. Obama gets what the country needs in a fundamentally sound American liberal way. He is committed to restoring the social net that has failed and to working towards restoring a living wage for people. And how much better can you get than a former community organizer and constitutional law scholar who has walked picket lines?

Edwards represents the populist wing of the party and Clinton the corporate wing, but only Obama embodies the values of the populist wing while having the respect and support of the corporate wing.

Posted by Bart Motes | December 14, 2007 10:29 PM