Reply to Dems Whining About Their Moderate Leaders
The author of the book Left Out! argues that the progressive agenda lost because it hitched itself to Kerry, a guy who didn't really support the progressive agenda, instead of sticking with Nader or the Green Party or other keepers of the faith. The truth is nasty for progressives.
The nasty truth is that outside of a few progressive college towns, the progressive agenda is not a winner in today's America. All the more so if the Pelosi's and Dean's of the world are too right wing for you. You have a lot of work to do to change minds in your party and the nation before you'll have any chance at electoral success.
As for the Nader/Kerry/lesser-of-two-evils issues, America has a two party system because the constitution has single candidate, plurality winner take all districts instead of multi-candidate proportional representation. In a single candidate winner take all system, the left and right always coalesce around two main parties because to split on one side (when the other side is
united) makes reaching a plurality for your side improbable and invites defeat.
The primaries are the progressive's chance to fight it out with pro-war or otherwise objectionable Democrats. It's reasonable, if that fight has been lost, to hold one's nose and choose the Democratic candidate as the lesser of two evils. Nader really did help lose the election for Gore, his votes in Florida did the trick. If you can't get a left of center (or right of center) message across in your own party, that's your indication that your message probably won't fly nationwide either. It shows that you have work to do to change minds in your party and the nation before you'll have any chance at electoral success.
Once the nominee gets the win within the party, it's typically their job to move to the center and try to appeal to those in the center to form a nationwide majority. It's hard to hold the center with a polarizing issue like the war in Iraq...tough luck for Kerry. Back to 2000, besides Nader, a key reason that Gore lost was that instead of holding the center as a follow to Clinton, he took a left turn at the Democratic convention (the famous "I will fight for you" speech) and Gore alienated too many moderates. Nader put him in a bind....can't go left to counter Nader and right to counter Bush at the same time. He also happened, like Kerry, Mondale, Dukakis to be a low appeal personality.
Some Republicans were actively working to get Nader on the ballot in more states. Less votes Kerry, better for Bush. Period. Also, Kerry didn't lose by that much and was somewhat shockingly bad as a candidate. Those who held their nose and supported him had a decent chance at getting "anybody but Bush."
Clinton and Bush (in his first campaign) were very good at grabbing the center, giving some goods to their base, but also appealing to moderates. That's the way of the world most of the time. I don't think Bush's turn to the right in 2004 would have worked if Kerry had run a decent campaign.
So the Democrats have a real problem. A lot of people and money want to move the party to the left, but that won't fly nationwide. And the folks who want to move the party left tend to alienate moderates rather than educate them. Having the Dems alienate the center allows the Republicans to stay further right on social issues and still win. Bad for America, and really, really bad for progressives.
The new head of Human Rights Campaign (a GLBT rights group) showed the way by making his first campaign a tour of the American heartland, not alienating those in the middle, but just showing them that GLBT people were good folk who deserve fair treatment. To promote causes that are not yet popular nationwide, educate, change minds, and then battle at the ballot box.
The nasty truth is that outside of a few progressive college towns, the progressive agenda is not a winner in today's America. All the more so if the Pelosi's and Dean's of the world are too right wing for you. You have a lot of work to do to change minds in your party and the nation before you'll have any chance at electoral success.
As for the Nader/Kerry/lesser-of-two-evils issues, America has a two party system because the constitution has single candidate, plurality winner take all districts instead of multi-candidate proportional representation. In a single candidate winner take all system, the left and right always coalesce around two main parties because to split on one side (when the other side is
united) makes reaching a plurality for your side improbable and invites defeat.
The primaries are the progressive's chance to fight it out with pro-war or otherwise objectionable Democrats. It's reasonable, if that fight has been lost, to hold one's nose and choose the Democratic candidate as the lesser of two evils. Nader really did help lose the election for Gore, his votes in Florida did the trick. If you can't get a left of center (or right of center) message across in your own party, that's your indication that your message probably won't fly nationwide either. It shows that you have work to do to change minds in your party and the nation before you'll have any chance at electoral success.
Once the nominee gets the win within the party, it's typically their job to move to the center and try to appeal to those in the center to form a nationwide majority. It's hard to hold the center with a polarizing issue like the war in Iraq...tough luck for Kerry. Back to 2000, besides Nader, a key reason that Gore lost was that instead of holding the center as a follow to Clinton, he took a left turn at the Democratic convention (the famous "I will fight for you" speech) and Gore alienated too many moderates. Nader put him in a bind....can't go left to counter Nader and right to counter Bush at the same time. He also happened, like Kerry, Mondale, Dukakis to be a low appeal personality.
Some Republicans were actively working to get Nader on the ballot in more states. Less votes Kerry, better for Bush. Period. Also, Kerry didn't lose by that much and was somewhat shockingly bad as a candidate. Those who held their nose and supported him had a decent chance at getting "anybody but Bush."
Clinton and Bush (in his first campaign) were very good at grabbing the center, giving some goods to their base, but also appealing to moderates. That's the way of the world most of the time. I don't think Bush's turn to the right in 2004 would have worked if Kerry had run a decent campaign.
So the Democrats have a real problem. A lot of people and money want to move the party to the left, but that won't fly nationwide. And the folks who want to move the party left tend to alienate moderates rather than educate them. Having the Dems alienate the center allows the Republicans to stay further right on social issues and still win. Bad for America, and really, really bad for progressives.
The new head of Human Rights Campaign (a GLBT rights group) showed the way by making his first campaign a tour of the American heartland, not alienating those in the middle, but just showing them that GLBT people were good folk who deserve fair treatment. To promote causes that are not yet popular nationwide, educate, change minds, and then battle at the ballot box.
posted by ML at
6:16 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home