Dems have nothing to gain by losing '04
Thomas M. KEANE, Jr.
Should Democrats intentionally try to lose the next
presidential election?
That's the argument making the rounds in some left-wing
circles, pushed in progressive journals and by academics such as Boston College
professor Alan Wolfe (who wrote an oped piece for The
Boston Globe entitled, "Why the Democrats should pursue defeat in
2004").
The Democratic Party, leftists say, has become an
ideological mish-mosh, moving ever closer to the
center and in the process becoming a pale imitation of Republicans (the current
moniker is "Bush-lite"). Yet this sacrifice
of ideals hasn't produced any electoral benefit: Al Gore lost in 2000 and, in
the 2002 midterm elections, Democrats suffered further losses.
And now George W. Bush looks
unbeatable. So why make the same mistakes, leftists ask. Instead, nominate a
left-winger, lose anyway and use that loss as the
basis for redefining party principles, re- emerging in 2008 with an
ideologically consistent message.
The model for this strategy? The Republican Party. "Progressives would profit more
by studying the way the New Right responded to life in the political
wilderness," writes Robert Borosage in The
Nation. After the GOP's seeming collapse following Richard Nixon's 1974
resignation, Republicans spent their time developing a new, sharper focus. In
1980, with Ronald Reagan as their champion, they came out swinging, winning the
presidency and then changing the face of national
politics.
If you're thinking that Bill Clinton's eight years in office
and Al Gore's near-win undermine these arguments, think again. The leftists
disdain
Leftists hope to use the rising campaigns of Howard Dean and
Dennis Kucinich as their starting point. Few of them believe either man could
actually win against Bush, but that doesn't matter. With either as the party's
nominee, Democrats would lose with dignity (rather than cravenly sacrificing
principle for votes), providing the impetus to take the party back to its
hallowed left-wing roots.
Republicans are probably thrilled with this line of
thinking. Democrats should be appalled.
It is, for one thing, a gross misreading of political
history to think that the Democratic Party ever succeeded with a leftist
ideology. Modern Democratic presidents - Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John Kennedy - were pragmatic pols.
Lyndon Johnson, who launched the Great Society programs that ultimately defined
bloated liberalism for conservatives, was in fact the bane of leftists because
of
Unlike the leftists, many Americans are looking back on
Moreover, it's a curious thing to write off centrists
because of Gore. Gore lost for two reasons: dullness (left-wing
or right-wing, good campaigning still counts) and Ralph Nader
(absent Nader, Gore would have taken
But the more fundamental reason the
left-wing prescription fails is this: The times have passed it by.
Two things once drove left-wing power. One was a debate over
whether socialism or capitalism was the best way to organize an economy. The
second was class warfare.
Capitalism won the debate. Not only does it work better than
socialism, but it was largely saved by Democrats such
as FDR who helped humanize it. And the class struggle
ended with the rise of the middle class, now about 70 percent to 75 percent of
the population. -
I suspect that the current leftist infatuation with losing
will soon blow over. For one, Bush's falling poll numbers will cause pragmatism
to reassert itself. Moreover, candidates like Dean don't buy into the leftists'
plan for their campaigns. Indeed, supporters of the former Vermont governor
have begun a Peter-like denial that he's a lefty at all, citing his
conservative stance on many issues ("For the death penalty, against gun
control, for fiscal responsibility and wary of foreign entanglements,"
says one in the Economist). A few leftists may be looking to spend their time
in the wilderness, but the rest of the party is better off staying home.
Talk back to Tom Keane at