Took a wrong turn at Iowa
While Republicans celebrate, Democrats recriminate. We're already hearing the most tired mantra of all--the trouble with Kerry was...he wasn't liberal enough! He tried to be on the side of the war (you know, the one he called the wrong war at the wrong time) and was against gay marriage and straddled too many issues and shot a goose. We need to give the public a clear choice because give them a real Republican and a fake Republican and they'll pick the real one every time.
(These same people who believe in sticking to your principles, I might add, are now suggesting Bush apologize for winning and start to compromise.)
I think it's pretty obvious Kerry being against gay marriage, even if he didn't believe it, was a necessary political stance (a marriage of convenience?), as the eleven successful referenda on the issue demonstrate. (I favor allowing gays to marry, and I can say that openly because I'm not running for President.) And while the base of the Democrats may have hated the war, there was a large group in the middle who thought it was the right thing to do. Kissing them off was kissing off the election as well.
And yet, many Democrats now suggest they would have done better with Howard Dean. This is true only if you enjoy the spectacle of someone going down in flames. Dean would have offered a true choice, yes, just like Barry Goldwater and George McGovern did.
I commend the Democrats for picking Kerry. It shows they were trying to win, and their man gave Bush a run for his money. In fact, when you looks at it through the eyes of the Electoral College, he came amazingly close to pulling it off. A vote for Dean was a vote for four more years in the wilderness. And if the Democrats want to pretend Dean would have done better, for the childish reason that his rants make many of them feel good (not unlike Michael Moore's), then they can spend all the time in the wilderness they like.
posted by LAGuy @ 11:50 AM
2 Comments:
Disagree, pajamaguy, disagree. These Dems are right, though perhaps for the wrong reason. They should have nominated Dean (assuming he was sincere, which I think he was, and not a lunatic, which is unclear).
You are correct that they would have gone down in flames. But going down in flames now, with principle, might build a better base for future fights. Yes, they would lose, as Goldwater did, but when Reagan ran, and won, he was treated as a lunatic himself. But in winning, he established his "lunacy" as the national dialogue, and the Dims are still stuck with it.
If they believe in their principles, and they do, they should fight for them, not lie about them. Then, if they win, they'll have their principles. But if they lie and win, then they'll have to lie and enact, and that's not the way to build what you want.
Want proof? Just ask yourself how many politicians run as liberals, versus how many swear at the alter of Reagan and even call themselves conservatives when they are not.
I don't know. Politics is the art of the possible. If you keep losing, either you reposition yourself or go the way of the Whigs.
The Dems have made plenty of headway with liberal causes--especially off-the-chart spending. But they don't win in general if their message is perceived as being too socially left. See McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis. They might also notice their only guys who get the vote are from the South.
Politics isn't just about principles, it's about getting elected. Even Reagan compromised (and was condemned by some in his party for it)--that's the name of the game.
Kerry, as stiff and tired as he was, was a better choice than Dean, because half a loaf is better than nothing.
Post a Comment
<< Home