Going For Broke
David Brooks has a piece that's pretty much the conservative conventional wisdom on the netroots. That they make a lot of noise, but smart Democrats (like Hillary) know they won't win if they try too much to appeal to them. He even goes further and says their candidates lose and they can't get their policies through.
He believes national conservatives can essentially win as conservatives, but the Dem formula for success: "You have to be moderate on social issues, activist but not statist on domestic issues and hawkish on foreign policy."
Well, maybe. But maybe it's whistling past the graveyard. Sure, Brooks has seen this phenomenon before (Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern) in the days before the internet. But as they say, past performance is no guarantee of future results. Times changes, demographics change, ideas change. A bit over 20 years ago, Reagan could win with 59% of the vote, taking almost every state. Now it's hard enough for any candidate to get a majority.
What are the odds a conservative Republican today could take New York, or New Jersy, or former Republican stronghold California? Republicans count on the South and much of the West. Democrats count on California and the Northeast, and both fight over the Midwest--it's a delicate balance, very different from how things shook out 40 years ago.
When the Presidential race gets down to business, it's one personality against another, and anything can happen. Do I want to have a better chance of winning with a candidate who gives me some of what I want, or a somewhat worse chance with a candidate who gives me almost everything. If I were a member of the far left, why not go for broke?
posted by LAGuy @ 12:45 AM
5 Comments:
Who exactly is this "far left"? I think it only exists in the minds of the far right.
Who exactly is this "far right"? I think it only exists in the minds of the far left (and Hillary "vast right wing conspiracy" Clinton).
While I believe you are right that Presidential elections come down to personalities, it also mostly reflects people's satisfaction with their personal situation. In a bad economy, incumbants lose. If a war is going badly, incumbants lose - that's why it was critical during the civil war for Grant to begin having success a few months before the 1864 election - otherwise Lincoln would have lost.
For myself, I see it just the opposite. Besides character issues (is the person generally honest and smart), the primary issue is the party. Party trumps personality because presidents are not kings and congressmen accomplish nothing without coalitions. I have to vote for the party that generally aligns with my interests, because its the party platform, not individual agendas, that actually become law.
It couldn't be easier to find the far left (and this is in America politics--they're even easier to find overseas). While it exists in many forms, I was specifically referring to the netroots--the millions who read the DailyKos and a bunch of other websites, who support MoveOn.org (whose leaders have openly bragged they bought and paid for the Democratic Party), have generally warm feelings toward Cindy Sheehan, Dennis Kucinish, etc. They raise a ton of money and all the Democratic candidates bow (and most scrape) toward them--for instance, they all attended the YearlyKos convention last month (while skipping the DLC--you know, the people who got the only Dem President in the last quarter century elected).
They are characterized by a number of attributes, but above all they oppose the war to the extent that they fight against Democrats who don't want to get out right away.
Nor is it tough to find the far right. Google the "Forgotten Americans Coalition."
Post a Comment
<< Home