Modest Proposal: Should The Democrats Default?

We certified Kerry-phobes no longer hold the monopoly on bemoaning the rather pathetic Presumptive Democratic Nominee. Even hacks like the WashPo’s Richard Cohen are starting to pile on. Anti-war “progressives,” meanwhile, like former Mass. State Rep Tom Gallagher are also still struggling to swallow the increasingly bitter Kerry candidacy.

So, here’s a Modest Proposal. Why don’t the Democrats consider switching to the brilliant strategy deployed in the 70’s and 80’s by the Italian Communist Party? Maybe the Democrats should just default, not actively contest the election, allow GW Bush to be re-elected, and allow the Prez to exhaust himself and his governing party. It’s the old rope-a-dope move.

Some context: Back in the mid-70’s the very moderate Italian CP which was the dominant force in many a city and region, could have easily pacted with the centrist and smaller Socialists and easily come to power. But the crafty Commie leader of the time, Enrico Berlinguer, took one look at the OPEC-battered economy, rising unemployment rates, unruly unions, massive state corruption and concluded… nah! Why try to govern this mess? Better to stay comfortably in opposition, Comrade Berlinguer figured. Stay as far as possible from the responsibilities of government and let the mafia-like incumbent Christian Democrats continue to be ground down as they shouldered all the burdens of power. Thirty years later, the Italian Christian Democrats (and the Socialists) have indeed disappeared, and the Communists – albeit under a different name—now alternate in power with Silvio Berlusconi’s conservatives and will certainly lead the next Italian administration.

Shouldn’t the Democrats ponder this? Provided that John Kerry could actually win, do his supporters really want to inherit Bush’s deficits, rising interest rates, slumping Wall Street, anemic job market and deepening quagmire in Iraq? They want to try to manage that mess?

Instead of sliding down the chute with Kerry, wouldn’t it be easier to just withdraw from the 2004 contest and default the election to Bush? What would he be able to do in his second term anyway? Unable to pacify Fallujah, short on troops, lacking a governing partner in Baghdad, racking up a $5 billion a month tab in Iraq, driving his war management approval ratings down below 50%, having already rent NATO as well as opening an emerging (Powell-Rumsfeld) war of recriminations within in his own party, just what options would a re-elected Bush have? Sounds like four years of White House misery to me.

Wouldn’t that be immensely more amusing than watching Kerry ineptly soldier on?

Or maybe not.

Comments

[Justin]

Marc.This is really funny? I think. You are joking, aren't you?

[Marc Cooper]

Well as Johnnie Sack said last week on the Sopranos: "Do you see me smiling?" It's not that I am or am not joking. It's just a stray idea that seems no more far out than imagining that Kerry is going to win, that he's going to solve the war, fix the economy, raise wages and make the earth a better place. Uh-hum.

[Chris]

If Kerry were to get McCain as VP, would you support him then?

Wouldn't another 4 years of Bush kill whatever civil rights we have left?

[jdwill]

Hmm. Well do that, but if things get better, then where are you?

One view:
http://www.house.gov/budget_democrats/analyses/projections/weak_economy_feb12.pdf

Democratic Caucus - "Weak Economy Already Falling Short of Budget’s Rosy Economic Assumptions" (because we hit 4.1 growth vs. 5.0 - note that 4.1 beats everyone else)

Another:
http://www.niesr.ac.uk/press/REV0104W.PDF
"The world recovery is gathering strength: global GDP will rise by 4.1 per cent in 2004,
up from 3.3 per cent in 2003"

Also:
http://www.economist.com/countries/Japan/profile.cfm?folder=Profile-Forecast
"The Economist Intelligence Unit predicts that rising demand from the United States and China will boost exports, helping to pull Japan out of its decade-long economic slump."

Could it be that the Democratic party has its head in the sand? I'm not in love with the Republican party, but I think that eventually the global economy will take off (by fits and starts) and those with no global vision beyond "we need friends and the UN should run things" will get left.

raise wages

--commie propaganda?

[steve]

I recall an argument from back in the heady days of the 2004 Democratic Primaries that went something like this:

Hillary will not run in 2004, instead she will support a candidate (perhaps clandestinely) who she knows cannot win in order to disintegrate the Party and ensure that when she wants to run in 2008 there is no stronger candidate than herself.

Wouldn't a Mondale-esque loss by Kerry to Bush accomplish this more certainly than the suggested "no mas" idea?

[smile]

These were my thoughts in 2000, it was time for a Republican to take turn at the wheel, the stock market bubble had burst, we were headed into a recession. Hillary is wise. Bush's tax cuts will work their magic by 2008 so she can repeat her husband's feat of governing in good times...the groundwork so carefully laid out for him by Reagan.

[Tano]

This is just so depressing. The problem is not John Kerry. The problem is so-called leftist political commentators like Marc - who seem far more interested in advancing their own image as wise-ass free thinkers than in actually advancing the interests of "da people".
Isnt it ironic. The heartless, selfish, anti-communitarian right wingers seem to have much more solid instincts regarding political organizing, coalition-building, and dedication to a cause that transcends their own egos. And so they win, far more often than they deserve to.

We get a bunch of wise-asses who yuk it up as they torpedo the causes they should be fighting for.

[steve]

hey tano, what are ya some kinda commie or something? don't ya know only marc can decide who is a good leftist these days...anyone who disagrees with him is a loony extremist leftie who doesn't sympathise with the victims of 911...and is guilty of genocied, end of story!!!

[steve]

hey tano, what are ya some kinda commie or something? don't ya know only marc can decide who is a good leftist these days...anyone who disagrees with him is a loony extremist leftie who doesn't sympathise with the victims of 911...and is guilty of genocide, end of story!!!

[Steve Smith]

What could possibly motivate the Democrats to do that? Kerry is tied with Bush in the polls right now (head-to-head), and has pretty much taken all the shots that Bush and his media surrogates can throw at him; they are now down to accusing him of having slept in a house during an anti-war rally in the 70's. It is at least 50-50 the party will reclaim a majority in the Senate, regardless of how badly Kerry does. And although it may hard for Kerryphobes to acknowledge, there probably is at least a smidgen of public interest buried within the psyche of the candidate; governing in these circumstances may be tough, but letting the GOP continue to wield power would be worse.

BTW, a better example of the Communist Party defaulting to allow the other side to "ruin" things would be in Weimar Germany, when their elected officials worked with the Nazis in the Reichstag to sabotage various coalition governments.

[John Davies]

>Should The Democrats Default?

You mean that's not what they're doing? So they actually think that John Kerry should be running the country?

Wow, learn something new every day.

[miklos rosza]

John Kerry can win. It doesn't matter whether people "like" him much or not. It's probably better to get your gaffes out of the way early on.

Now what's going on with Bill Clinton's book coming out in June, with the Democratic Convention occurring in July? Will Clinton's book tour help Kerry or hurt?

WJC will be on every talk show -- twice.

[Sebastian]

First of all: nahgannahappen.

Second: It's half a year before the election, and you know the outcome? Kerry's not that weak (I won't be voting for him, but then again, I live in Manhattan, so my vote won't exactly sink his candidacy).

[Dave]

Marc,

I just found your site linked at michaeltotten.com. I was for the war and still am, but your writing is a breath of fresh air and sanity that I respect. If there were more people from the left like you and less like Robert Sheer and Paul Krugman, republicans would be in trouble.

If there were more people from the left like you and less like Robert Sheer and Paul Krugman, republicans would be in trouble.

--au contraire, liberal candidates have done best in their election campaigns when they took the gloves off and moved left. look at the humphrey, dukakis, and gore campaigns as the best examples. and, in fact, though i'm sure it's not PC to say it, it actually won gore the last presidential election!

[Nor]

As one of the oft-mentioned 'swing votes', the election is already a no-brainer. I voted for Gore, and have supported Bush. Is Kerry is best the Dems can do?? The man is a train wreck in slow motion. His complete lack of even a basic understanding of anything he talks about is displayed on an almost daily basis. Even worse is the continuous flip-flopping broadcast into our homes 24/7. He and his staff are m-e-a-t for Rove and his machine - they can't even field the softballs. The international diplomats are waaay nastier then the GOP. The French, Russians, and the UN will chew him up, spit him out, and get him to pay for it - and get him to apologize for it later.

Dems: Don't give up - trade up!

Lieberman was the best chance the Democratic Party had. As a non-aligned (aka swing) voter, I would really appreciate a realistic choice. Joe was (and still is) the only one of the bunch not spouting gibberish, half-baked conspiracy theories, and promises so grand that they could not be accomplished in 50 years, let alone four.

My vote: Anyone but Kerry.

But there's still time. Tell Joe you're sorry. Before it's too late.

Lieberman was the best chance the Democratic Party had.

---ha ha ha. when gore departed from Lieberman and went to the left in his campaign strategy (i.e. 'populist' as it's called in media), he picked up ground rapidly enough to defeat Bush in the election. If he had stayed with the Lieberman strategy, he would have lost the election.
Kerry's problem is he's afraid to take on Bush for fear of being called 'liberal'. when gore overcame that inclination, he did much better, as every poll conducted in the last few weeks of the 2000 campaign showed. ditto dukakis and humphrey for that matter.

[steve]

ya wonder if kerry will chime in on the latest pictures from the heroic occupation and liberation of Iraq.

This is probably the best source of pictures from the glory filled occupation of iraq...

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/iraqis_tortured/

this has good commentary too...from a 'loony lefty kim ilsung lover'...well, ok, enough of being PC, he's actually a libertarian commentator...

http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444

[Alasdair Robinson]

"...and, in fact, though i'm sure it's not PC to say it, it actually won gore the last presidential election!"

I hate to break it to you, but ..umm... he didn't. Thinking like this is what is sinking the Dems. It's not a platform that is going to convince the majority of Americans.

[steve]

I hate to break it to you, but ..umm... he didn't. Thinking like this is what is sinking the Dems.

--actually i hate to break it to you, he did, the numbers are clear about that, especially when you bring in the numbers of blacks kept out of the election process by being falsely labelled as 'felons'...it's just too obvious really.
and the polls are very very clear that as Gore moved to the left at the end of the campaign, he picked up steam and recovered enough ground to win the election...
----------------------

[miklos rosza]

I was unhappy about Katharine Harris and the Supreme Court in 2000, but that one's over and long gone. Are you saying that Kerry should morph himself into Dennis Kucinich?

Should Kerry call for an immediate pullout of all US troops from Iraq? And creation of a Department of Peace?

Are you saying that Kerry should morph himself into Dennis Kucinich?

--it worked for Gore in 2000, can't see why it wouldn't work for Kerry...
On another note, imagine if Kerry put out ads now that showed the Republican support for the cuts in the military that he supported? Including from the Bush administration...seems like an obvious ad to make...
----------------------------
Should Kerry call for an immediate pullout of all US troops from Iraq? And creation of a Department of Peace?

---if it were sold in the right way, sure, why not? as i remember even kucinich was calling for 6 months, although an immediate pullout would be feasible too, especially if we admitted we were wrong to think that it was desirable to invade a weak country that posed no military threat to its neighbors or the US. You forget there is a lot of public anger out there about the wasted lives this war has produced and growing, not decreasing, sentiment that we should get out, the sooner the better. It's primarily among the media wonks on CNN/FOX that that is an undiscussible, but in the American public there's a lot more receptiveness to the idea. I know it's no PC, but it's still feasible.

[miklos rosza]

Thanks for answering me so frankly. I think maybe you're right. I don't know if it would win the election for Kerry, but it would offer everyone a very clear choice.

[nor]

"If he had stayed with the Lieberman strategy, he would have lost the election."

So, what you're saying is - If Gore had listened to Joe, he wouldn't be President right now.

LMAO