The Democrats Have Met The Enemy [UPDATED]

Here's a version of my latest L.A. Weekly column on the election aftermath:

Whatever slim hope that Democrats might have of extracting something positive from this week’s resounding defeat depends entirely on how much authentic introspection they are willing to inflict on themselves. To the degree that they look outward –instead of inward—to identify the causes of the 2004 debacle, the more certain they are doomed.

The more that we hear in the coming days and weeks about counting and recounting in Ohio, about supposed voter intimidation and suppression, about fixed machines, crooked and partisan secretaries of state, about unfair advertising, or Karl Rove’s dirty tricks, then the more that anyone with something other than tapioca for brains should abandon any hope of rejuvenating or rebuilding this hollowed-out excuse for a party.

The Democrats lost this election fair and square and have absolutely no one to blame for it than themselves. They don’t even have pathetic Ralph Nader to scapegoat like they did four years ago. Sorry if I rush to hang the crepe. But the four million vote margin racked up by Bush—the first absolute majority since 1988 in a presidential election—is an undeniable and clear victory that robs any other solution – as unlikely as that might be—of any moral legitimacy. At least it should --after Florida’s Hurricane Chad-- in whose aftermath the Democrats screeched that Bush was an illegitimate president because he had lost the popular vote and was appointed, in effect, by the Supremes. Surely the Democrats would want to eschew any similar stigma, wouldn’t they?

Locating the roots of this defeat, you are free to dig as deeply or as superficially as you care. We could start this particular narrative, I suppose, in 1993 when a newly-elected Bill Clinton gambled all of his political capital to bully and ultimately divide his own party, forcing passage of the pet project of Bush 41 – the job-shredding NAFTA. Or perhaps, you’d prefer to begin this story three years later when the same Democratic President signed the Republican abolition of federal welfare thereby putting on the table the simple question of why we should even bother to continue having a Democratic Party. Or maybe in ’98 when Democrats re-assured America that all presidents lie and why pick oin you-know-who.

Yet, to unravel this latest tragedy, there’s no need really to rehearse the ancient history of the Clinton Nineties, now enshrined in official Democratic mythology as, perhaps, the peak moment of Western Civilization. Going back to the fall of 2002 will suffice. I refer to the moment when Senator John Kerry joined with Trent Lott and Tom DeLay among many, many others in voting the same Florida-tainted George W. Bush full authorization to move toward a patently and brazenly unnecessary war with Iraq.

Not that Kerry really meant it, of course. He had opposed what was a significantly more justifiable war with Saddam a decade earlier. But, then again, Kerry wasn’t contemplating a presidential run back in ’91.

Or we could zero in on that frosty evening back in January when about 30,000 rosy-cheeked and gray-haired Iowa farmers and their neighbors decided that, among Democrats, only John Kerry was “electable” and millions of Democrats coast-to-coast immediately rubber-stamped that now rather discredited notion.

Maybe it’s unfair, however, to isolate any single catalytc moment. A cool-headed assessment of the entire Democratic response to the Bush presidency would herald the doom deal out on Tuesday night almost independently of who ultimately was the candidate. From the onset of his administration, the Democrats have combined a freakish accommodation to Bush with a shrill, sometimes paranoiac exaggeration of his evil. One moment they are part of his War Cabinet. The next they are demonizing him as an individual and warning we are on the doorstep of fascism. And then we blame the voters for being confused. .

But once so many Democrats had worked themselves into a frenzy with the mantra of stolen elections and Supreme Court electoral coups, the die was cast. If Bush was, in fact, the most dangerous, evil and demented President ever as Democrats tirelessly reminded themselves (and apparently only themselves), then Anybody But Bush would do just fine and … well… the rest is now history.

Mr. Anybody turned out to be quite the loser that voters suspected he was before his miracle resurrection in the snows of Iowa. No one can, with a straight face, repeat just what was the precise message of his just-passed and wretched campaign. Is there a reader out there who would like to write in reminding us of one memorable line to be extracted and preserved from amidst the logorrhea that overflowed his campaign?

Could there possibly have been an incumbent more easy to knock-off than George W. Bush? A real-life opposition party would have been insulted to be matched with a such an unworthy and frail rival. The Democrats, by contrast, got their lights punched out..

Think for a moment, if you can bear, just how fraudulent the Party has become as a champion for everyday, working Americans. John Edwards, it should be said, did a fine job of evoking the rude inequalities of the Two Americas. And it’s a pity that someone like Edwards couldn’t emerge as the Democrats’ national rabble-rouser. For a brief historical moment, the unlikely Howard Dean flashed in that role and then was even more quickly extinguished. But when you ask yourself who are the great Democratic mass icons of our times, the two or three individuals who put a face and some heart on the core populist values, damned if we don’t come up with literal clowns like Al Franken and Michael Moore. They may or ( may not) be just dandy entertainers. But doesn’t this say something rather startling about the state of the Democrats?

Once the whining over Ohio dies out, what will laughably be called the war for the “soul” of the once-again-defeated Democratic Party will commence – a struggle so drearily predictable that the whole exercise can be easily scripted in advance. On the one side the corporate shills of the Democratic Leadership Council who will argue that Tuesday’s results demand a repositioning of the Party to the right. On the other, the “progressives” who will refloat their own formula that success resides in simply moving the Democrats leftward (as evidenced by what? The 2% primary draw of Dennis Kucinich). Both notions are simplistic and insufficient. The Democrats have not won the sort of absolute national majority pocketed by Bush in more than a quarter of a century. The party doesn’t need to be reformed or repositioned. It needs to be rethought and reborn.

The re-election of George W. Bush is a tragedy for which we all pay dearly—some much more than others. And the only succor I cling to is the notion that the President’s punishment for being re-elected is that he will now have to manage the myriad catastophes he has conjured. Good luck to him -- and to us

In the meantime, I shed no tears for the humiliation of this Democratic Party-- only for those who suffer for having invested their hopes in it. But that the Democrats richly deserve to go down-- no question. My deepest regret is only that the Republicans don't go down right alongside it.

Comments

[Frank]

Oops! Correction: Gore's nomination acceptance speech...

Ballot initiatives to raise
state minimum wages won in Florida and Nevada.

[Mavis Beacon]

I looked at the Ireland post and found it woefully inadequate. I think Ireland is rearranging deck chairs. Marc’s right that it’s time to look deeper and longer. I will be really disappointed if Dems don’t see this as a sign that the Clinton tightrope won’t work for those lacking Elvis mojo. I heartily agree with Mark Gabriel and share his dismay and bewilderment in how left values are so out of fashion. How any decent person can’t be disheartened by these anti-gay initiatives is beyond me.

Small note: I don’t think it follows that from moment the Supremes anointed Bush, all Dems knew he was the worst thing since peanut butter and clams. I’m of the opinion he earned a lot of that resentment through, as he would say, hard work.

p.s. great post Chameleon Cal

[John Davies]

The worst of your party act embarassed to be Americans. Fix that and the rest will follow.

I'm hoping that the Democratic Party can be fixed. I'd like two good choices in an election. This year the decision was too easy.

[jayinbmore]

Thanks Marc. I drank the lesser-of-two-evils kool-aid for 11 months. Thanks for reminding me why that was stupid. Cheers!

[too many steves]

Should the Democrats pin their hopes for the future on the style and substance of Barak Obama? Based on what I saw and heard during his convention speech I must say that this conservative would welcome that level of political debate.

[John Moore (Useful Fools)]

Here's some advice from a bag of hammers...

Democrats are going to have to move to the right of the commenters I see above. There is a reason that Clinton moved right: it worked. As much as I despise Bill Clinton, theree is no denying his political skills. He is a master at finding the winning position.

Obama is an interesting guy. It will be interesting to see how he votes. There is no doubt that he has an excellent presence, a sharp mind and a winning manner. I have read at least on analysis that says he is a true socialist. If so, he cannot be a successful national candidate for the Democrats. If not, he has great potential.

Whoever compared Bush voters to bags of hammers has an attitude appropriate for losing elections - it is arrogant, insulting, wrong, and hence not likely to lead to understanding. You can find plenty of Bush voters, e.g. Roger Simon, Glenn Reynolds that clearly are not idiots. If you do not respect your political opponents, you are going to get beaten - as you just did in a dramatic way - losing by a significant percentage the popular vote, losing senate seats including Daschle, and losing house seats.

Furthermore, inspite of the silly comment up-thread, you lost when the press was strongly biased for your candidate, and even admitted it (as if it wasn't obvious). I suspect their strong bias is not going to change, but it is hard to tell what the internet will do to them, as large numbers of fact checkers are unleashed.

You also need to understand why Americans support the war in Iraq and Bush's value set. If you find yourself using the word stupid as you ponder it, you aren't going to get it. I am not stupid - far from it - and I suspect most on this blog are pretty smart.

Those of us on the right would prefer a sane opposition. This year, the Democratic party showed considerable insanity. Of all the candidates running, it picked Kerry, a deeply flawed individual who is also a man of few accomplishments. Even with what Newsweek's correspondent said was a 15 point boost given by the leftist media, Kerry lost the popular vote. I hope we hear no "stolen election" nonsense this time. You will need to find something more positive to motivate your base.

I cannot be more happy that the turncoat was defeated - this is the first election where I have actively participated in activism, and it was due to Kerry's behavior in the anti-war movement. I might add that I have no problem with most anti-war people, but Kerry was different.

Bush hatred led to violence and vandalism. It is going too far.

[rosedog]

Marc....Cal....Hope....Mavis....Recovering.... your thoughtful, intelligent posts are much appreciated.

It's hard to be all that introspective just yet. I'm far too fearful about such issues as:

...checks and balances...

...the mandate that Bush will now believe he has for radical conservatism and, as Sidney Blumenthal put it on Salon, "the enactment of the imperatives of 'the right God....'"

...the fact that the US Senate has just had added to its number one new Senator who believes that capital punishment for abortion, another who is in favor of firing all gay teachers...

...the look on my 18-year-old son's face this morning....

[John Davies]

So far, I'm hearing Representative Matsui saying how the President has to unite the country, then goes on to cut down every one of the President's policies.

It's not looking good so far,

mantra for the coming months, from the "elderly southern relative":

AT LEAST HE'S GOING TO HAVE TO CLEAN UP HIS OWN MESS.

John Moore, with "I have no problem with most anti-war people", truly gives the disingenuous a bad name.

Why didn't Matsui simply lie down on the floor and ask Tom DeLay to do a jig on his back ? Will Democrats ever learn ?

[too many steves]

John Davies: I hear ya, take a look at the Op-Ed page of USA Today, columns by Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich juxtaposed in which each calls for unity and then goes on to (softly) attack the other side while itemizing their different laundry lists.

[recoveringX-repub]

Oh yeah another thing we dems/left/progressives are famous for: destroying our losers, 'eating our young' (for making mistakes as well as losing), fracturing and abandoning 'all ye who enter here' instead of finding another, possibly more suitable role.

I'm as guilty as the rest (or at least somewhat) -- since I don't really hold much sway or power other than as an individual worker-bee.

I don't know if that means we'd rather be right and lose or rather win than be right (as in just).

I understand and echo many of the emotions fueled by the disappointment and discouragement of loss (at least it wasn't stolen by the supreme court this time -- it was a loss).

There are some fearsome and hateful figures in the right/repub landscape, Karl Rove the evil genius notwithstanding. Tom DeLay really comes to mind when I think of scary people. Dick Cheney. John Ashcroft. There are legitimate reasons for the stated concerns and yes, FEAR of what's to become of civil/human/gay-lesbian rights as a result of the anti-gay hysteria/anti-gay amendments, forthcoming legislation, the supreme court/judicial appointments -- these cannot simply be brushed aside as hysterical.

I for one was heartened by John Edwards promise to keep working on behalf of ordinary folks. We'll see.

[cough]

I think a first step Americans can take is to stop demonizing each other. Not everyone who voted for Bush is a brain-dead religious zealot and not everyone who voted for Kerry is a hedonistic lefty wacko. (Although both groups undoubtedly exist; let's keep them in perspective.) If we let the hysteria die down and vow to make clearer distinctions in the future, we may realize that we share more ideas that we commonly realize.

[recoveringX-repub]

PS: I think it's much easier not to feel scared when you're in a progressive state like CA or NY -- when you're not part of the mainstream, you're living in a red state where you don't have the luxury of union representation or decent pay, where people expect if not require church-going and Jesus is Lord behaviors -- it's a much dicier proposition.

[God]

I was right.

France won.

Sincerely,

God

[John Kluge]

All of this talk about the Democrats going back to the Roosevelt coalition and cozying up to the working class is great. The problem is that to do that, you better be willing to respect people's religous values, be less absolutist on abortion, and support gun rights and stop being the party of condescending, aging leftist college professors. Not everyone has to change, but for Christ sake can't you just let people in the party who hold these views. Governor Casey of Pennsylvania was a true Roosevelt, working class Democrat if there ever was one and he wasn't even allowed to speak at the 92 Convention because he was pro-life. To me that was as much a water shed event starting the Democrats' decline as anything. If Democrats would be more tolerent and let people like Governor Casey be a real part of the party, they would win back a lot of the working class voters and come back to power. To do that, however, would require throwing the gays, academia, and the Holywood left overboard. Is it really practical to do this?

[marsist]

the Democrats don't need to shift right as a whole to reform themselves. they just need to embrace guns. me, I'm buying an assault rifle and learning how to use it. then let somebody call me a liberal faggot terrorist-sympathizer; I dare them.

[Jerry]

Here's a short list of who Bush had to beat to win: The angry, paranoid left, epitomized by the Michael Moore-Howard Dean-Moveon.org wing which now dominates the Democratic party and is bankrolled by George Soros and the limousine liberals on both coasts. The major news media -- NY Times, the networks (Rather, Brokow, Jennings, Brown-Blitzer, the egregious blowhard Chris Mathews), NPR, MTV and the "youth vote," Jon Stewart, Al Franken and all the other smarty-pants comedians. Hollywood, including Barbra, Sean Penn, Warren Beatty, Susan Sarandon, Rosie, Cher, Ben, and a cast of thousands. Feminists. The gays and their agenda. The professoriat. The secular humanists. The greedy trial lawyers. Bill and Hillary. Jesse, Rev. Al, Julian Bond and the other race hustlers. The UN. Old Europe -- Chirac, Schroeder and the Belgium EU bureaucracy. Our own Foggy Bottom. New York, Boston and San Francisco and lesser elitist compounds of privilege such as Berkeley and Madison. What am I leaving out?
Jerry Carroll

[Josh Legere]

4 more years of Bush books!

Hopefully this will sober the Left up. Remind them of how much regular joes hate the Anti-war movement and Mr. Moore.

It will not. We will have 4 more years of Pacifca conspiracies. Page after page in The Nation reacting to Bush. Cover after cover on left/liberals mags.

But no vision will come out of any of it and Jeb will win in 2008.

I have said it 1000 times on this blog. The left needs new minds, new ideas, and no more New Left influence. Purge it once and for all.

The kooks that post on this blog will continue to believe the delusions. It is sad.

[Brian]

While I agree with some of what you say, the fact that Rove via Bush simply appealed to the public's deep seated fears to get elected doesn't leave the Democrats very good options to fight it. The public took the bait. The Democrats might scare people more than the Republicans next time, or try to appeal to issues most of them profess to care about and lose again, as Kerry and Gore before him tried to do, or they need to find someone for the public to hate more than Islamics, gay people, and pagans, preferably someone the Republicans don't already hate, which is kind of a tall order at this point.

No, the real failure in the election lies with the American populace who votes against their own self-interests, their own professed position on the issues, and even their own well being, in order to follow the manipulative rhetoric of hate and fear.

[Let's face it]

Can't say Bush deserved to win, but Kerry sure deserved to lose.

[Nevin]

RE: "going back to the Roosevelt coalition..." Living here in flyover country, this sounds about right. Like it or not, Republicans are able to accept a pro-choice, pro-gay California gov or NYC mayor. The simple reality is that 80% of the counties in this country have a moral compass that does not line up with with DNC platform. The Edwards "I'll fight for you" approach is unlikely to work in the future if it didn't work in 2004 with the economy as it is. Either the party is misunderstood by the people, or the people are misunderstood by the party. Given that Bush recieved more votes than any presidential candidate in US history, the latter is a real possibility.

[Steve Smith]

Ah, recrimination time; that hardy perennial where the various wings of the Democratic Party gather in a circle and begin firing into the middle. And, as always, blame the losing candidate. This ritual has always been a blessing to progressives in the past, so why stop now.