|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
 Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:34 am Post subject: The haunting of the Democrats |
 |
|
A great piece in Salon sums up the current Democratic conflict in historical terms.
| Quote: |
| We've all seen this movie before, whether we realize it or not. If we're not quite sure how it's going to end, the characters and situations all seem strangely familiar. Beginning with the debacle of 1968, every Democratic campaign for four decades has followed pretty much the same template, even if the labels have shifted with the tide. The quadrennial conflict between liberals and moderates, outsiders and insiders, let's-win-an-election realists and let's-save-our-party dreamers -- supply your own dichotomy here -- reflects the fatal uncertainty of a political party that lacks any clear constituency or ideological focus. Even as the Democratic Party encompasses the views of a plausible majority of the population, its unresolved internal struggles have time and again undermined its ability to win elections or (when it happens to stumble to victory) to govern effectively. |
Read the whole article, it's well worth it, especially if you are not familiar with the 1972 and 1984 elections. McGovern is often (mis)characterized as a wild-eyed radical, but O'Hehir gets it exactly right: he was a moderate whose positions were practically indistinguishable from Humphrey's and Muskie's, except for his record of opposition to an unpopular war that the entire party had gotten around to opposing by then. Sound familiar?
My only complaint with O'Hehir is that he radically underrates the importance of personalities and campaign styles in national politics, devoting only a few throwaway sentences to the topic. This is probably the most common mistake made in political analysis. Barack Obama is not George McGovern because Barack Obama is not George McGovern. (Ditto for Clinton & Mondale.) Presidential campaigns are ideological contests, but they are also personal ones, and unless the ideological battlefield is tremendously slanted, either candidate can win. No purely historical/contextual analysis can account for either of George W. Bush's narrow victories, for example.
This is the biggest elephant in the room when it comes to "electability" arguments. Any argument premised on the idea that the candidate who wins the primary election will be less electable in the general has a steep hill to climb -- the candidate has already won one election! Granted, the election was intraparty, but it was still half the country. Elections aren't a perfect means of choosing candidates (McGovern!), but they're the best means we've got. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| He also seems overly sour about Democratic chances in November. The more I read about McCain the more I think he's doomed to lose. The temper issue, the minor but mounting campaign flubs, and the war all add a little wind to the perfect storm that destroys his campaign. I don't even think McCain could be Clinton, though he'll be one vote closer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Czarjorge wrote: |
| He also seems overly sour about Democratic chances in November. The more I read about McCain the more I think he's doomed to lose. The temper issue, the minor but mounting campaign flubs, and the war all add a little wind to the perfect storm that destroys his campaign. I don't even think McCain could be[at] Clinton, though he'll be one vote closer. |
Yup. But its not because McCain himself is weak. Its because of two things: a) McCain cannot disassociate himself from Bush (and the Dems will not let him even if he desired it) & b) the fundamentals are very bad for the Republicans.
The reason why Democrats do not do well in the Executive Chair, and in turn find it harder to get there, is because Democratic voters like fresh faces. Fresh faces are inexperienced. And inexperienced Presidents are at a disadvantage. Republicans usually reject a candidate before they elect him (notable exception: George W. Bush).
Obama is a fresh face and certainly inexperienced, but I'll just have to hope for the best. I'm sure his first two years in will be rocky like his Democratic predecessor's. But after that, the investment will have been spent and there will be no reason for me to hold back support in 2012. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Czarjorge wrote: |
| He also seems overly sour about Democratic chances in November. The more I read about McCain the more I think he's doomed to lose. The temper issue, the minor but mounting campaign flubs, and the war all add a little wind to the perfect storm that destroys his campaign. I don't even think McCain could be Clinton, though he'll be one vote closer. |
Well, I think he's saying that the Democrats can lose this if anyone can. They do have a depressing tendency to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory -- I mean, 1988 was a joke. But Obama is no Dukakis either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This ridiculous notion that any of the three know what would be required of a President, is .... ridiculous.
Hillary didn't schtup the President for eight years, that makes her qualified.
McCain was tortured that makes him qualified.
Obama is some liberal from a liberal state, so he'll suck.
No one knows what the job entails until they have it. None of them are inevitably qualified. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 12:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| My only complaint with O'Hehir is that he radically underrates the importance of personalities and campaign styles in national politics |
I agree with that, and I also think the writer ignores the historical context. Democrats weren't likely to win in '68 after the debacle at the Chicago Convention, in '72, '84 and '04 running against incumbent presidents. He also ignores the winning coalition put together by Nixon/Reagan.
I think he overplays the 'split' in the Democratic Party. Democrats did have a chance in '88 and blew it with Dukakis and again in '00 with Gore. The damage McGovern did was to give Republicans the opportunity to link 'liberal' with anti-war-lack-of-patriotism and make liberal a dirty word. No Democrat on the national stage has found a way to counter that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| My only complaint with O'Hehir is that he radically underrates the importance of personalities and campaign styles in national politics |
I agree with that, and I also think the writer ignores the historical context. Democrats weren't likely to win in '68 after the debacle at the Chicago Convention, in '72, '84 and '04 running against incumbent presidents. He also ignores the winning coalition put together by Nixon/Reagan.
I think he overplays the 'split' in the Democratic Party. Democrats did have a chance in '88 and blew it with Dukakis and again in '00 with Gore. The damage McGovern did was to give Republicans the opportunity to link 'liberal' with anti-war-lack-of-patriotism and make liberal a dirty word. No Democrat on the national stage has found a way to counter that. |
I don't think you can blame that on McGovern. A lot of Democrats have views that can easily be spun as "anti-American" by the right. The split is quite real and is still being played out today; witness the fights between the Clinton/DLC wing of the party and the MoveOn wing.
Being a member of the MoveOn wing myself, I can say that it's often difficult to tell the difference between DLC vision of foreign policy and the Republican vision. At best, the former represents a kinder, gentler imperialism -- they still expect to run the world, just with less torture and fewer boots on the ground (but more bombs).
If no Democrat has found a way to counter it, it's because it's a real problem. Trying to put together a coalition that includes both Joe Lieberman and Cindy Sheehan is a near-impossibility. Remember, only about thirty-five percent of Americans opposed the Iraq War. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 8:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Czarjorge wrote: |
This ridiculous notion that any of the three know what would be required of a President, is .... ridiculous.
Hillary didn't schtup the President for eight years, that makes her qualified.
McCain was tortured that makes him qualified.
Obama is some liberal from a liberal state, so he'll suck.
No one knows what the job entails until they have it. None of them are inevitably qualified. |
You sure did make quick work of that strawman.
Yes, Barack Obama is at a disadvantage in terms of the Presidency, because he has the least experience in public office. Does that mean he's not the best candidate? Not necessarily.
But I like to see you towing the Obama party-line. Its cute.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 12:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Is that a party line for Obama?
Sorry, I've not been attending the meetings. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 4:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I don't think you can blame that on McGovern. |
I agree. I didn't mean it to come across that way. I just meant his candidacy gave the GOP an opportunity and they exploited it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
