But there is a deeper assumption, which has marred Democratic politics for
years. Some Democrats have been unable to face the reality that people have
been voting for Republicans because they agree with them. So these Democrats
have invented the comforting theory that they've been losing because they
are too virtuous for the country.
I said a long time ago that W was easily beatable given a credible Democratic candidate I don't know who that would be, but there must be some Democrat out there somewhere who doesn't feel compelled to take policy advice from Scotch soaked old dinosaurs like Kennedy or airheaded Hollywood types. There's lots of noise coming from Greenpeace or NOW or Moveon.org or the teachers' unions or the Hobbit Vegans Against Bad Thoughts, but the fact is there aren't enough of them to elect the party's candidate. Clinton understood that. He took their money, squeezed a little ass, then tacked right and beat Bob Dole like a red headed stepchild.....badda-bing, into the White House.
A lot of conservatives are not happy with Bush's domestic agenda, but whether one is so-called neocon, or a paleocon, or an angry white male, or gun toting, Bible banging redneck, or a Wall Street suit, national security at the moment trumps all all domestic issues. One can debate whether that should or not be so, but there it is.
Read Roy Jenkin's biography of Churchill. Nobody liked him, nobody liked what was happening domestically, but the UK needed a wartime leader and the opposition failed to offer a credible one. As soon as the war was won, Winston was out out on his ass.
I suppose finally I return to my case that the active core of the Democratic Party is far to the left of the electorate's consensus, and more importantly, the Party doesn't even realise it. I put this down to the self-referential relationship between the party and the coastal media. They just don't listen anyone who says they might be wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment