"When Dems lean right, they lose"

[Mairead]

The centrist theory, so often repeated in media commentary, contradicts the historical record—not only the record of three successive defeats in presidential elections from 1980 to 1988, when the party shifted to the right—but the overall record of Democratic presidents from Roosevelt to Carter. Since 1932 Democratic presidential candidates have achieved five landslide victories, and all five landslides were created through progressive campaigns that identified the Democratic Party with movements for social reform. The four campaigns of Franklin Roosevelt and the landslide victory of Lyndon Johnson in 1964 were grand coalition campaigns. These great crusades did not dwell on the white middle-class. Nor did they fawn over lost Democrats. Instead they reached beyond the party establishment to the unemployed, to the poor, to the new, rising electorate of the times.

With only one telling exception, no Cold War Democratic candidate ever won a decisive majority of the popular vote. Truman got 49.5 percent in 1948; Kennedy got 49.9 percent in the squeaker of 1960. Carter got a bare majority over Ford in 1976, a result of public hostility over Watergate. The one candidate who did sweep the country was Lyndon Johnson, and he made support for civil rights central to his crusade for the Great Society. The great Democratic victories (Roosevelt and Johnson) were all progressive, highly ideological crusades against poverty and injustice.

History does not vindicate the viewpoint of the right-wing Democrats. The centrist theory is wrong, not only in terms of electoral results; it is also wrong in terms of those huge fiascos that brought down three Democratic presidents—Truman, Johnson, and Carter. While fidelity of FDR to progressive causes kept him in the White House for four terms in a row, no Cold War Democratic president kept the White House beyond a single elected term. The policies and mistakes of Democrats in office set the conditions for subsequent elections. What did the presidents of one elected term—Truman, Johnson, Carter—do wrong in office? The answer to that question tends to discredit the centrist position. Every one-term Democratic president made right-wing errors that precipitated his own downfall and betrayed the liberal mandate that held the Democratic Party together. The fall of Truman in 1952, the humiliation of Lyndon Johnson in 1968, the defeat of Carter in 1980—great Democratic traumas—were all direct results of right wing follies in office.

More: http://prorev.com/rockwell.htm

[unblock]

1. but the right didn't own the media then

much as i love the proud liberal, these days it does take money to and extent that it never has. first, republicans maintain a huge fundraising advantage; second, the 'free' media leans heavily to the right, especially in terms of ideology, meaning a further advantage to the right.

centrist candidates can attract more corporate money and also can get more favorable, or perhaps, less negative, press.


now, i do think that sticking to your opinions and being proud of them polls better than coming across as a wishy-washy compromiser, but money is way too important these days and it sucks big time.

[Hippo_Tron]

29. The right still doesn't...

CNN is a bit to the left with their magazines Time/Newsweek leaning quite far to the left. Faux obviously leans to the right. NBC is fairly balanced.

[bitchkitty]

51. Oh, honey!

My viewpoint on this is so far removed from yours! I see them as all owned by the same small group of people, who decide what gets aired and what doesn't.

[Hippo_Tron]

68. Well, there are things that should be aired that don't...

But that doesn't mean that CNN is a Bush propaganda machine.

[mobuto]

2. Um

Centrist Dems may have lost in '52, '68 and '80, but liberal Dems lost in '72, '84 and '88. While I sympathize with your goal, the argument doesn't really work.

[no name no slogan]

33. Dukakis ('88) and Mondale ('84) WERE NOT LIBERAL

Both of these men (whom I campaigned for in one way, shape or form) were solidly centrist-- Dukakis being almost "pro-business".

'72 was a different story, muddled by CREEP, illegal campaign contributions, and the Nixon administration's treachery. It can hardly be counted among these examples because of the extenuating circumstances.

In 2002, Sens and Reps who ran for open seats and ran to the left easily defeated their Republican rivals, despite the lack of assistance from the DNC to these candidates. OTOH, the "moderate" Democrats typically went down in flames, because they could not differentiate themselves from their Repub opponents.

Despite the best efforts of the Repubs over the last 25 years, they are STILL the minority party in this country. The best they could do was 2000-- and still they had to steal that election to win it.

When Democrats appeal to their base, on the issues voters most trust them with (economics, civil liberties, infrastructure) they overwhelmingly win elections. Why?

Because it gives Democrats a reason to vote! If there's no "real" Democrat running, most Dems will stay home. All we need to do is give them a reason to vote-- a REAL Democratic candidate who's not afraid to speak the truth to our issues. If we do that, we'll win. If not, we'll continue to lose.

[mobuto]

58. Oh really?

You mean liberals like Mark Pryor? Or liberals like Mary Landrieu?

The nation isn't a monolith. Whether we like it or not, we can't run the same candidate for Congress in Cambridge, Massachusetts and Fayetteville, Arkansas. All things being equal, of course I'd prefer a more liberal candidate. But all things aren't equal and we need to make real-world decisions on who the best candidates are in a given area.

'72 was a different story, muddled by CREEP, illegal campaign contributions, and the Nixon administration's treachery. It can hardly be counted among these examples because of the extenuating circumstances.

I don't think any Democrat could have won in 1972, and not because of the Committee to Reelect. It was just a very bad year for Democrats.

[Hippo_Tron]

69. Mary Landrieu is pretty liberal for Louisiana...

But nationally she's moderate. The democrats control the entire state government and both senate seats here, most of the big Republican challengers are racist scum who won't get any minority votes, yet they don't grow any balls and help make this state blue in national elections.

[AntiCoup2K4]

3. Truman said it best

You give the voters a choice of a Republican and a Democrat who acts like a Republican and the Republican wins every time.

[OKNancy]

4. Centrists of both parties always win

That's why we don't have President Bauer, or President Keys.

Now we all know that Bush was not a moderate, but he did present himself that way to the voting public.

Politics is a game of gentle manuvering, but in the end, liberal thought always wins. The Republicans try to stop it, but in the long run....well you know the rest.

[wyldwolf]

5. First, a laughable quote from another part of your article...

Senator John Kerry is a centrist, and as Michael Moore puts it: "We cannot leave the 2004 election to the Democrats to screw it up."

First, Kerry's voting record in the Senate shows he is most definitely not a "centrist." And remember, Michael Moore also endorsed Wesley Clark, saying: "...this is why people don't like the left... this is why people don't like liberals... that's why no one wants to join our side we're so up on our high horse... don't let the professional left drag you into an argument that is a sideshow... audio

I also have to take exception with this:

Since 1932 Democratic presidential candidates have achieved five landslide victories, and all five landslides were created through progressive campaigns that identified the Democratic Party with movements for social reform. The four campaigns of Franklin Roosevelt and the landslide victory of Lyndon Johnson in 1964 were grand coalition campaigns.

Remember, FDR (who was not the liberal many make him out to be) is being counted 4 times in this equation and was elected during a depression which called for extreme economic measures.

Here is also a key passage:

With only one telling exception, no Cold War Democratic candidate ever won a decisive majority of the popular vote. Truman got 49.5 percent in 1948; Kennedy got 49.9 percent in the squeaker of 1960. Carter got a bare majority over Ford in 1976, a result of public hostility over Watergate. The one candidate who did sweep the country was Lyndon Johnson, and he made support for civil rights central to his crusade for the Great Society. The great Democratic victories (Roosevelt and Johnson) were all progressive, highly ideological crusades against poverty and injustice.

During the cold war, as now, defense was very much on people's minds. The fact that Kennedy and Carter won is a testament to how their policies resonated with enough people to win in a society being kept in line by fear (real or not) of a nuclear confrontation.

As for Johnson, civil rights was already a major issue in this country.

The author also rationalizes away Clinton's two wins and I don't think he even mentions Gore's win.

The article reads as though he has a premise and is desperate to prove it - but comes up short.

Finally, as mobuto said above: Centrist Dems may have lost in '52, '68 and '80, but liberal Dems lost in '72, '84 and '88. While I sympathize with your goal, the argument doesn't really work.

[mike_c]

9. "First, Kerry's voting record in the Senate..."

...includes support for dubya's worst policies. I'm looking for a liberal with the courage to BE a liberal, even when it means saying "no" to right wing neocon facists.

[Sparkly]

10. So over Kerry's entire career,

what percentage of his votes would you agree with, and what percentage would you disagree with? Is 60% agreement better than Bush? 75%? What's the threshold?

And if you find the liberal you're looking for, the one who you agree with 100%, then what? The primaries are over. Let's say we ALL decide we'll only vote for our perfect liberal. We'd split our votes 36 different ways just to feel good that we "voted our conscience" and "didn't whore our vote." That'll be our consolation when the chimp gets four more years.

Can we afford to act like spoiled kids, taking our toys and going home because the candidate isn't EVERYTHING we want? How can a candidate possibly be everything everybody wants??

[mike_c]

11. to be frank, there are four main issues that concern me...

...in this election, and Kerry fails at least three litmus tests:

1) First and foremost, the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Notwithstanding his IWR vote, which in itself would lead me to question Kerry's credibility, Kerry is not articulating the truth about Iraq. Rather than admitting that the invasion and occupation were wrong, and should end as soon as possible, Kerry is suggesting that he could do a better job of running the occupation than Bush can. He's trying to coopt Bush's meme, and in the process continue the expansion of U.S. imperialism in the Middle East.

I'll change my stance on Kerry if he comes clean on this issue alone, but until then, he's just another pro-war, pro-imperialism centrist in my book.

2) Second, Kerry stands behind NAFTA and global trade agreements that are designed to benefit corporate interests at the expense of workers and national economies. At the end of the day, "globalization" is a smokescreen for continuing to concentrate wealth into the hands of corporations whose only real loyalty is to their own bottom line.

3) Third, Kerry has refused to refute the Bush scam called the "war on terror," again suggesting that he's the man to do a better job of running it rather than telling the truth: it's an unwinnable boondoggle that will only result in the death's of a lot of innocent people and the continued enrichment of the MIC. Kerry has not disavowed the effects of the WOT on U.S. civil rights, either. He has not spoken out against the USA PATRIOT Act except in lukewarm tones, he has not called for the relaease of prisoners held in legal limbo in flagrant contradiction of the legal guidelines enshrined in the Constitution, and he has not spoken out against the excesses of the DOJ in the name of "homeland security." Instead, he's suggesting that he would do a better job than Bush in running the WOT.

Kerry's voting record over the last 20 years is not the issue for me. I'm concerned about what he says-- and intends-- NOW.

4) Finally, I'm looking for a candidate who will stand up to corporate interests in defense of the environment-- who will put conservation AHEAD of economic interests. Kerry might pass this litmus test, but I'm not certain. His close relationships with corporate lobbyists don't give me much confidence in his likelihood of standing up to them once in office, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one, at least for the moment.

[sangha]

13. So let's see. Support for NAFTA, IWR, The War onTerror and Corporate Power

will defeat Kerry, so Bush* will win because, as we all know, the Repukes are opposed to those.

:crazy:

[mike_c]

16. sorry, I'm looking for someone to vote FOR...

...not just someone to vote against. There's no question that I'll vote against Bush. I just don't think I can hold my nose tightly enough to vote for John Kerry. Simply my opinion, BTW. See my sig for further information....

[sangha]

18. Breaking news

The thread is NOT about YOU!

It's whether or not centrists lose.

[Layman]

57. Second the Sentiment

A lot of people, D.U.ers included, are deluding themsevles that ABB is going to win it. As much as the Repugthugs are disdained, Kerry and company are going to have to make their case to the left side of the spectrum before we'll bother to vote.

[corporatewhore]

63. actually old school cons who hate bush are against those

and the patriot act and the war on drugs

[sangha]

12. Irony Alert: It was LBJ's progresivism that ledd to his defeat

LBJ's efforts to identify the Democratic Party with movements for social reform were two-fold; The War on Poverty and the Civil Rights Movement. The latter led to the Republican's adoption of the "Southern Strategy" which has help Repukes defeat LBJ and progressive Dems.

[siden]

17. Could you elaborate?

"It was LBJ's progressivism that led to his defeat."

Were the 40% of voters in the 1968 New Hampshire primary that voted for Eugene McCarthy rejecting LBJ's progressivism?

[sangha]

19. I already explained

LBJ's support for Civil Rights led to the development of the Southern Strategy which exploited people's racist beliefs.

[siden]

20. But that has nothing to do with why McCarthy nearly beat in LBJ

in New Hampshire, unless you're implying that people voted for McCarthy in part as a backlash against LBJ's support for Civil Rights (which wouldn't make much sense, since McCarthy also fought for civil rights). It was after New Hampshire that LBJ said he wasn't going to run (and, hence, was defeated), not before.

[sangha]

21. That's a different thread

I'm not sure why you think I have an obligation to explain McCarthy

[siden]

22. because you said LBJ's progressivism led to his defeat

If that was the case, he would have been defeated in a general election against Nixon. Instead, he capitulated to forces within his own party who attacked him, for reasons other than the portions of his platform that were progressive.

[sangha]

24. LBJ quit the race because of resistance to his progressive programs

McCarthy laid the fatal blow by diverting part of LBJ's base. By demonstrating that he also had the left against him, McCarthy made it clear that LBJ could not win. Some of his policies alienated the left, and some the right.

[scarletwoman]

30. Having lived through those times, that's not how I remember it.

It seemed VERY clear at the time, that it was the Vietnam war that did Johnson in. He kept saying it would end "soon" -- the famous "light at the end of the tunnel" -- instead it kept escalating. Democrats didn't have a problem with his progressive programs, they DID have a problem with him not being able to get us out of Vietnam.

I'll bet that many, if not most, people who were around and paying attention in those days remember this pretty much the same way. This isn't a matter of recorded history to me, this is my memory of what it was like to LIVE through those times.

sw

[Mairead]

36. I remember it the same way you do, SW

I remember people being furious with him that he was sacrificing his Great Society for the sake of that @#$%! war.

[scarletwoman]

38. Exactly!

It felt so damn TRAGIC that all the good he was trying to accomplish was just being overwhelmed by that evil, senseless war. It was so gutwrenchingly frustrating and sad. Watching him getting beaten down by it. I think he was powerless to beat back the war machine of the MIC -- THAT'S what took him down.

sw

[Lydia Leftcoast]

40. This woman of a certain age

also remembers it like that.

LBJ could have left a glorious legacy of Great Society programs, but by the end of his term, the protestors were chanting, "Hey, Hey, LBJ, How many kids did you kill today?"

[Mairead]

48. Remember how they put in Nguyen Cao Ky

and nobody believed the CIA's protestations that they hadn't assassinated Diem? And Ky went strutting around in his flight suit like Bush--only Ky really was a fighter pilot.

And now we have 55000 names on a wall, and Goddess only knows how many names in the hearts of the Vietnamese. And apart from those victims and the people who got rich, the war might never have happened. The country is still commie, but we trade with them just as though they weren't. So all those people died for nothing. LBJ could have saved so many of them, had his second term, and given us the rest of the Great Society if he'd only gotten the hell out as people wanted him to do. But he had an egotesticle problem.

[MMP]

77. You get your own opinion, not your own facts.

As I recall, Bush was an Interceptor pilot for 4 years.

Key was also a fighter pilot, but his most advanced fighter was either the F-5 or the AT-37 Dragon fly.

I know a bunch of Vietnamese who did made it out. Our country is the richer for them.

[LandOLincoln]

50. Yes, you're absolutely right, It was Vietnam and Vietnam alone that

brought LBJ down, and I remember the night he made his "concession" speech almost as clearly as I remember every small detail of 11/22/63.

[edzontar]

54. This has to be the most "original" theory I have read yet on DU.

Your history is tangled.

Vietnam brought LBJ down. I remember it.

SO, sangha, are you saying LBJ should NOT have supported the civil Rights laws of 164 and 1965?

Do you think those bills were a Mistake?

[mohc]

6. Don't quite buy this

The elections between two significant third party runs, Teddy Roosevelt's Progressive Party in 1912 and George Wallace's American Independent in 1968, had the Democratic party being a coalition of progressives and southern conservatives (Dixie-crats). Roosevelt, along with Robert LaFolette, provided a conduit for progressives to move from the Republican party to the Democrats. The reason they did this was that the progressives thought they were losing control of the party, which they had dominated since Lincoln. During Reconstruction the Democrats were weakened to the point of being irrelevant, and between Lincoln and Roosevelt the Democrats only had one President (Cleveland two times). Business interests started becoming more powerful around the turn of the century with the rise of industry, and they only had one party to turn to since the Republicans had all the power. After awhile, the Dixie-crats started to realize something was up (by comparison, southern Blacks switched from Republican to Democrat along with the progressives) and we saw the Strom Thurmond's run in 1948. But there was still resistance of southern conservatives changing over to Republicans, they just could not get over the name. Kennedy won on the back of the Dixie-cratic vote, but the Civil Rights Act in 1964 finally woke the Dixie-crats up. Wallace's run provided a conduit for the Dixie-crats to join their fellow conservatives in the Republican party. Carter and Clinton were attempts to hold on to some of that southern support, and it worked enough to get them elected.

And what was the point of all that? Judging elections between 1912 and 1968 gets a little messy. The progressive/Dixie-crat coalition allowed us to run more liberal candidates since Dixie-crats were blindly voting against their own interests. Since 1968, we have won when we ran a candidate that "appeared" centrist, and lost when we did not. This cycle will be an important test. Kerry definitely appears liberal to most of America. And I am not concerned with whether he really is or not, the important thing is the appearance in American politics. Its taken basically since before the civil war for our party system to reach equilibrium again (a normal left vs right setup), but basically all the Dixie-crats are gone now, and we are not running a southern candidate. Winning this election is going to have a profound effect on later political cycles, and we need to do whatever we have to in order to win. And that includes appearing to be centrist.

[leyton]

7. You're only looking at two factors here:

You're only looking at how 'right-wing' they were, and whether they lost the election.

First of all Clinton is proof that centrism works. He was not a leftist Democrat but a moderate who was able to attract wide support. So that alone throws your theory into question.

Then there is the citation of the elections from 1980 to 1988. I believe that Carter lost because he mishandled the hostage situation, because the economy was doing poorly, and because Reagan was such an agreeable figure. Reagan won re-election in 1984 because of his personality and because he convinced people that the economy was on the upswing. I don't know how Bush won election in 1988, but I suspect it has to do with Dukakis's poor campaigning and holdover popularity from Reagan.

[no name no slogan]

34. One problem with Clinton's "wins": Ross Perot.

There's ample evidence to suggest that Clinton's "win" was due in large part to Perot peeling off the social moderates from the Repubs than to anything Clinton did or said. After all, he only won by pluralities both times (not majorities)-- with only 1/2 of the eligible population voting in both his elections. Without the Perot factor in his races, it's doubtful he would have gotten the pluralities he did.

And, considering that both houses of congress went to the Repubs (despite his own personal popularity), I would hardly call Clinton's two terms proof that centrism "works".

If anything, Clinton ran as a Democrat and governed like a Republican, especially if you consider the Repub-friendly legislation Clinton signed into law: Defense of Marriage Act, "Welfare Reform", NAFTA, etc. I would hardly call this a winning strategy for Democrats.

When we vote for Democrats, we expect them to govern like Democrats. Most voters feel the same way.

[Nederland]

59. Wrong

Exit polls of the 1992 race clearly show Perot drew votes equally from Clinton and Bush. IOW, he had no effect on the outcome.

[Hav]

8. .

Uh that's a typical case of looking at only one aspect and drawing conclusions from that aspect alone to make a point. And at the same time neglecting other aspects that would dismiss your point.
Well done.

[sangha]

14. It's called "Framing the issue"

and the Bush* admin uses it to good effect

[mzmolly]

15. I am a left leaning moderate, but wasn't Clinton considered "right"

? He won two elections. And, would have won a third had he been given the chance.

[Mairead]

23. Only in retrospect. He sold himself to us as a liberal

It was only after he left office that people sobered up, toted up his record, and realised just how thorogoing a DINO he'd been.

[sangha]

25. No he didn't. Capital punishment, balanced budgets, New Democrats, etc

Clinton's entire campaign was about how he was NOT a liberal.

And let's not forget about his Sister Souljah speech.

His pick of Gore, a moderate to conservative Dem at the time, as VP

[Hippo_Tron]

27. What's wrong with balanced budgets?

It's sure quite the opposite of the Republican agenda...

[sangha]

49. Nothing, but it's not progressive

.

[Hippo_Tron]

67. I don't think balanced budgets are really liberal or conservative...

They are just one of the good things that Clinton did. I don't think you can attribute that to his being non-progressive.

[sangh0]

82. Actually, balanced budgets is a conservative idea

In addition to being consistent with their idea of morality, a balanced budget reduces the money available to invest in social spending, and the ideas associated with using deficits as an economic stimulus has been traditionally associated with economic liberalism.

[Hippo_Tron]

26. Clinton had liberal ideals that were all killed by congress...

Healthcare, eudcation, fix social security, etc.

[mzmolly]

37. True... he also wanted 19 billion to invest in inner cities, the Rethugs

put a stop to it.

So glad they are newly concerned with *human rights* in Iraq however :eyes:

[Hippo_Tron]

39. I don't think their vast expenditures in Iraq are going to human rights...

I think that they are going into halliburton's pockets.

[mzmolly]

56. You are correct sir!

But the faux news gang would have us believe otha wise ;)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

81. Alas, he proposed his health care initiative

when he had a Democratic majority in Congress, and it still failed.

He could have gone for the gold, but he wimped out and tried to play nicey-nice with the insurance companies, therefore ending up with a complicated system that didn't really deal with the problems. It was in discussions of his proposal that we first heard the phrase "managed care," a phrase that soon came to strike terror into the hearts of patients.

His approach to health care was prefigured by his approach to gays in the military: when the Republicans squealed he backpedaled and came up with a compromise that pleased neither side.

He compromised long before he had to and was unable to rally the Democratic Congresscritters to support him.

[Monte Carlo]

28. That website is full of hackneyed writing.

... and this column is no different. This guy already knows the answers, and he makes sure we know them as well.

[Padraig18]

31. Clinton in '92 and '96 shoots your theory to hell.

Nice try, though...

[Hav]

32. well..

How about a compromise to save the thread and the brilliant argument..
Sometimes when the Dem leans right, the Dems lose, although they happen to win sometimes with that strategy, too. But when the Dem leans left, he wins although he loses sometimes as well.
That's a fact, proven by history.

[Padraig18]

46. Exactly.

There is no direct correlation between leaning left OR right and winning the presidency.

[no name no slogan]

35. One word: Perot

Perot cut into both Bush's and Dole's potential votes in 1992 and 1996, respectively. Remember, Clinton won by pluralities both times, even though he was a relatively popular 1st-term president in 1996. He NEVER won a majority of the vote either time he ran.

Without Perot, it's quite likely the socially moderate Repub vote would have gone to Bush and/or Dole. Fortunatly for the Dems, he was there to siphon off enough from the Repubs to give us "victories".

[Hippo_Tron]

70. Clinton campaigned on most of the stuff that Kerry is campaigning on...

I'll give you NAFTA but that was before it was popular to be opposed to it because of outsourcing. Clinton was not a centrist, he just appeared to be one because Newt Gingrich killed his agenda.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

41. And we must clarify what we mean by "left"

A candidate who runs left on behavioral issues and right on economics will lose the working class vote because such voters will be offended by the behavioral issues and will not find anything worth supporting in the candidate's economic platform.

On the other hand, candidates who run very left on economic issues and right on whichever behavioral issues are important to their constituents can win repeated terms. I'm thinking of Congresscritters such as Oregon's Peter DeFazio (practically a socialist economically, but he always votes against gun control) and Minnesota's James Oberstar (strong pro-labor and pro-peace record, but often votes with the anti-choice crowd).

The ideal would be someone who is left BOTH economically and behaviorally, but if we can 't have that, I'll take the economic leftist any day.

I know that this won't please the one-issue voters or the affluent voters who think of liberalism mainly in terms of behavioral issues, but the economic issues are fundamental.

Candidates who are laissez-faire on behavioral issues but otherwise side with corporate interests are merely the classic limousine liberals.

[JohnKleeb]

42. That is interesting that some of our better leftists

are a little more conservative on cultural issues, not that it bothers me. Oberstar Ive read a little on him, seems like a neat guy, hes a Slovene American, and knows the language, and is much in the tradition of catholic liberalism which I admire.

[scarletwoman]

43. Very astute analysis, I totally agree.

Btw, Oberstar is MY congressman. Sometimes he disappoints, but he's totally faithful to the working class, and I really respect that.

sw

[no name no slogan]

65. I agree, Oberstar is A-OK (and a DK endorser too!)

IIRC, one of Oberstar's daughters co-ordinated CD8 in MN for DK.

I agree that the only way we win big is on economic "bread and butter" issues-- which is sadly where the DLC-types have it all wrong. Before almost anything else, people vote with their pocketbooks. They'll vote for an economic populist any day of the week over a "fiscally conservative" social moderate, especially if they're unemployed without health insurance (like me).

You know, it should be second nature for our candidates to know this by now, but somehow they keep needing to be reminded of this every four years or so.

[Mairead]

53. Nice one, Lydia. I agree that economic "leftism" is the key for us

It is THE quality we need. Economic power brings with it social power, too.

[corporatewhore]

64. jim hightower on his parents -identified as cons but if you asked them

about economic issues they would seem like populist progressives

[dpbrown]

44. Only 5 million "conservatives" voted for Gore

Yet 3 million mostly liberals voted for Nader.

The numbers from VNS' 2000 exit polls show that the "conservative Democrat" is only worth a little more than Nader pulled in - yet Nader's voters are pushed even further "outside" the Democratic "focus group" through rude disregard for their concerns, then they're ridiculed and harangued for not "getting in line."

Fully 80 million eligible voters sat out the 2000 election, and absent a compelling reason to get out this time, plenty will sit out 2004, too.

Fear alone is not enough to win against Bush.

Fear alone is not enough to legitimate a corporate-beholden Democratic Party agenda.

Fear alone is not a substitute for substance, populism, and progressive politics.

The so-called "centrists" may make this a close race that Bush can steal like he did the last one.

DPB

[Bombtrack]

45. A centrist is not the same frickin thing as a right-winger

What can't you hard-leftists understand about that. That article is idiotic.

[Padraig18]

47. To some people here, anything to the right of Mao is 'right-wing'

Haven't you noticed that?

[Mairead]

52. Shows how little YOU know. Mao WAS right-wing, to people like Chomsky

and me, and no doubt to many other 'leftists' here (for whom I'll politely refrain from speaking, since they can do so very well for themselves if so inclined)

[edzontar]

55. Padraig, I expected more from you than this sort of quasi-red

Baiting.

What gives?

[Padraig18]

61. It's calling a spade a spade.

Some people here are so damned far left that anyone ot the right of Mao is right-wing. I said what i meant, and I mean what I said, edzontar.

[edzontar]

66. Your opinion seems to gell with the rightward drift these days....

I mean, calling people Communists and Maoists and the like is a bit extreme, don't you think?

It's the sort of thing one expects from the like of Robert Novak or Pat Buchanan--and not from a colleague in the Democratic movement.

[Cuban_Liberal]

71. Nice mis-characterization of what he said.

He said distinctly that there are people posting here to who anyone to the right of Mao is a rigjht-winger, and there ARE, ed! Don't put words into his mouth that he didn't say, thank you very much...

[edzontar]

72. I am trying to understand what gives with all the leftist bashing

Here these days.

If I mischaracterized your views, it is because i am frankly having difficultty understanding this development---

I never remember it being this bad before.

So much hatred and resentment .....I donlt see how we can effect the necessary center-left coalition if we are this factionalized.

[Cuban_Liberal]

73. You might ask the same question of the leftist ideologues here.

The uber-left is sowing at LEAST as much discord as anyone else, if not more...

[edzontar]

74. This is supposed to be a board for people on the left...

Liberals, progressives "of all stripes."

What I am reading from the anti-leftists here these days often seems not so much centrist as rightist.

Foremost among these familair rightist tactics is commie-bashing.

What wold "Auntie pinko" think?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

78. Whoa, time out here

Before you accuse people of being "ultra-leftists," you have to define what that means.

Do you mean economic leftists or behavioral leftists?

LBJ won as an economic populist, and Robert Kennedy was heading for the Dem nomination as an economic populist when he was killed.

McGovern was painted as the hippie candidate and was rejected as a behavioral leftist by Middle Americans who were still shell shocked over the 1960s. This was during an era when Richard Nixon was suggesting a guaranteed annual income and founding the EPA.

Mondale and Dukakis were simply the most inept candidates of my lifetime. Neither one was the preferred candidate of the "far left," but the choice of the wimpy middle who happened to get painted as "far left" by the Republican spin machine. (It makes me crazy when people who were children or young teenagers in 1984 and 1988 repeat the Republican lie that Mondale and Dukakis were "far left." They were behaviorally left, but definitely not economically left, and Dukakis in particular was despised by the real "far left.")

Recall that Clinton ran partly on a platform of providing national health care and improving the economy. He headed rightward after he was elected, because he was more concerned with being well-liked by the rich and powerful than in doing something for ordinary people--and HE had a Democratic majority for his first two years.

[jonnyblitz]

80. yeah, how many friggen right wing parties do we need

makes me fucking sick. :puke:

[TreasonousBastard]

60. Sorry, but this article is absurd.

It completely ignores everything else that was going on at the time and considers "centralism" as the only significant factor in these elections. "Right wing follies"?

Rarely, if ever, has any Presidential candidate won an election as either a right- or leftwinger. Every President elected has been perceived as a moderate, more or less. Even Bush, who campaigned as a moderate, and managed to pull it off. Reagan campaigned as a conservative, but not a scary one like Goldwater was painted to be.

Goldwater lost because he was perceived as a right wingnut, although he was probably slandered and wasn't that much of a threat. Bryan lost because he was perceived as a left wingnut, and a religious nutcase. Others have lost because they managed to be tarred with labels as too far to one side or the other.

Roosevelt won, not because he was a leftie, but because we were in the middle of a Depression, and he offered hope for change. Then, there was the small matter of a war that most people agreed he had a good chance of winning. Carter won because of disgust with Nixon and Watergate, but lost because he wasn't considered up to the job. Clinton and Reagan both were re-elected because things were going along reasonably well and no one wanted to rock the boat. Political leanings had little or nothing to do with any of these elections, and were only sideshows.

I'm not sure why Truman refused the second run, although there was a lot of pressure on him to step down. Perhaps he was just tired of the flack and being a war President. Perhaps he saw running against someone like Ike as a losing proposition. As with Johnson, the war may have affected him deeply. At any rate, we don't know how he would have fared if he ran in '52, and saying he was tossed is a bit rash. If anything, Korea was a lot more important than any perceived "liberal" or "centrist" leanings. Perhaps, like Johnson, one could consider a war as a "right wing folly"?

Kennedy wasn't a "liberal" and never really ran as such. He ran as a cold warrior and as "not Nixon." We have no idea how the rest of his term would have panned out, or whether or not he would have been re-elected, with or without Chicago cemetary votes.

Johnson... yeah, it was Viet Nam and only Viet Nam that got him to pull out. He was on a roll and having a good ol' time with the social programs, but he virtually admitted that the war was a major mistake and was tearing the country apart, destroying the good that he was doing and costing far too much in money and lives.

Johnson had tons of support for the social programs. He had the high moral ground and justification for everything from voting rights to billboards off the highways. Anyone could live with that, and he was elected as a liberal with liberal programs, and had the juice to get most of it passed. That damn war, though...

[JVS]

62. Truman didn't fall in 1952, Stevenson was the candidate

Truman had been president for 2 terms although his first was unelected and the second was won in a squeaker.

[jsw_81]

75. We should definitely swing far to the left

That's always a winning strategy in presidential elections, just ask McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis. :eyes:

But seriously, what it is about you people on the fringe? Fringe right-wingers think that the key to victory is for Republicans to swing to the fascist right (e.g. Alan Keyes) and fringe left-wingers think we Democrats should run a socialist/communist if we want to win big. Both sides seem to be under the delusion that there's this great untapped reservoir of voters out there just waiting for us to nominate a wacko. Get a clue, people: most American voters are centrists.

[MMP]

76. What could Kerry do?

What if Kerry went clearly and repeatedly for a clear, unadulterated right to keep and bear arms. Specific federal militia regulations that would permit Vermont Style concealed carry in all 50 states, under the authority of Title 10 Section 311.

Wouldnt that take the wind out of the NRA?

On the other hand, Consider Bush putting through a prescription drug benefit. Doesnt that take the wind out of the AARP, which tends to vote for Democrats.

You win elections in the middle. You loose election with the fringe. Ask Ex-President Barry Goldwater about it.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

79. See my post #78

Most Americans are centrists? Most Americans these have never heard a real leftist opinion, not if they think that the New York Times is as left as it gets.

The media do a terrific job of narrowing the range of acceptable opinions.

Listen to ordinary people talk. (I suggest riding public buses or eavesdropping on conversations in neighborhood gathering places.) Most people are a mixture of right and left opinions. Everyone of every social class hates the insurance companies and the heartless, bean counting "industry" that health care has turned into. Most people below the executive class hate NAFTA and foreign outsourcing. But thanks to the media, they hear only the Establishment line that says you have to wait for hip replacements in Canada and that an end to foreign outsourcing would make "American" companies uncompetitive.

By the way, it is really disturbing to see people on this board accusing anyone to the left of Bill Clinton of being a "Communist."

Do you realize that by espousing the DLC line on economic issues, you are actually to the right of Dick Nixon?"