Squabbling Democrats: The real reason Reagan won

why did Carter lose in 1980? It was not simply the hostage crisis, but also because squabbling in the party crippled his ability to lead from the White House, squabbling that led to a bitter primary fight between Carter and Ted Kennedy. Though he had a solid Democratic majority, much of Carter's domestic agenda was hampered by an unwillingness of Congress to accept leadership from the White House. as a consequence, Carter looked ineffective, which, coupled with the hostage crisis, sealed the fate of his presidency. Reagan's victory also enabled Republican senatorial candidates to ride his coattails, giving them a majority in the Senate in the 97th Congress, a majority they maintained until the 100th Congress was sworn in in 1987.

A similar story happened in the administration of Bill Clinton. Whatever the faults of the Clinton administration itself, the blame for the failure of Hillary Clinton's health care initiative can be laid squarely on Congress. They should have pursued it through, which would have given Clinton a major legislative success and reason for folks to vote Democratic in 1994. Instead, Democrats in Congress chickened out because they were afraid of losing their seats due to an uproar manufactured by an aggressive ad campaign. Their complete capitulation did not prevent them from losing their seats anyway.

So, what have we learned? Should we follow recent history, and let squabbling between different parts of our party doom this opportunity to failure, or should we follow a different path? Yes, it is not inevitable that we succumb to squabbling and failure. There is a different model, that suggested by the presidencies of every successful modern president, and that is presidential leadership. It worked for FDR, for Kennedy and LBJ, and even for Reagan, and it can work for us, too. This means that Congress and Democratic Party activists need to get behind President Obama's agenda, and do it pronto. We need not let ideological purity or any other thing stand in the way of our so doing. This isn't a choice between half a loaf and no loaf, it's a choice between half a loaf and a sharp stick in the eye. If Obama is seen as a failure, we might well lose control of at least one house of Congress in two years, and the presidency two years after that.

We will not establish a new, enduring majority in this country by implementing everything we, as liberals and progressives, want, all at once. Push through a lot in the first 100 days, by all means, but understand that. Ideologically, our nomination of Obama shows us where we, as a party, need to be if we want to prevent the ruin of our nation: competent, relatively centrist, but in support of all the litmus test issues that the liberal base really cares about: abortion, affirmative action, LGBT rights, the environment, peace, and, above all (for me, at least) social justice. I'd like to institute single-payer health care for all, shrink the military to the size it was before WWII, make our tax system more progressive, institute nationwide marriage equality, enact true comprehensive immigration reform including citizenship, enact tougher environmental standards across the board, protect Roe v. Wade and affirmative action with constitutional amendments, and much more. We can do some of these things, starting on January 21, 2009. But if history is any guide, the only way we will be able to accomplish all of this is incrementally.

My guy in the primary (before he withdrew) was John Edwards, who I thought was the more electable of the two real progressives in the race. I concede to the greater wisdom of the folks who backed Obama from the start, and made my peace with Obama about two days after Edwards withdrew. If our party is to be led from the center of the Democratic Party (as it almost always has been historically, BTW), then why not by someone who is not only personally charismatic, but also competent, and someone who values competence in those who work for him? If that is the accommodation liberals and progressives have to make, if the alternative is losing and handing the nation over to rabid zealots who have run the place into the ground, then it's one most of us should make happily. If what it takes to get RFK Jr. is Emanuel, then I'm happy--there's a place in our party for both sorts of Democrats.

What we need to do now is to unite America, but we cannot do that without uniting the party. Some have suggested that the Republican Party "purge" itself of extremist ideologues. A better path, and I think the one this president will chart, is to make our party the party of bipartisanship, shaving off social moderates and re-branding our party as the responsible, respectable party of moderation, competence, fiscal discipline and, yes, social progress for all. Invite the Chuck Hagels and Colin Powells, and the voters who are of like mind, into our party and we will forge an enduring majority in the electorate for a generation.

Footnote: There is one exception to this call for party unity: Joe Lieberman. For the former Vice Presidential nominee of our party to endorse the Republican for president is simply unacceptable, and his threats to defect to the Republicans when our party needed him are also inexcusable. He should not only be stripped of every committee chairmanship and subcommittee chairmanship, he should be reassigned to sit only on the least important committees and subcommittees.

Cocking the shotgun and aiming it at their foot.

I predict the three foot shooting moments.

1. Expanded war in Afghanistan.

2. DLC Cabinet.

3. Personal Responsibility mantra. (It's not just for Freepers anymore)

Was when Obama pledged to go after Bin Laden in Pakistan and McCain ruled it out. What happens to the so-called national security wing of the Republican Party if we get bin Laden in February, 2009 (or prove he's really been dead all along, as some have suggested)?

We will have to be careful in Afghanistan to prevent it from becoming a quagmire, which will mean implementing a real exit strategy. For now, I think we owe it to the efforts of everyone who made the election of Obama possible the time it will take to accomplish this.

The Democratic franchise is worth a lot more than it was a week ago. For the moment Obama owns it, and if he plays his hand well, it's going to be hard to take it away. But there are going to be plenty of sitting big-shots who do not want to go quietly, plenty of ambitious politicians thinking on how to make a name for themselves and grab the levers of power away from Obama.

Nice piece, BTW.
:hi:

I'm encouraged to know that Obama has been thinking a lot more about this than anyone. I see all these "how will he govern" pieces on the news, and it makes me fume. This campaign has shown exactly how he will govern: very, very well.

Thanks for taking the time to read it. I know that's not often how we do things on DU, but at least here I don't have to go through a peer review process (or even do any real research) to vent.

No offense to Mr Clinton, who was also a corker, but Obama's temperament seems better, especially in a man so young who has come so far. But we will see.

But American politics is dark and byzantine, it will be a challenge even for someone of Mr Obama's stature to exercise control. It's going to be interesting to see what he does and how he goes about it. With a bit of luck, politics could be stimulating and amusing to watch instead of depressing and distasteful.

It is also worth remembering that getting elected and governing are very different skills in the USA, as so many recent Presidents have shown.

DU is a very noisy venue, like the internet itself, very useful, but not at ones command.

Though he had a tough job to do at the time. I wouldn't be too happy with Obama if he chose him, but at least, compared to Greenspan, he'd be the very model of responsibility.

I am heartened, as I am sure you are, by the talk about Dean. My only problem is that he's done such an amazing job at the DNC, and deserves so much credit for the success we've had this year, that we may not want to lose him there. It should be up to him, ultimately, and he certainly deserves a cabinet job if he wants one--he certainly exceeds the basic test of competence, and even excellence.

Do they/we really buy into that whole "e pluribus unum" stuff (of many, one) which says we can be different and diverse while ultimately being all together in spirit? All who call themselves "Democrats," like their partisan "Republican" cousins, need to come to grips with whether unity is, to them/us, after all an American value. Obama has been explicit in his call for a "united states" of America. Is that what WE want?

We are all Americans, one America, and whether we agree on tax policy matters not to that question, but whether we agree on things like civil rights perhaps ought to. That question is fundamental to the nature of a pluralist society and a democratic government. My focus is related, but a little narrower and more pragmatic: how to govern responsibly and establish an enduring Democratic majority in the electorate.

that we can get what we want if we build the coalition from the center out. It's not the fun way, but I think it's ultimately the most effective. Blowing things up with hot botton issues right from the start may give us a few small (or not so small) victories, but will probably cause us to lose in the end.

a thorough-going liberal wouldn't even have gotten the nomination, much less the opportunity to govern as President. If Obama had gone that route, he'd be sitting on the sidelines with Kucinich.

Obama was my third choice, because I didn't think he was liberal enough. I've changed my mind. I hope that's not just because I've drunk the koolaid. His heart is in the right place. And I think he's smart enough to start at the center, and I think he's charismatic enough to bring the country along as he moves to the left.

he will have the chance to demonstrate what we already should have learned: that the economy does well when the middle class does well.