I argued in my last post that the moderate, conservative wing of the House Democrats has been withering for over a decade and thus that any left turn under Nancy Pelosi will not be sharp. Following is a qualification of and partial amendment to that view.
In almost a physical law of political dynamics (with apologies to Jessie, the real physicist), as the Democrats’ appeal to moderate and conservative voters declines, the importance of its “base” of liberal voters increases. These voters demand more and more, and, because of their enhanced importance, often get it, thus making it even harder for the party to appeal to moderates and conservatives.
This spiral did not begin with the election of 2002. A decade ago, in 1992, Robert Casey, the highly successful and admired Democratic governor of Pennsylvania (he was governor from 1987-1994), had hopes of nominating Bill Clinton for president. Instead, he was not even allowed to speak at all at the convention, because he was pro-life. (See here for an excellent piece by Nat Hentoff on Casey and what this episode said about the Democratic Party.)
At least since then, there has been no room under the Democratic tent for any pro-life leaders or candidates. Today there are far more pro-abortion Republicans than pro-life Democrats, if only because, with the recent defeat of Robert Casey’s son by Ed Rendell in the Democratic primary for governor in Pennsylvania, there are virtually no pro-life Democrats of any stature left.
The same shrinking of the Democratic tent has occurred with other issues as well: racial preferences, school vouchers, and at least on the national level, gun control. As advocates of these positions depart the Party, the voice of the base voters become more prominent. I recall that at the last Democratic convention more delegates were teachers than there were delegates from California.
And the voice of the base becomes not only more prominent, but more demanding, as can be seen in the Washington Post article today, “Democrats Ignore Black Supporters, Activists Charge.”
It is not a pretty site. Jesse Jackson calls the party leaders “incompetent.” Rep. Harold Ford is said to be “too far right of center, and he needs to come home,” thus re-enforcing the prevalent view that any un-left opinions are also un-black. Democrats were compared to “‘cross-dressers’ who tried to entice white voters by strutting in Republican clothing.”
Since blacks reliably vote over 9-1 for Democratic candidates, it will become increasingly hard to ignore these voices, even though on some hot-button issues — school vouchers and even racial preferences — the views of many black voters are closer to those of moderate whites than to their own leaders.
This is history repeating itself. In our two major national life/death crises (1850-1865 and 1929-1945)one of the two major political parties refused to take the crisis seriously and fell into political oblivion. In the earlier crisis the Whigs actually disappeared and made room for the Republicans. The Democrats were hobbled with the chain that they failed to defend the Union when the shitstorm hit. In the later crisis the Republicans refused to take the Depression seriously and as the ’30s progressed refused to take the threat of the Nazis and Fascists seriously and became irrelevant (particulaarly in Congress)for a generation. No, two generations. We are again in a serious life/death struggle and the Democrats are simply not taking it seriously. They are perhaps taking their first steps toward policial oblivion. It may be for a generation, but at least for a couple of election cycles.
two points-the “march of history” (like it or not) points in different directions for slavery/great depression than abortion. the united states was slow on slavery, and less socialistic than the rest of the world (it never developed a social democratic party, but FDR’s watered-down socialism sufficed). on the other hand, to my knowledge, there has been a steady liberalization of abortion laws throughout much of the world (though the US is probably somewhere in the middle on or somewhat liberal on this score).
also-as for pro-life democrats, david bonior is (was-he’s not in the House after the lame duck session is he?) one. does whip count as a leader? not that the general point doesn’t have validity-but pro-life democrats tend to have a lower profile because the press doesn’t cover them, as their social conservative/fiscal liberal viewpoint is the one that the elite probably dislikes more than the social liberal/fiscal conservative combination.
I Think I Used “Circling The Drain” Too Soon
The House Democrats new leader is not only three years older than the new Chinese Communist party chief, she’s farther left.
Razib, You’re right about Bonior. I’d forgotten that he was pro-life. Now you’ve spoiled my day, as I had enjoyed forgetting about Bonior….