Richard Crowley, an editor at the New Republic, has an article in SLATE calling Zell Miller a “fake Democrat,” “a cartoonish GOP partisan” who has committed “treason” against the Democratic party.
Crowley argues, quite unsuccessfully in my opinion, that Miller became the odd man out of the Democratic party not because the Democrats moved so far to the left, which Miller and his new Republican allies claim, but rather because Miller himself moved so far to the right.
I don’t agree, but my real objection is to the easy assurance that Miller is a “fake” Democrat, and also to the identical accusations heard from virtually every Democratic (and hence establishment media) platform this week that Arnold and Rudy and even McCain aren’t “real” Republicans because they support abortion or gay rights or gun control.
Leave aside the problem of whether media observers have the authority, or knowledge, to pontificate on who is a “real” Republican or Democrat. More interesting is the undeniable fact that these days the Republican Party’s tent is much bigger than the Democrats’, that the Republican Party is much more “diverse,” if you’ll pardon the expression, than the Democrats. I haven’t looked closely lately, but the last time I looked I think somewhere around 15% to 20% of the Republicans in the Senate supported abortion rights. A similar number have supported racial preferences, more support various strong environmental measures, gun control, etc., etc. How many Democrats, in either body, oppose abortion, racial preference, gun control? When was the last time such a Democrat, if there any left, was invited to speak at a national convention? (See here for a discussion of how the Democrats treated one of their most impressive governors in 1992 and 1996.)
But let’s return to Crowley and his “fake” Miller. To say that Zell Miller is a “fake” Democrat, despite his refusal to change parties, is to say that people with his views are not welcome in the Democratic party. Has Crowley checked out Brad Carson, who’s running for the Senate in Oklahoma on a platform that one would be hard-pressed to distinguish from mainstream or even conservative Republicanism. If Miller is a “fake,” shouldn’t Carson change parties?
When I was much younger and even less wise than I am now (I know it’s hard to believe that’s possible), I used to think we’d be much better off if all the conservative Democrats became Republicans and all the liberal Republicans became Democrats. The condition we’re in now just goes to show you that you should be careful what you wish for.
ADDENDUM
Or consider Powerline’s take on the South Dakota Senate race between Daschle and Thune.
[Daschle’s] whole career has been based on pork, not principle….
Meanwhile, Thune is running as a man of principle, and, as it happens, his principles match those of the majority of South Dakota voters far better than Daschle’s. Daschle can’t hide this fact by running ads showing him hugging President Bush.
Perhaps Democrats like Daschle, who have to hide their true beliefs from their constitutents, are the real fakes.
ADDENDUM [9/1/04]
From an OpEd in the San Francisco Chronicle by Earl Ofari Hutchinson on diversity in the Republican Party:
Polls consistently show that a sizable percentage of black moderates are pro-life, pro-school prayer, anti-gun control and anti-welfare. Many enthusiastically support school vouchers, three-strikes laws and harsher sentences for crime and drug use. A significant percent oppose gay rights [and, I would add, racial preferences].
Of course, neither these people nor their views are represented in the leadership or positions of civil rights organizations. Maybe they are fake blacks.
Well, as an unreconstructed Scoop Jacksonian I’m very disgruntled with the Democratic Party. However, someone who goes to the Republican convention and gives a speech nominating the incumbent Republican does call his Democratic bona fides into question.
Miller has consistently voted (unlike any of the other conservative Democrats) for Republican candidates for internal Senate leadership positions.
His voting record agrees with the GOP majority over 90% of the time; second place among Democrats was Breaux at about 50%. Actually, half a dozen GOP senators vote with Democrats more often than Miller.
Is there any sort of analysis that would persuade that Miller remains a nominal Democrat only for the publicity and political value to his new friends?
If McCain, Giuliani and Arnold are not “real Republicans”, then why should I as a Republican listen to them at all — or the rest of the so-called “Mainstream Republicans” who the media like to promote? After all, by their definition it would betray the very principles of my party to do so.
I don’t know Miller and so I don’t know whether it is greed for publicity or simple stubborness that prevents him from ackowledging what everyone is so sure of, that he “really” is a Republican. Just as I don’t know why Sen. Jeffords from Vermont couldn’t see that he “really” is a Democrat and not an Independent. Still, it seems to me that the larger and more significant point is often overlooked: that the Democrats have much less “diversity” in their party today than the Republicans. They have defined their party to mean that there is no longer room for people who are opposed to abortion, racial preferences, gun control, etc. The majority of Republicans oppose abortion, gun control, and racial preferences, but there remain — and remain in good standing, in positions of authority, welcome at the convention — many Republicans who do not share these views.
At least Democrats practice what they preach about “diversity” on campus: it has nothing to do with opinions, values, prinicples, points of view.
The historical attachment of the democrats with organized crime has left a “mafia family” sort of mentality in the donkey party. Look the wrong way once too often and you wake up with a horse’s head in bed with you.
John, an anti-abortion Democrat spoke at the Convention. We just didn’t make a humongo deal of it.
Let me know what metric for
“diversity” you wish to use, and let’s Google for real data on which party is more diverse. Notwithstanding a little convention window dressing, I doubt it’s the GOP.
Andy – Who was the anti-abortion Dem. who spoke at the convention? I missed him/her. Did he/she speak about abortion? Mention it?
Here’s a start on the “diversity” comparison:
How many delegates support/oppose racial preference?
How many delegates support/oppose gun control?
How many delegates think attacking Iraq was right/wrong?
How many delegates support/oppose pre-emption?
How many delegates support/oppose school vouchers?
My strong hunch is that on each of these measures the Republicans would be considerably more diverse.
The Brad and Zell Show
Zell Miller, says Michael Crowley in Slate, has become a “cartoonish GOP partisan.” John Rosenberg, noting the proliferation of “fake” or “in name only” tags that have been attached to…
Yeah, John, but don’t forget: for people like Lazarus at least, REAL DIVERSITY is all about RACE (and perhaps a bit about ethnical background)
– they don’t give a rat’s behind for philosophical and ideological diversity.
I crossed over and voted for Vallas in the 2002 IL Primary, and so did a lot of pubbies, he only lost by 3% to Blowdry.
I should have voted for Poshard (D) in the 1998 general election, what does this say about me?
And via SouthDakotaPolitics on Daschle:
According to Wadhams, a letter went out to a large group of Republicans noting that if it wasn’t returned to the Daschle campaign, the letter holder would be listed as a Republican for Daschle.
As part of the “Republicans for Daschle” group, my campaign will be publicly releasing your name, along with thousands of other South Dakota Republicans who support me. If you do not wish to have your name on the public list, or do not recall being contacted about this group, please contact Kara Cody, my campaign’s Political Director, and she will remove your name from the public list.
John, go down to the floor of the GOP and ask:
How many delegates support prayer in public schools?
How many delegates support legal elective abortion?
How many delegates support any sort of civil status for same-sex couples?
How many delegates wish it were still Constitutional to enforce sodomy laws against homosexuals?
How many delegates support a ban on assault weapons? (Incidentally, I’m not sure this is a good idea myself.)
How many delegates think attacking Iraq was right/wrong? (Over 40% of the country wants troops removed ASAP.)
I’m pretty sure you’d find the answers far out of the mainstream.
And why is it that the culturally conservative black community is still voting Democratic? Are they stupid? Or have the clued in on the fact Trent Lott was more of an embarrassment than out-of-line?
Andy – I’m sure the delegates to BOTH conventions are far “outside the mainstream.” My point, however, is that I suspect on your list of questions, or any other list of controversial social issue questions, the Republicans (including delegates to the convention) are more diverse than the Democrats. That is, to pick only one example, I bet you’d find a much higher proportion of Republican delegates opposing prayer in the schools than of Democratic delegates supporting it. And so on….
The mainstream itself is out of the mainstream. That’s how you know that you’re awake and not dreaming.
If the mainstream media defines the mainstream for people too stupid to know better, who is to blame?