Hillary's Dilemma is the Nation's Dilemma: Part 3
Bill Clinton helped stoke the fires of extreme control of the parties. When the Republicans took control of both houses of Congress in 1994, Clinton, under the direction of Dick Morris, established a policy better known as triangulation. He would actively encourage both sides of an issue to extreme positions, then stake out the middle ground for himself. It worked for him. Unfortunately, when Clinton left office, the parties had polarized to the point where the vitritude between the Republican right and the Democratic left has reached new heights.
Notwithstanding the outcome of the 2006 mid-term election cycle, America faces a daunting task in choosing the next President. Of the two parties, the Republicans are probably in a better position to deal with issues of party doctrine. There is no clear far right front runner. The three most attractive candidates are John McCain, Rudi Giuliani, and Mitt Romney. All three of these individuals are center right, rather than far right. That's not to say that a full blown conservative couldn't emerge, but it is doubtful.
The Republican Party has quietly taken up the mantle of the "big tent philosophy" heretofor associated with the Democrats. While the extreme branches of the party may attempt litmus test tactics, the fear of the far left has made the Republicans more likely to compromise. The result is that the three leading candidates for the Presidential nomination have more liberal views on gay rights, abortion and gun control.
The Republican Party, by its aggressive policy of appointing women and minorities to high positions of power, has also actively sought middle class blacks and Hispanics to join up, and have succeeded, albeit a small success. I would not be surprised to see them field a conservative black Vice Presidential candidate.
The Democrats are another story. As a party, its southern base is gone. Unions, another source of party strength, have had declining membership for years as the nation's economy changed from manufacturing to technology and information. Small businesses are the backbone and largest employers in the American economy, and those folks become conservative real fast. The Dems have become a party made up of a variety of special interest groups whose commonality is found in a peculiar view of the United States' role in the world, and remnants of the social and economic justice crowd from the 1960's. Feminists, environmentalists, those seeking abortion on demand no matter what, gay activists, those opposed to world financial systems (which is interesting as these same folks support a world court and a powerful United Nations), drug use liberalization folks, and old line racial equality groups, labor unions, the anti-gun lobby, the peace at any cost folks, and those favoring a radical re-distribution of wealth in the United States, these are the people who are running the party.
Each of the issues supported by these sub-groups are topics of legitimate points of discussion, and worthy of attention. However, within the Democratic Party structure itself, the ideology associated with them leaves little, if any room, for disagreement. That leaves the middle of the road Democrats vulnerable to either being marginalized or picked off by the Republicans. Example: how the Democratic Party treated Joe Lieberman. Follow the party line, 100%, or we will not support you.
If the Dems win the House of Representatives as a result of the Iraq issue, there has already been some indication that the few moderate Democrats that are left may buck from electing Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the House. The Dems either find a more moderate choice, or they may vote for a Republican speaker. You have seen some of this in this election with the disappearance of Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic Party. He has been under wraps, nowhere to be seen these past few weeks.
All of this bodes badly for Hillary in 2008, and ultimately our nation. The issue is simply how dogmatic the Democratic leadership, under Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean, is going to be. If it applies a litmus test to Hillary Clinton as it did to Joe Lieberman, the Democratic Party will run the risk of a schism, and move the Democratic Party so far to the left that it may implode. I would never vote for Hillary Clinton as I am an avowed Goldwater Republican, but I believe that she is among the best the Democratic Party has to offer. I really want to hear what she has to say without her being concerned about the left wing of her party chastising her into oblivion if she fails on one of their pet issues. The same would hold true for the Republican Party if the situation were reversed, and for awhile back in 1994, it was. No party can win a general election only appealing to the radical elements of its base.
Perhaps it is time to re-evaluate the primary system, and re-examine the role of the smoke filled room. At the end of the day, the goal of any political party is to win elections. If there is further polarization between the parties, this country may be finally ripe for the development of a third party, for the middle, and I am not so sure that is a good thing.
Notwithstanding the outcome of the 2006 mid-term election cycle, America faces a daunting task in choosing the next President. Of the two parties, the Republicans are probably in a better position to deal with issues of party doctrine. There is no clear far right front runner. The three most attractive candidates are John McCain, Rudi Giuliani, and Mitt Romney. All three of these individuals are center right, rather than far right. That's not to say that a full blown conservative couldn't emerge, but it is doubtful.
The Republican Party has quietly taken up the mantle of the "big tent philosophy" heretofor associated with the Democrats. While the extreme branches of the party may attempt litmus test tactics, the fear of the far left has made the Republicans more likely to compromise. The result is that the three leading candidates for the Presidential nomination have more liberal views on gay rights, abortion and gun control.
The Republican Party, by its aggressive policy of appointing women and minorities to high positions of power, has also actively sought middle class blacks and Hispanics to join up, and have succeeded, albeit a small success. I would not be surprised to see them field a conservative black Vice Presidential candidate.
The Democrats are another story. As a party, its southern base is gone. Unions, another source of party strength, have had declining membership for years as the nation's economy changed from manufacturing to technology and information. Small businesses are the backbone and largest employers in the American economy, and those folks become conservative real fast. The Dems have become a party made up of a variety of special interest groups whose commonality is found in a peculiar view of the United States' role in the world, and remnants of the social and economic justice crowd from the 1960's. Feminists, environmentalists, those seeking abortion on demand no matter what, gay activists, those opposed to world financial systems (which is interesting as these same folks support a world court and a powerful United Nations), drug use liberalization folks, and old line racial equality groups, labor unions, the anti-gun lobby, the peace at any cost folks, and those favoring a radical re-distribution of wealth in the United States, these are the people who are running the party.
Each of the issues supported by these sub-groups are topics of legitimate points of discussion, and worthy of attention. However, within the Democratic Party structure itself, the ideology associated with them leaves little, if any room, for disagreement. That leaves the middle of the road Democrats vulnerable to either being marginalized or picked off by the Republicans. Example: how the Democratic Party treated Joe Lieberman. Follow the party line, 100%, or we will not support you.
If the Dems win the House of Representatives as a result of the Iraq issue, there has already been some indication that the few moderate Democrats that are left may buck from electing Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the House. The Dems either find a more moderate choice, or they may vote for a Republican speaker. You have seen some of this in this election with the disappearance of Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic Party. He has been under wraps, nowhere to be seen these past few weeks.
All of this bodes badly for Hillary in 2008, and ultimately our nation. The issue is simply how dogmatic the Democratic leadership, under Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean, is going to be. If it applies a litmus test to Hillary Clinton as it did to Joe Lieberman, the Democratic Party will run the risk of a schism, and move the Democratic Party so far to the left that it may implode. I would never vote for Hillary Clinton as I am an avowed Goldwater Republican, but I believe that she is among the best the Democratic Party has to offer. I really want to hear what she has to say without her being concerned about the left wing of her party chastising her into oblivion if she fails on one of their pet issues. The same would hold true for the Republican Party if the situation were reversed, and for awhile back in 1994, it was. No party can win a general election only appealing to the radical elements of its base.
Perhaps it is time to re-evaluate the primary system, and re-examine the role of the smoke filled room. At the end of the day, the goal of any political party is to win elections. If there is further polarization between the parties, this country may be finally ripe for the development of a third party, for the middle, and I am not so sure that is a good thing.
Comments