The Split in the Democratic Party
I don't really doubt that there is now a split in the Democratic Party, between the Clinton faction on the one hand, now occupying many important positions in the party, and the Gore-Dean faction, recently united by Gore's endorsement of Dean.
I simply doubt that the split is really ideological, i.e. that Dean is too far to the left for the Clintons (or too far to the left to win), Gore is slipping to the left, etc.
(Update: This seems to be the view of Joe Lieberman, formerly Gore's running mate, and the candidate who is most hurt by Gore's endorsement of Dean. Link via Josh Marshall. William Safire also emphasizes that Hillary has been consistently (somewhat surprisingly) hawkish on the war, as Democrats go, and she represents Bill Clinton's "third way" against Dean's left-leaning or anti-middle class stances.)
(Update: I think Dean, like Bill Clinton, deserves to be known for ideological flexibility. Mickey Kaus, as usual, is cogent and amusing on this. (Scroll down to Wednesday, Dec. 10--An Iraq Flip Too? and Flip-Flop Flap). My favourite lines: "[because of a flip-flop on Iraq] There's the character issue ... as well as the issue of Dean's attitude toward potential wars down the road--even if, as usual, the residual ambiguity and flip-floppery in his position helps him by making him seem potentially moderate.")
(Another Kaus line: "Howard Dean is a 'fine centrist' governor who has 'flip-flopped' and moved to the orthodox left on trade, education, entitlements, and affirmative action, according to the Democratic Leadership Council [the "centrist" organization that brought Clinton to national attention]. This rightly troubles the DLC. But does that make Dean worse than, say, a politician who takes orthodox left positions on trade, education, entitlements and affirmative action without ever having been a centrist at all? Better to have flopped than never to have flipped! There's at least some hope with Dean that he'll revert back to his old self.")
My suspicion is that the Clintons decided Gore could have won in 2000, and he blew it.
All he had to do was win his home state of Tennessee, and he wouldn't have needed Florida. He failed. He could have mounted a better strategy for the re-count in Florida. He failed again. (Mickey Kaus, a Democrat, has argued consistently that Gore and his people did not ask for the right counts, early enough). Shortly after the election, Gore supporters were tossed from senior positions in the party, and Clinton people were installed.
That's why I like this story about an alleged conversation on the day of Bush 43's inauguration. Unfortunately, it comes from Maureen Dowd, who may not be a model of fact-checking. Josh Marshall doubted it as he reported it.
"At W.'s inauguration, as Bill Clinton and Al Gore walked down the stairs, Bill stopped at James Baker's row. 'You were good in Florida, man, damn good,' Elvis told the Velvet Hammer. Gesturing toward Mr. Gore, he went on: 'But if this [epithet] would've listened to me and put me out on the trail, you'd of never had the chance to be good.'"
The "effectual truth" of the story is that Clinton and Baker would recognize each other as effective, focussed operators, who know where the bodies are buried because they bloody well buried them. (I don't mean this so literally that I am lost in the weirder conspiracy theories). And they would recognize Gore as ... not one of those. Gore came across as a gormless candidate who lost a race he should have won. Come to think of it, so did W.
Although Democrats may not want to admit it, they are already thinking more about 2008 than 2004. Bush 43 will have huge advantages going into 2004. In 2008, it will be much more wide open. It is difficult to think of a promising Republican other than Jeb Bush. On the Democratic side, it may be Hillary vs. Al.
|
