America’s anti-liberal myth: Why Dems learned the wrong lesson from 1984

[DonViejo]

After Walter Mondale got crushed by Reagan, pundits made a big mistake. And the country's never been the same since

MIKE CONRAD

Your calendar says it’s 2015, but it’s always 1984 in mind of the New Dems. These are the economically conservative Democrats that include centrists like the old Democratic Leadership Council, Third Way and financial sector-centric elected Democrats (plus Robert Rubin, the Rubin-launched Hamilton Project and associated advisers on the policy side). As always, they are again invoking 1984 to conjure images of a grave danger to Democrats’ ability to win elections in the form of ascendant progressive populism.

The New Dems’ scare story goes something like this: In 1984 Walter Mondale lost 49 states because he ran as a Super Liberal. Democrats would have kept losing if the New Dems had not formed to take control of and steer the party. In 1992 Bill Clinton ran as Centrist Man and Democrats started winning elections again. Now, economic progressives who prioritize other things before Wall Street’s approval are causing trouble. If these progressives Democrats represent the party it will again be banished to the political wilderness and forced to relearn the lesson of the ’80s and ’90s.

This premise is not only wrongheaded, in important ways it’s backwards. The temptation not to relitigate something that is, after all, over 30 years in the past is obviated by 1984’s continued role as the go-to cudgel against progressive Democrats. The New Dems’ reliance on the ’84 cautionary tale is illustrative of an under-appreciated dynamic in the struggle between the progressive/populist coalition and the Wall Street wing: there never really was a big, public “fight for the soul of the party” in the 80’s and 90’s. While Bill de Blasio’s election in New York and Rahm Emanuel’s unexpected struggle in Chicago, along with the prominence of Elizabeth Warren, may seem like a lot of gained ground in short time, it’s not Too Much Too Soon. It’s long overdue.

Wall Street Dems have always been vulnerable to confrontation but they’ve had the good fortune to largely avoid it. As a latent opposing coalition rallied through the demonstration effects of visible progressive populists is rising to challenge the New Dems they’re trying to tap into longstanding progressive self-doubt, warning Democrats who basically agree with the progressives that acting on their conviction would ultimately do harm to causes they care about. Many of the lingering doubts among progressives about the present moment, while understandable, are to a large degree a product of a conventional wisdom forged in the 80’s that was and is mostly baseless. As Democratic losses demoralized the party faithful, the New Dems’ shifted from trying to sell their agenda on the merits to claiming that their self-proclaimed “centrism” was the only way a Democrat could hope to win. (They were fond of stating the obvious truth that a candidate can’t do too much to advance anything good or help stop anything awful, unless they can first get elected — as if it was some kind of discussion-ender that proved their claim that only New Dems could win.) Unfortunately, their assertions were all too rarely challenged and quickly gained traction, prominence and, finally, conventional wisdom status. Challenging them now may be late but better late than never.

Forever 1984

James Carville has pleaded with Democrats to “forget about 1984.” If more progressives and Dems cross-examine the 1984 story, the New Dems are going to wish they had taken Carville’s advice. A more realistic accounting of 1984 than the prevailing story involves the three people who have probably done the most to drag the Democratic Party to the right (and Wall Street’s idea of the “center”): Al From (the DLC’s founding ideologue), William Galston (the DLC and Third Way) and the New Dems’ economic policy guru Robert Rubin. From and Galston routinely portray 1984 as a harsh truth Democrats had to reckon with or face electoral irrelevancy.

more
http://www.salon.com/2015/03/14/americas_anti_liberal_myth_why_dems_learned_the_wrong_lesson_from_1984/

[grasswire]

1. important story nt

[obxhead]

2. Off to the greatest.

Pay attention Clinton fans.

[annabanana]

3. kickers. . . .n/t

[brooklynite]

4. And who's fault is this?

DLC advocated for policies it believed would bring political success. Progressives do the same thing. But the ultimate decision was made by the Democratic Electorate. Voters in 1992 also had a choice of traditional liberals Jerry Brown and Paul Tsongas and fiery populist Tom Harkin: none made convincing arguments. Arguing that "we didn't have a choice" or "they prevented (candidate of your choice) from being heard" is an incredibly convenient claim that protects you from having to do the always hard work of getting someone elected.

[craigmatic]

8. Sounds like the liberals split the vote in 1992 and Clinton was everyone's second choice.

[blkmusclmachine]

5. "Learning the wrong lesson" is par for the course with our elected DEMS. I wonder WHY?!?!

[geek tragedy]

6. The real lesson is that demographics have changed a lot since 1984.

If Obama had Michael Dukakis's electorate, he would have lost to McCain by almost as much as Dukakis lost to Bush by.

I think people underestimate just how rightwing this country was 30 years ago.

[craigmatic]

7. Politics is a cycle. It's about "new" vs "old" ideas. In the 80's the old idea was liberalism so

people switched to the republicans but now the old ideas are the ones associated with reagan. People in my age group 25-35 haven't seen a full throated liberal president in our life times. We're tired of the same old third way from the dems and sic of the ineffective nutjob shit from the repukes. A serious liberal can win national elections now if they have the right message. Any dem could've won in 2008 and been as left wing as they possibly could once in office and the public would've accepted it.

[appalachiablue]

9. Interesting to hear your views, esp. that a serious liberal could win nationally with the right msg.

& that you're tired of 3rd way Dems. & RW nuts- same here. I can't think of any strong liberals much anymore, only on the state level like Merkley, Franken, Jerry Brown maybe, Sherrod Brown. They're scarce as hen's teeth; that's what much of this article's about, 30 years direction toward corporate Dems. like Hillary, Rahm, Corey Booker, etc.

DNC hasn't been raising young liberals for the Dem. Party in the last few decades as the gap, ages 35-60 for reps. really shows, except the promising Castros, some others. I sense fatigue, job & money worries & less time & enthusiasm for a stagnant, dysfunctional political system other than Eliz. Warren & Bernie Sanders who are inspirational but whose chances are slim unfortunately. Hope I'm wrong.
Good you have a Ted Kennedy avatar; saw him once at a DC conference where his son Edw. Jr. was speaking. Was researching TK's debates & speeches just today.