When Democrats Lean Right, They Lose: A History Lesson

[Q]

Published on Monday, July 19, 2004 by CommonDreams.org

When Democrats Lean Right, They Lose: A History Lesson

by Paul Rockwell

George Bush eats centrist Democrats for breakfast. Senator John Kerry is a centrist, and as Michael Moore puts it: "We cannot leave the 2004 election to the Democrats to screw it up."

Ever since the demise of the once-progressive Johnson administration in 1968, when a lawless war on Vietnam destroyed the hopeful war on poverty, centrist Democrats have blamed the misfortunes of the Democratic Party in national politics on excessive liberalism, on progressive politics that appear too radical for the general population. Centrists claim that only by moving the Party to the right, even to the point of co-opting nationalism and military postures of the Republicans, can Democrats regain the White House.

The centrist theory, so often repeated in media commentary, contradicts the historical record -- not only the record of three successive defeats in presidential elections from 1980 to 1988, when the party shifted to the right -- but the overall record of Democratic presidents from Roosevelt to Carter. Since 1932 Democratic presidential candidates have achieved five landslide victories, and all five landslides were created through progressive campaigns that identified the Democratic Party with movements for social reform. The four campaigns of Franklin Roosevelt and the landslide victory of Lyndon Johnson in 1964 were grand coalition campaigns. These great crusades did not dwell on the white middle-class. Nor did they fawn over lost Democrats. Instead they reached beyond the party establishment to the unemployed, to the poor, to the new, rising electorate of the times.

With only one telling exception, no Cold War Democratic candidate ever won a decisive majority of the popular vote. Truman got 49.5 percent in 1948; Kennedy got 49.9 percent in the squeaker of 1960. Carter got a bare majority over Ford in 1976, a result of public hostility over Watergate. The one candidate who did sweep the country was Lyndon Johnson, and he made support for civil rights central to his crusade for the Great Society. The great Democratic victories (Roosevelt and Johnson) were all progressive, highly ideological crusades against poverty and injustice.

History does not vindicate the viewpoint of the right-wing Democrats. The centrist theory is wrong, not only in terms of electoral results; it is also wrong in terms of those huge fiascos that brought down three Democratic presidents -- Truman, Johnson, and Carter. While fidelity of FDR to progressive causes kept him in the White House for four terms in a row, no Cold War Democratic president kept the White House beyond a single elected term. The policies and mistakes of Democrats in office set the conditions for subsequent elections. What did the presidents of one elected term -- Truman, Johnson, Carter -- do wrong in office? The answer to that question tends to discredit the centrist position. Every one-term Democratic president made right-wing errors that precipitated his own downfall and betrayed the liberal mandate that held the Democratic Party together. The fall of Truman in 1952, the humiliation of Lyndon Johnson in 1968, the defeat of Carter in 1980 -- great Democratic traumas -- were all direct results of right wing follies in office. --- http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0719-01.htm

[CaTeacher]

1. wonderful article.

now someone needs to get this to Kerry.

[Mike L]

37. This article is BS.

Clinton and Carter moved toward the middle. Dukakis, Mondale, McGovern and Humphrey did not. Gore lost to Shrub because he acted like a dork in the debates.

Middle America still decides Presidential elections, and it is still rather conservative. 57% of Americans think we should stay in Iraq until the situation stabilizes, even if it means additional casualties. 62% of Americans do not support gay marriages. 55% of Americans support Israel over Palestine. Given those numbers, a move by Kerry further to the left would be suicide in the general election.

[noiretextatique]

38. contrary to popular beliefs, public opinon is not what drives

politics...it's the other way around. the country is more "conservative" now because of years of being told how conservative it is. people voted for reagan and for bush, not because they were political geniuses or because they agreed with their rather nebulous positions, but because they both promised change. sure their notions were vague, but with pithy slogans that made people feel good about being selfish jerks...there you have it. lowered expectations, in a nutshell, is the problem democrats must address, and that's a lot harder than simply appealing to the basest of human and american instincts.

[WI_DEM]

2. true

I think part of the problem the democratic party faces is that they have lost their identity. It is like they don't stand for anything anymore. There are individual exceptions obviously, but by and large the party thinks to win they have to coop GOP ideas rather than try and find solutions of their own. Liberalism accomplished alot in this country. Much more than conservatism ever did. The democrats lost their way when they decided to go along with the GOP and make liberalism a dirty word.

[Old and In the Way]

6. I think the Democrats lost their way when the electorate started putting

Republicans in Congress. I'm sure the Democrats are at fault for allowing corporate media to influence the voters to vote against their best interests, though.

[Tweed]

3. Clinton?

Doesn't that throw a wrench in things or am I off?

[sangh0]

5. Clinto, a moderate won. Mondale & Dukakis, liberals, lost.

The author doesn't know his ass from his elbow when it comes to politics


And Carter wasn't too close to the Shah. The Shah was overthrown because Carter withdrew US support from the Shah.

[Tweed]

7. That's what I was thinking. Thank you for backing me up!

I don't like the fact that that's how it is. I'm more far left then center, but history is history and I thought the poster & author were ignoring it.

[Johnyawl]

9. exactly! and Johnson won big NOT because he ran as a liberal

but because he wrapped those liberal policies in the memory of the recently assasinated JFK.

There's so much spin in that article, the guy should be writting for O'Reilly.

[RichM]

11. Bull. The Shah was overthrown because of a massive popular uprising.

Carter did not withdraw any support, and in any case US actions had nothing whatever to do with the Iranian Revolution in the short term. (Longer term, there was a US effect, which however had nothing to do with Carter. Namely, the Shah was always hated in Iran because he was correctly seen as a US puppet, having been installed by a CIA coup in 1953.)

[sangh0]

12. Yeah, right

And Osama bin Laden hasn't killed anyone, right RichM?

Or have you figured that one out by now?

[RichM]

17. Let me make it clearer: I'm saying you are dead wrong about the history,

& that you have blabbered some bullshit about Iran which is completely false. When you don't know what you're talking about, it's better to refrain from talking.

[sangh0]

22. Is that why you don't have any argument?

and is that why you can only EXCLAIM that I am wrong, while demonstrating your inability to EXPLAIN the facts?

When you don't know what you're talking about, it's better to refrain from talking.

[CaTeacher]

36. The situation with the Shah was much more complicated

than anyone is acknowledging here. Iran is a country that I have spent quite a bit of time in (lived there for 2 years). My landlady is an Iranian.

I get the impression that the problem with the Shah was that he was making changes too quickly for the people--they were not comfortable with that.

The Persian people are generally VERY pro-western and even though they were uncomfortable their society changing so quickly under the Shah, many of them are extremely unhappy with life after the revolution. (In other words--both the talking points of the US right AND left are WRONG re Iran).

I personally think that someday there will be a very good and viable democracy in Iran, with women and all groups having a voice in participating.

[sangh0]

40. The article claims that Carter lost because he was too close to the Shah

Whether or not the situation was more complicated or not is not directly related to the claim the author of this piece made.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. Clinton won because of Perot.

In '96 he won because of booming economy and because the pugs ran a walking corpse with all the charisma of a bucket of cold oatmeal.

The Shah was overthrown because he was a rightwing dictator.

[sangh0]

23. Clinton, a moderate won and was re-elected

Mondale and Dukakis, both liberals, both lost.

The Shah was overthrown because he was a rightwing dictator.

So was Saddam and most of the Middle Eastern nations are led by right-wing dictators

[geek tragedy]

33. JFK also ran as a hawk on national security issues.

Which is what Kerry needs to do: Tough But Smart should be his theme.

[Shane_Fergessen]

42. Would you like to expand on that?

I know that's dogma in right-wing Reagan worship land but I'd love to see one piece of evidence to back that thesis up.

The real world evidence (things like arms shipments and such) don't back that up, but lets pretend that it did?

The Shah and the SAVAK were something that made both Bremer's junta or Saddam look like permisive regimes. Is what you are espousing a return to that sort of system?

[sangh0]

46. Why would I expand on your straw man?

If you're going to use propogandistic techniques, I'm the last one you should be asking for help

[jus_the_facts]

4. The Clinton Years....are proof......

....even when we DO WIN....we still lose...there is NO SUCH THING as bein' BIPARTISAN....learned THAT the HARD WAY haven't we? :eyes:

[library_max]

15. The Clinton years . . . the Bush years . . .

No preference? Really?

[jus_the_facts]

18. That is NOT what I said or meant......

....it's got nothin' at ALL to do with what I'd prefer...it's got everything to do with the REALITY of it! :eyes:

[library_max]

19. Well then, what did you mean? /nt

[jus_the_facts]

20. Give the RIGHT an INCH....and they take MILES AND MILES.....

.....regardless of WHO is in the WH...or haven't you been payin' attention?

[library_max]

25. I've been paying attention.

Politics has been drifting to the right in this country since Reagan, and it took a lurch in that direction since 9/11. The exremes of the Bush administration may have started the pendulum swinging back in the other direction. But this is the ebb and flow of American politics. To blame the Democrats because we're not getting everything we want right now is, at the very least, to demonstrate a very shallow understanding of practical politics.

[jus_the_facts]

30. Sorry...but....

....the entire process has become SHALLOW and IMPRACTICAL...it's been happening since FDR instituted THE NEW DEAL...the right has systematically used the MEDIA to it's advantage to brainwash the populace into IDIOCY and COMPLACENCY...by distroying EDUCATION and monopolized ALL of our consumerism addictions....all the while...DEMS have played RIGHT into their hands by playing bipartisan....it shouldn't be a GAME...it's life and death...and since we've allowd them to skirt the RULES and put their CRIMINAL asses in JAIL where they belong....then WE are just as GUILTY of where our *democracy* is TODAY....in the shitter! :hurts:

[Guaranteed]

8. What's the point of winning if, when we win,

we've got someone in the White House who refuses to represent our views?

[JohnKleeb]

10. has he won yet?

Kerry's not gonna agree with us on everything, Clinton didn't either, and many here love the man much. Let's see what a Kerry adminstration can do before we criticize it, if he makes good appointments like RFK Jr to the EPA, Elliott Spitzer to head the justice department, perhaps Gep to labor, and shows progressive leadership which I belive he can do. I think it's personally unfair to judge that a Kerry admin wouldnt be in tune with most of our values, because he hasnt even started office yet. Just my opinion.

[Kanary]

28. Y'know, John, there is one thing I wish you would face,

and be honest about.

All this reverence for Clinton......... it has been brought to light here over and over and over that Clinton sold out women and children who NEEDED WELFARE TO SURVIVE. Nobody knows what happened to them all, because it wasn't even important enough to the DEMs to track them. It's inevitable that many died because they had no way to survive.

Yet, no only does that NOT MATTER, (so what, they were deaths of poor women and children, not Iraqis!), but you and others continue with this mantra of "Kerry's not gonna agree with us on everything" (substitute Clinton, and whatever other DLC candidate you chose). You are doing like the RW, and throwing out talking points in order to make us submissive. You're using that phrase as a way to say "You're just being selfish...... you can't have *EVERYTHING*".

Listen to one thing, john, when the part of *EVERYTHING* that you're talking about has to do with the survival of human beings, that ONE PART OF EVERYTHING *is* *EVERYTHING* to the people involved.

I'm really fed up with this "selfish" mantra........ If it is now "SELFISH" for Dems to care about the survival of human beings, then we have deteriorated to the point that I really don't know that the party should even survive.

I'm sick to death of substituting the accusation of selfishness for common, human compassion and decency.

I'm waiting for you to say, John, that those women and children as just as important to you as your vaunted Kerry.

Kanary

[sangh0]

31. Suddenly, the Free Speech lady isn't so crazy about Free Speech

I really like how you imply that John has been dishonest merely because he likes Clinton

Y'know, John, there is one thing I wish you would face, and be honest about.

All this reverence for Clinton......... it has been brought to light here over and over and over that Clinton sold out women and children who NEEDED WELFARE TO SURVIVE

[Blue Wally]

34. So

Your solution is that we make another election like 1972 where we got blown out 49-2 in states won (McGovern got MA and DC) running against a non-charismatic slug like Nixon? We went left big time that year and lost big time. Fortunately, the Democratic Senate and House candidates put a lot of distance between themselves and McGovern's crowd and we didn't lose any ground in Congress.

[Kanary]

39. Naw, the solution is to kill all the poor folk and be done with it.

:crazy:

But, thanks for caring......

[sangh0]

47. Translation: "I don't know of a solution...

I'm just here to complain"

[library_max]

14. So, wait - you think Kerry will be no different than Bush?

Whew. What color is the sky in your world?

[Nadienne]

13. Republicans win on "moral issues".

(At least in my neck of the woods.)

Moral issues, to me, are like choosing someone for a best friend because their favorite food is your favorite food.

Of utmost more importance - to me, and I think for everyone, whether they know it or not - is giving We the People power over the corporations that wreck our economy and environment.

When the Democrats stood with the working class, they succeeded.

[CO Liberal]

21. Yep - Zell Miller Leans Right, and He's a BIG Loser!!!!

:-)

[DemBones DemBones]

24. I'd just point out that Lyndon Johnson's election is worth

a second look. He did indeed win by a landslide in 1964 but I'd say it was despite his progressive policies. Not everyone was pleased with LBJ about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which I remember taking effect on July 4, 1964. Blacks celebrated, certainly, but not all whites did. Yet Johnson won by a landslide in November. Aside from the black vote, what caused that? I don't know that one single factor accounted for the victory but many people were fearful of what Barry Goldwater, the conservative GOP candidate, would do in office. Voters were fearful, in particular, that he'd use nuclear weapons in the Viet Nam "conflict", which was building up in 1964. (The Gulf of Tonkin came, if I recall correctly, early in 1966, with LBJ then "escalating" our involvement, putting more troops in.)

I suggest it might be correct to say that LBJ's landslide was due to the voters opposing a hard right turn with Goldwater. Since then, of course, the right has changed its strategy and masqueraded as the party of family values. Ironically, Goldwater, though wrong on some issues, was, I think, a decent enough man and wouldn't have engaged in the fakery that has become the GOP norm. I can't remember details now, but am pretty sure that as an old man he opposed the neoconservatives' imperialistic agenda. Being an old-style conservative, he believed in small government and individual freedom, probably would sound like a libertarian today.

Another point that I think is very important is that Johnson sponsoring the Civil Rights Act and helping to enact Medicare and Medicaid was not something people expected of him. In 1960 he was the conservative (moderate at best) Texas senator running against the liberal Massachusetts senator in the primaries. Lyndon Johnson was, in fact, known as "the Senator from Brown & Root." I guess that was the last old-fashioned Democratic convention, with floor fights and back room meetings before JFK won the nomination and named LBJ as his running mate. I remember LBJ walking around on the convention floor wearing a cowboy hat, talking with people, obviously a politician who knew how to make deals. He was famous for his power in the Senate.

When JFK was killed, people expected Johnson to move to the center-right but he didn't. Think of that and you realize we can't know what Kerry will do in office, though I'd expect him to move more left than right. I do worry that Iraq might become his Viet Nam as president (remember LBJ inherited that war from Kennedy and that Eisenhower had sent the first "advisors" into Southeast Asia.) Such a development would be most ironic, to say the least. But I feel sure that Kerry is intelligent and aware enough to see the potential trap that Iraq is and try to find a way out of it. Bottom line, we have a better chance with Kerry as president than with Bush* occupying the office another four years and not having to worry about being elected to a third term. We must support Kerry. If we have reservations about Kerry, it may help to remember LBJ, the unlikely progressive.

I'm sure someone will correct me if my memory is faulty on any of this. ;-)
It's history that I lived, not that I read, and there are undoubtedly factors and events I've left out.

[JohnKleeb]

26. I didnt know people expected Johnson to turn right wing

but he in reality became the most progressive president since the death of FDR. Another irony is that people expect Kerry to be real moderate though his record says otherwise, I expect him to turn left. Yes good point about LBJ, he was expected to be quite conservative and look what he did domestically, Vietnam ruined him but domestically he was stellar and theres no denying htat.

[Tweed]

27. Wonderful post

Very insightful and a great history lesson. If Kerry wins, it will be interesting indeed to see how Iraw develops. I had not thought of Kerry getting pinned for Iraq in the history books, but when was the last time someone blamed Kennedy for Vietnam? It was Kennedy and McNammara that went to war. The two don't line up excatly, Bush & company are certainly more to blame for Iraq, but it's an interesting thought for the future.

[geek tragedy]

32. Have you seen Fog of War?

Kennedy was on his way out of Vietnam. It was LBJ who escalated the hell out of it.

[DemBones DemBones]

41. Is there proof JFK would have gotten out of Nam?

I'm not sure it can be proved, though many have said it.

I came to oppose Johnson for his escalation of the war but I see him as being sucked into continuing and escalating it by the military and CIA. It benefited his friends at Brown & Root but he was a complex person since he also supported the Civil Rights Act, knowing it would give the GOP the South for a generation.

[geek tragedy]

43. There's audio tape of JFK and McNamara discussing plans to get out

shortly before JFK's assassination. He had a radically attitude than LBJ

[Tweed]

45. Yeah I did see Fog of War actually

I knew nothing about McNamara beforehand.

[DemBones DemBones]

44. I'm also concerned that Kerry might be

sucked into continuing and escalating the war in Iraq (and/or Afghanistan) while believing he's doing the right thing. I think that's what happened to LBJ, though I came to oppose him strongly and was fearful of what his VP, Hubert Humphrey, might do as president if he were elected in 1968 (Johnson didn't run that year, though he could have.) I feel confident that Kerry's aware of the danger but it still is a danger. (The danger of Bush* in office is far greater, of course. And of course the GOP will try to blame Iraq on Presidents Kerry and Clinton. Their idea of responsible behavior is holding someone else responsible for their behavior. I don't know how older Republicans can stand what their party has become.)

Humphrey was a strong liberal and Johnson had been a domestically liberal president, as had Kennedy. American involvement in the war in Viet Nam was begun by the Republican Eisenhower and went through its final escalations, including sending troops into Cambodia and Laos, under the Republican Nixon. Yet responsibility is hung mostly on LBJ, a Democrat, and lost Humphrey the 1968 election against Nixon. George Wallace was the third party spoiler and Nixon claimed to have a "secret plan" to end the war. But what's the protest chant that's remembered? "Hey, Hey, LBJ, How many kids did you kill today."

DId LBJ know that the Gulf of Tonkin "attack" was bogus? Or was he duped by the CIA and Joint Chiefs into thinking he had to do this "to prevent the spread of communism throughout Asia"? We were still afraid of the Red Menace back then: China, USSR, and Cuba. There were only, what, five years between Bay of Pigs and Gulf of Tonkin?

[genius]

29. I nominated this for the homepage

[Nederland]

35. The big flaw in this

is the fact that LBJ won in a landslide 40 years ago. To think that the country hasn't changed since then is naive.