The Death Of The Democratic Party - "As We Know It"

In the Washington Post yesterday was an article hidden on page A-07. The Title? "Report Warns Democrats Not to Tilt Too Far Left" and it underscores the "quagmire" the Democrats find themselves in. And a real quagmire it is too as opposed to what Democrats call the Iraq war or any other conflict that they didn't start (wonder how many of the supporters of Clintons Bosnia intervention are calling that a quagmire?).

Since 1994 when the Republicans in general, and Newt Gingrich in particular pushed the "Contract With America" the Democrats have been a shrinking minority with a couple of very tiny exceptions that didn't last any longer than a snowball in a blast furnace so to speak. The Republicans have taken the US House of Representatives, The US Senate, The White House, The vast majority of governorships and an increasing influence in state legislatures. In fact, the so called redstate/bluestate division only underscores the increasing Republican majority.

None of this is occurring in a vacuum. The Democratic Party is now made up of two parts. The "base" and everyone else in the party. The so-called base is inhabited by folk that are typically regulars of The Daily Kos, MoveOn.org, the Democratic Underground and the fans of George Soros and others of a similar mindset. This has caused a profound effect on the Democratic Party, that the party hasn't yet come to grips with; namely that in order to get a presidential nomination from the party, the potential candidate has to run to the left, precisely what the above mentioned article warns against.

In fact, running to the left to secure the nomination then to the right for elect-ability is precisely the problem for the democrats. What is remembered by the electorate is how far to the left the party was and the "excitement" caused by the vying candidates. Remember Dr. Dean? He "excited" the base with his anti-war rhetoric, they climbed aboard but they couldn't sustain the momentum against a party determined to nominate someone "elect-able." In their collective wisdom that meant ABD (Anyone But Dean). But they also went with John F. ("Do You Know Who I am?") Kerry who proved to be a worse candidate than Al Gore (hard to believe at the time). Kerry's attempt was probably doomed to failure from the start because his handlers had no real winning strategy other than "keep him away from the press" and the proof of that will be the upcoming film "Inside The Bubble." Said Steve Rosenbaum, director of the film

I'm a lifelong Democrat and I supported Kerry. I think people will see the film as fair, and maybe searing."

Democrats have a long and proud history of leadership (Kennedy, Truman, Roosevelt) and governance. But the far left was never a significant part of that until recent decades. Since "The Great Society" and "A national Malaise�, the left has misread and misled the American People. The exception to that was the triangulation tactics of Bill Clinton who famously signed the death warrant for a "so called mentally retarded man, Ricky Ray Rector" and having a Sista Soulja moment. Clinton was elected twice (perhaps America had a brain burp?) via the same triangulation tactics... Talking left to Democrats but talking right to the electorate and adopting Republican programs. (hence the "As We Know It" part of the title of this post)

Is this really the pending death of the Democratic Party? Probably not, but when mainstream media begin publishing (even if they did try to hide it on page A-7) "physicians" warnings, can the death certificate be far behind?

I sincerely hope not. I'd love to see the left shown the door by the Democrats. Surely they (the Democrats) have to know that the left, as currently constituted, has run out of ideas. The anger and hostility that the left spews in the above mentioned internet sites is vexing to read, but it has to be more vexing to live.

According to the article:

Democrats must "admit that they cannot simply grow themselves out of their electoral dilemmas," wrote William A. Galston and Elaine C. Kamarck, in a report released yesterday. "The groups that were supposed to constitute the new Democratic majority in 2004 simply failed to materialize in sufficient number to overcome the right-center coalition of the Republican Party."

Since Kerry's defeat, some Democrats have urged that the party adopt a political strategy more like one pursued by Bush and his senior adviser, Karl Rove -- which emphasized robust turnout of the party base rather than relentless, Clinton-style tending to "swing voters."

But Galston and Kamarck, both of whom served in the Clinton White House, said there are simply not enough left-leaning voters to make this a workable strategy. In one of their more potentially controversial findings, the authors argue that the rising numbers and influence of well-educated, socially liberal voters in the Democratic Party are pulling the party further from most Americans.

On defense and social issues, "liberals espouse views diverging not only from those of other Democrats, but from Americans as a whole. To the extent that liberals now constitute both the largest bloc within the Democratic coalition and the public face of the party, Democratic candidates for national office will be running uphill."