FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Democrats in 2004

 

A number of factors appear to be coming together–a perfect political storm if you will–to suggest that the 2004 elections could be a watershed in American politics instead of the Democratic Waterloo many were anticipating only six months ago.

First of all, the growing cynicism about and disinterest in politics on the part of the majority of American citizens appears to be convincing political strategists in both parties that the Clintonian strategy of seeking out and winning over the undecided voter is a waste of time and money. Since so few of these swing or so-called “independent” voters will vote anyway, since they are so easily swayed back and forth in their choices, and since winning them involves a huge risk of alienating otherwise assured partisan voters, it is and has always been a foolish strategy.

This raises the possibility of a more ideologically driven campaign, with both parties appealing to what is left of their principles in an effort to get their more ardent supporters active in the campaign and to the voting both on election day.

Bad news that for the Democratic Leadership Council and for Republicans in Democratic clothing like Joe Lieberman.

I’m not deluding myself that the Democratic Party will suddenly become the party of FDR in ’36, but it and Democratic candidates for national office clearly will have to give those remaining 13 million trade union members, along with the nation’s black and Hispanic voters, its low-wage hamburger flippers, and its idealistic students, a reason to campaign and to vote.

Those fabled soccer moms of the 2000 campaign will not be courted so ardently this time around. In this campaign, they may simply have to decide for themselves whether abortion rights, adequate school funding and clean air trump feel good images of family men bussing their wives in public or talking about the need for morality in government.

Second, the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld all-war-all-the-time strategy of maintaining Americans in a state of jingoistic fervor, while keeping everyone on edge with color-coded terror alerts, appears to have backfired. Yellow and orange Homeland Security alerts don’t have everyone jumping for the duct tape and plastic any more. And meanwhile, things are falling apart rapidly in both Afghanistan and Iraq. A few months ago, if Iraqi guerrillas had managed to pull off a Lebanon-style mass bombing of American troops, a pumped-up American public probably would have demanded a massive infusion of more heavily armed troops to crush the bastards. Now, after months of quagmire-like occupation, with Iraq no better off than it was at the end of the American assault on Baghdad, with American GI’s getting picked off at a rate of about one per day, such a military disaster would probably, Tet-like, lead to popular demands for the U.S. to simply pull out of Iraq, leaving the country in complete chaos.

The Bush administration is desperate to avoid going into the 2004 election with a messy Iraq occupation still on its hands, but there is probably no way out at this point. The attacks on the U.N. compound and the latest horrific mosque bombing have pretty much obliterated any chance that other countries–already angry at U.S. unilateralism–will step in to help with the occupation (does anybody seriously believe that it was the U.S. that decided, after that latter blast, to delay the planned takeover of occupation duties in Najaf by Polish troops? ). At the same time, it has become politically impossible at this point for the Pentagon to send in more U.S. troops–something it might have gotten away with two months ago but which now would be portrayed as a replay of Vietnam.

Neither can Bush adopt the Nixonian approach of declaring victory and pulling out. The Nixon “secret plan” for ending the war in Vietnam, recall, was to hand the war over to the South Vietnamese government and army, providing it with sufficient firepower to allow it to hold off the inevitable Communist victory long enough to either get him through his term or to allow him to lay the blame for the “loss” of South Vietnam on Saigon.

But Iraq has no government or army to hand things over to, and the likelihood that its feuding tribes and religious sects could be cobbled together into something that could pass for a government at least through next November, or that the semblance of a puppet army could be created that wouldn’t simply fuel further chaos, civil strife and attacks on U.S. troops, is next to nil.

My guess is that Karl Rove is probably kicking himself for that hubristic staging of a Bush carrier landing. If anyone ends up using it in campaign commercials, it will probably be the eventual Democratic presidential candidate. My suggestion is for a “Mr. Bill”-style commercial featuring the KB Toys Bush flight-suited action figure, mocking his declaration that “Major conflict” in Iraq is over. This would capitalize on the new penchant, among pundits, to suggest that we need to have grownups in charge in Washington, instead of the adolescents who are running things these days.

The economy too, is likely to be in sorry shape during this campaign. Anyone who thinks that corporate America is going to start investing, with the prospect of those huge budget deficits on out to the horizon, with over 6 percent of Americans unemployed, and with everyone extended to the limits on their credit, is simply delusional. One in five Americans has been laid off at some point in the last two years, which means that just about everyone knows or has relatives who have been laid off, and that everyone is worried about their own job security. That’s hardly fertile ground for an economic boom.

The best that Republicans can hope for is perhaps a stock market rebound, but that won’t help that Democratic base or lowly wage-earners to which it appears the party will now be turning.

Of course, the Democratic Party and its presidential candidates have shown an uncanny ability to do the wrong thing in recent years. It’s still possible that Democratic candidates, whose lust for corporate affection resembles Clinton’s insatiable and self-destructive appetite for young women, could adopt the losing strategy of trying to appeal yet again to Republican voters. Candidate Howard Dean, for example, whose basic position on most economic issues are close to Lieberman’s, could end up campaigning after the primaries like a centrist and losing those crucial union and minority voters.

If whoever wins that nomination does decide to appeal to the party’s traditional base this year, however, and goes after Bush and Republican congressional candidates on the key issues of the war, the economy and the massive tax breaks for the rich and corporate America, November 2004 could bring dramatic changes.

Dave Lindorff is the author of Killing Time: an Investigation into the Death Row Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal. A collection of Lindorff’s stories can be found here: http://www.nwuphilly.org/dave.html

 

More articles by:

Dave Lindorff is a founding member of ThisCantBeHappening!, an online newspaper collective, and is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press).

Weekend Edition
August 17, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Daniel Wolff
The Aretha Dialogue
Nick Pemberton
Donald Trump and the Rise of Patriotism 
Joseph Natoli
First Amendment Rights and the Court of Popular Opinion
Andrew Levine
Midterms 2018: What’s There to Hope For?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Running Out of Fools
Ajamu Baraka
Opposing Bipartisan Warmongering is Defending Human Rights of the Poor and Working Class
Paul Street
Corporate Media: the Enemy of the People
David Macaray
Trump and the Sex Tape
CJ Hopkins
Where Have All the Nazis Gone?
Daniel Falcone
The Future of NATO: an Interview With Richard Falk
Robert Hunziker
Hothouse Earth
Cesar Chelala
The Historic Responsibility of the Catholic Church
Ron Jacobs
The Barbarism of US Immigration Policy
Kenneth Surin
In Shanghai
William Camacaro - Frederick B. Mills
The Military Option Against Venezuela in the “Year of the Americas”
Nancy Kurshan
The Whole World Was Watching: Chicago ’68, Revisited
Robert Fantina
Yemeni and Palestinian Children
Alexandra Isfahani-Hammond
Orcas and Other-Than-Human Grief
Shoshana Fine – Thomas Lindemann
Migrants Deaths: European Democracies and the Right to Not Protect?
Paul Edwards
Totally Irrusianal
Thomas Knapp
Murphy’s Law: Big Tech Must Serve as Censorship Subcontractors
Mark Ashwill
More Demons Unleashed After Fulbright University Vietnam Official Drops Rhetorical Bombshells
Ralph Nader
Going Fundamental Eludes Congressional Progressives
Hans-Armin Ohlmann
My Longest Day: How World War II Ended for My Family
Matthew Funke
The Nordic Countries Aren’t Socialist
Daniel Warner
Tiger Woods, Donald Trump and Crime and Punishment
Dave Lindorff
Mainstream Media Hypocrisy on Display
Jeff Cohen
Democrats Gather in Chicago: Elite Party or Party of the People?
Victor Grossman
Stand Up With New Hope in Germany?
Christopher Brauchli
A Family Affair
Jill Richardson
Profiting From Poison
Patrick Bobilin
Moving the Margins
Alison Barros
Dear White American
Celia Bottger
If Ireland Can Reject Fossil Fuels, Your Town Can Too
Ian Scott Horst
Less Voting, More Revolution
Peter Certo
Trump Snubbed McCain, Then the Media Snubbed the Rest of Us
Dan Ritzman
Drilling ANWR: One of Our Last Links to the Wild World is in Danger
Brandon Do
The World and Palestine, Palestine and the World
Chris Wright
An Updated and Improved Marxism
Daryan Rezazad
Iran and the Doomsday Machine
Patrick Bond
Africa’s Pioneering Marxist Political Economist, Samir Amin (1931-2018)
Louis Proyect
Memoir From the Underground
Binoy Kampmark
Meaningless Titles and Liveable Cities: Melbourne Loses to Vienna
Andrew Stewart
Blackkklansman: Spike Lee Delivers a Masterpiece
Elizabeth Lennard
Alan Chadwick in the Budding Grove: Story Summary for a Documentary Film
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail