More Democratic fratricide this week . . . .
Celeste Fremon at Huffington Post reports on remarks Hillary Clinton made recently about MoveOn.org during a closed-door fund-raiser:
"Moveon.org endorsed [Sen. Barack Obama] -- which is like a gusher of money that never seems to slow down," Clinton said to a meeting of donors. "We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. MoveOn didn't even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that's what we're dealing with. And you know they turn out in great numbers. And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and It's primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don't agree with them. They know I don't agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me."Eli Pariser, from MoveOn, responded:
"Senator Clinton has her facts wrong again. MoveOn never opposed the war in Afghanistan, and we set the record straight years ago when Karl Rove made the same claim. Senator Clinton's attack on our members is divisive at a time when Democrats will soon need to unify to beat Senator McCain. MoveOn is 3.2 million reliable voters and volunteers who are an important part of any winning Democratic coalition in November. They deserve better than to be dismissed using Republican talking points."Ironically, MoveOn got its start in 1998 by organizing support for President Clinton during the Impeachment process. They created an online petition called "Censure President Clinton and Move On to Pressing Issues Facing the Nation."
A few months ago, at a MoveOn-sponsored forum, Hillary praised the organization:
I also want to thank you for being such lively participants in American democracy. You started from the very fundamental premise that in our democracy everyone should have a voice and that given the power of the internet, we now have millions of voices that are part of our debates. I personally welcome that because for nearly a decade you've been asking the tough questions, you've been demanding answers, you've been refusing to back down when any of us who are in political leadership are not living up to the standards that we should set for ourselves and that you expect from us. I think you have helped to change the face of politics for the better, both online and in the corridors of power. So although some of your members may be a little surprised to hear me say this, I am grateful for your work. I remember when you started and how important it was and I look forward to continuing our dialogue in the years ahead on the important issues facing our country and the world.Matthew Yglesias, at The Atlantic Monthly, sees a larger Clinton pattern at work:
[T]he bad dynamic between Clinton and MoveOn is a reminder of one of the fundamental problems with her candidacy. The Clintons, and many of their key supporters, come out of a school of political analysis which holds that the problem with the Democratic Party in the United States is that progressive institutions are too strong. Only by curbing the influence of these institutions, the theory goes, can Democratic Party politicians engage in the tactical repositioning necessary to win elections.Personally, I have mixed feelings about MoveOn. But I don't see the ultimate good in attacking an energized and increasingly important group of activists within your own party.Whether or not that was true in 1988-92 or, indeed, whether or not it remains true today, this is clearly not a long-term strategy for progressive politics. This "crush the left, move to the right" theory of electoral political may or may not work for politicians in the short run, but to create big change you need to strengthen progressive institutions and move the entire spectrum to the left.
My guess is that the Clintons are appealing again to reactionary Democrats, especially in Pennsylvania, by distancing themselves from those terrible "progressive" nuts. Once more, they're playing the Republican song, this time using a falsehood that Karl Rove already used a few months ago.
But even if bashing MoveOn were to help them in the Pennsylvania primary, wouldn't they need these same people in a general election? They assume that MoveOn will come around later. And given how loyal MoveOn is to the Democratic Party - and how nasty MoveOn and DailyKos are to any mention of third-party attempts - the Clintons are probably right about that. At least to a degree. The organizations might come around and help them raise money. But individual voters within the groups might defect.
In any case, it's one more example of the Democrats working hard to lose what should've been a winnable election.
10 comments:
One of my problems with MoveOn is how easily they've let themselves be stereotyped and parodied by the right as radical leftists (much like DailyKos). Still, Hillary's burnt-earth destruction of the Democratic party seems to know no limits.
Liam,
Yeah, my original post actually mentioned this problem with MoveOn and DailyKos, but I decided it was a topic I didn't want to get into on this particular occasion.
If you ask me, they're both pretty weird when it comes to political philosophy. In terms of what is called Left in the rest of the world or what we called it in this country many decades ago, neither of them are very Left. Yet, as you say, they let themselves get stereotyped as radical leftists. When I hear that, I always think of the anarchists and others I met at the Zapatista Encuentro and have to laugh. I think it shows the degree to which the entire country has shifted to the right. Right-wingers and center-right people like the Clintons can't even recognize anymore what the Left looks like. Or they do know but continue talking with some strange Cold War vocabulary. And people in the U.S. simply don't know the difference between a Liberal and a Leftist, so they accept it without thinking. Because their entire lives have been spent in a public conversation that never includes anyone from a genuine Left. Not to mention that all of these labels are breaking down on a daily basis.
Both groups are so tied in to the Democratic Party, which is part of the problem to me. Their real goals have little to do with ideology and are more specifically about getting Democrats elected, even if it's conservative, recently re-born Democrats like Jim Webb.
Still, whatever my negative feelings about both groups, I don't see any real long-term benefits for the Democratic Party when you have the Clintons bashing them. It just reinforces my feeling that the Clintons actually don't care about the Party as such. It's simply an instrument to get them into power.
My guess is that the Clintons are appealing again to reactionary Democrats, especially in Pennsylvania, by distancing themselves from those terrible "progressive" nuts.
I'm not sure who those people would be. Penn might be a heavily Catholic state, with more socially conservative Democrats than elsewhere, but I can't see how they'd be Clinton people. The whole DNC thing always seemed to me like a strategy geared to try to grab back some southern whites.
I don't know much about MoveOn, and maybe 21 or 22 debates were 15 or so too many, but this Democratic race has become absolutely absurd with its descent into these stupid controversies over Pastor Wright and dodging snipers in Sarajevo. I've pretty much tuned out of this race, and I have a feeling the whole country is in the process of doing so as well. If the Clintons have to lose, they seem bound and determined to punish their own party for it.
Pennsylvania is a little over half Catholic, I think. Remember The Deer Hunter?
I wrote something about MoveOn once - link.
Why characterize all those who've voted for Clinton as rednecks, reactionaries or racists? It makes us feel either stupid or evil - which one am I?
Good post. Totally concur in condemnation of the Clinton scortched earth strategy. Has that very smart couple made the calculation that, win or loose, their legacy isn't at risk because we will, in time, forget? Do I overestimate the collective memory when I judge that the Clintons have irredeemably trashed their reputations?
"What if" all political constituencies exact signals that "s/he gets us" from candidates who seek their votes? What if these signals take the form of distancing from those that group most fears? Hillary's MoveOn smackdown reminds me of Bill's Sister Soulja moment. Both were calculated and calibrated and apparently effective...in the short run, at least...at sending the desired signal to the counter constituency.
I'm intrigued with the situational ethics dimension of all this. "What if" deceit is an essential component to presidential victory? Could a candidate who didn't pander to party sacred cows ever be nominated? Could a candidate who didn't pander to national sacred cows ever be elected? Bear in mind, the question is in the practical, not the theoretical, realm.
Yesterday the New York Times gave first page exposure to an article on the shameful U.S. incarceration rate, with comparative international data. Deplorable, even execrable are too mild to capture our prison system, and yet any politician who *really* took this issue on would, in my estimation, be dead on arrival. "What if" championing third rail issues...a more steeply graduated income tax, an increased rather than abolished estate tax, reevaluation of and likely reduction in sentencing practices, foreign aid that approaches developed world levels, etc...had the effect of guaranteeing defeat? If so, is a conscientious progressive candidate in dissembling? I find myself so drawn to the promise of Obama's candidacy that I'd be inclined to grant an indulgence, I'm afraid.
Hmmm. Looks like Mr. Obama may have a serious Rust-Belt problem after all...
Jeff,
Penn might be a heavily Catholic state, with more socially conservative Democrats than elsewhere, but I can't see how they'd be Clinton people.
The phrase I kept hearing regarding Pennsylvania was that "It's Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, with Alabama in between." Ed Rendell, the governor was the one who got in trouble a couple of months ago for saying he wasn't sure some people in Pennsylvania were ready to vote for a black president. (I still don't know why he got heat for saying that - I think it was an accurate observation.)
And, yeah, the results speak for themselves.
Crystal,
Why characterize all those who've voted for Clinton as rednecks, reactionaries or racists? It makes us feel either stupid or evil - which one am I?
My apologies if I didn't make myself clear. I didn't say that ALL people who vote for Hillary are reactionaries or rednecks. I don't believe that. I'm saying that the Clintons are targeting reactionary and redneck elements within the party. Any candidacy relies on a wide range of voters. It's not even accurate to clump some people into one group and not another, as all of us have many layers to who we are - so you can be an African-American woman over 60 who's Catholic and socially conservative while working for a union and being more Left economically, well-educated, feminist, etc. Obviously, Hillary (or Obama or McCain) is appealing to all kinds of people for all kinds of reasons.
But, again, I do think the Clintons are purposefully going after segments of the population that we would call reactionaries or rednecks if they were Republicans, but since they're Democrats, we call them "working-class whites" or "Southern Democrats" or something nicer. The Clintons know the importance of these voters in elections going back to their days in Arkansas. As Mike mentioned, Bill's Sister Soulja moment in 1992 was a similar "calculated and calibrated" strategy for "sending the desired signal to the counter constituency."
They've been doing this ever since Hillary came in third place in Iowa. among several simultaneous strategies, the Clintons decided to make Obama a "black" ultra-liberal candidate that the Clintons would save us from. It's the exact same strategy that the Republicans will use. Meanwhile, the Clintons can drag in Gloria Steinem to appeal to the older feminists or Barbara Streisand to appeal to Hollywood/New York liberals.
Obama does the same thing with his various constituencies. It's always tricky trying to keep them in balance.
I just happen to despise what the reactionary, redneck and racists Democrats (or Republicans) believe in.
Mike,
Great comments/observations.
Do I overestimate the collective memory when I judge that the Clintons have irredeemably trashed their reputations?
Yes, you do. :-) Even if they lose, Bill and Hillary will be on Oprah and David Letterman in a few months and none one will remember anything. He'll once again be a great political strategist, a great Democratic President, and they'll be good Liberals in standing.
Could a candidate who didn't pander to party sacred cows ever be nominated?
No.
Could a candidate who didn't pander to national sacred cows ever be elected?
No again. :-) You already know the answers to these questions!
Yesterday the New York Times gave first page exposure to an article on the shameful U.S. incarceration rate, with comparative international data. Deplorable, even execrable are too mild to capture our prison system, and yet any politician who *really* took this issue on would, in my estimation, be dead on arrival.
That was a stunning article, though I already knew most of what they were saying. I may try to post on it when I have time. It's been really busy lately.
No presidential candidate will ever get elected if he or she actually talks about the problems we face. Nobody wants a party-pooper for President. We want Ronald Reagan - a strong, positive Daddy who will make everything okay.
I find myself so drawn to the promise of Obama's candidacy that I'd be inclined to grant an indulgence, I'm afraid.
Just brace yourself for the reality should he find some way to get elected. Steel yourself for 2012, when he's running for re-election, and we're still in Iraq, and nobody's mentioned health insurance for four years, and he's threatening Iran, and he's signing the Galactic Free Trade Bill, and he's saying that China is a great promoter of Human Rights, and Israel and Palestine are still at each other's throats, and Al-Qaeda is still on the loose, and the military budget's still higher than at any time since Reagan.
But he'll probably be able to give even more powerful speeches at that point.
And that's my cynical two cents worth. :-)
"Liberals in good standing" that should've said.
Post a Comment