Sunday 10 January 2010

Stale Cherry

Democrats, this is your problem. All right, so anyone stands little chance of beating Ron Paul, anyway. If anything, Paul would be under more threat from a primary challenger who was, if you can pardon the oxymoron, a serious Bushie. And Jeff Cherry has his good points: his strong emphasis on education, his support for off-shore drilling and for nuclear power, his opposition to cap-and-trade "as proposed", his stance on healthcare.

But his criticism of Paul is specifically of his foreign policy, instead pushing the interests of the military-industrial complex and of the Israel Lobby. Oh, and of Paul's valiant stand against the Patriot Act. The standard moral issues are not mentioned, but I think we can guess. If he is in favour of same-sex "marriage", then he disagrees with Obama as much on that as on foreign policy. Or, at least, the foreign policy on which Obama secured nomination and election. All in all, Cherry is a throwback to the failures and divisions of the Clinton years, a fact which augurs very ill indeed for him on healthcare, in particular. His is the platform on which a nominated Hillary would have run, leading, since the Presidency would have killed McCain by now, to President Palin.

This whole pattern is doubtless being repeated from coast to coast. Vital measures in the vein of the public option and the Employee Free Choice Act, as well as energy independence and the abortion reduction being piloted by Bob Casey with full Presidential support, are on course to be denied Congressional majorities because the Democratic Party is too boneheaded to put up candidates whose absolute commitment to them is a no less absolute commitment to the sanctity of life at every stage (the view of both of George McGovern's running mates), to Obama's own definition of marriage as only ever the union between one man and one woman, to the Second Amendment, to strengthening and enforcing the immigration laws, to the deployment of the American military only ever to defend American territory or lives, to withdrawal from any treaty or organisation that undermines American sovereignty or weakens the Constitution, to making English the official language of the United States, to opposing the bailouts, to fair trade rather than "free" trade, to auditing the Federal Reserve, and to so much else besides.

Not, of course, that almost any Republican shares most of those commitments, either. Which brings us to Michele Bachmann. If no one had wasted their primary votes on the unopposed Democratic and Independent Party nominees last time, but had instead voted for Bachmann's Republican primary opponent, then Bachmann would not have been nominated, still less elected. There would be fun and games enough if she ever had to explain to the national electorate her belief that the Pope was the Antichrist. But why wait for that? Get rid of her.

3 comments:

  1. Great post.

    I think the problem with the contemporary Democratic Party is that long ago they decided that future electoral victories were going to be based on appealing to the growing number of college-educated, middle-class and upper middle-class white-collar workers and professionals. These voters often tend to be socially liberal and economically neoliberal. To an extent, this strategy has "worked" in the sense that more and more relatively affluent suburban areas go Democratic now, or are at least "in play" as opposed to being reliably Republican.

    On a national level, however, this strategy led huge numbers of normally socially conservative/economically populist voters, especially in the Midwest, to switch over and vote Republican, largely on cultural issues. The Republicans have based the last 30 years of GOP electoral success on these voters.

    The 2008 election seemed to signal a change, as Obama won a lot of Midwestern and Southern states won by Bush, and did so by appealing to economic populism while running. But if the Democrats fail to gain victories on populist topics, like the Employee Free Choice Act for example, then I can really see the Republicans back in power very soon. I think this is because for the working-class populist, the reasoning is "well, both parties are bad for me economically, so I might as well vote for the party that supports my social views." Of course, the Republicans have not gained any important victories on the social/cultural front in the 30 years or so since Reagan became president, and in fact have been the primary crusaders for many economic policies that have had disastrous consequences for working families. But what is so galling for populists is that many Democrats have also supported these economic policies (Bill Clinton probably being the best example).

    Historian Thomas Frank has written about this issue in "What's the Matter with Kansas?" I have not read the book, but I hope to get around to it soon. Sorry to take up so much room with my long comment!

    ReplyDelete
  2. No, no, please don't apologise. Your comment is very welcome indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you very much.

    ReplyDelete