Democratic divisions need to be resolved quickly

If you look closely at the links along the left, you might notice that I’m a Democrat, but uncommitted when it comes to the intra-party squabbles between centrists and liberals.

On the one hand, I have links to middle-of-the-road Democratic groups like the Progressive Policy Institute, a project of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council. At the same time, I link to the Campaign for America’s Future, an unabashedly liberal group that hopes to act as a progressive counterweight to the DLC’s moderation.

I’m not undecided on the issues that divide the two camps, I just generally find myself somewhere in between the party’s left and middle. (Does that make me a moderate liberal or a liberal moderate?)

Republicans don’t have this problem. The modern GOP is a conservative party and there just isn’t any question about it. They’ve got a few moderates left in Congress — Olympia Snowe, Lincoln Chafee — and they have stray and inconsequential moderate factions like the Republican Unity Coalition, but no one inside the party or out doubts where the party’s leadership and supporters are on the ideological spectrum. It’s a conservative party with right-wing leaders — and they’re proud of it.

Democrats, meanwhile, agree on nothing. Getting a group of Democratic leaders to work together on a common agenda is like herding cats. Every few years, the party nearly implodes as moderates and liberals debate who the real Democrats are, as Republicans giggle to themselves and do everything possible to exacerbate these divisions.

For the better part of the 20th century, the divisions were between northern and southern Democrats. Nixon’s “southern strategy,” the civil rights movement, and the Vietnam War ended that squabble with the southern Dems leaving the party all together. From the late 1960s trough the 1980s, there was relative peace within the party. Democrats were liberals — and we lost five of the six presidential elections between 1968 and 1988.

A guy by the name of Bill Clinton changed the party for the better (or at least, for the more successful) in 1992. Bridging the gap between left and center, Clinton rallied the party behind him and won two terms fairly easily. Even as his second term ended, Clinton’s wife won a Senate seat in a state she barely lived in and Clinton’s vice president not only got more popular votes than his Republican rival, he got more votes than any Democrat in the history of the country.

But Bill Clinton has left the stage and the Dems are back to fighting over which direction to go in. Both camps are convinced the other is to blame for the party’s troubles.

All of this is being played out rather dramatically right now as the Campaign for America’s Future rallies in Washington to convince the party faithful and the party’s presidential candidates that the Democrats’ real future is a liberal one.

Indeed, six of the nine Democratic hopefuls addressed the conference yesterday, laying out a vision for the 1,500 grassroots activists in attendance (Joe Lieberman said he had a previous commitment. He probably would have been booed anyway). Many seemed to be competing in a contest to see who could be the most liberal.

With this in mind, it shouldn’t surprise you to learn that the biggest applause was reserved for Dennis Kucinich, who laid out a platform of Medicare for all, big cuts in Defense spending, and “total nuclear disarmament.” Salon’s Michelle Goldberg noted that Kucinich “spoke to the crowd’s fury over the war in Iraq, getting a screaming standing ovation when he cried, ‘This war was wrong! This war was fraudulent! We must expose this administration!'” When he was done, the emcee said Kucinich had “barbecued George Bush.”

I’m sure Kucinich got the crowd fired up, but we don’t need a candidate with limited appeal who can “barbecue” Bush at a liberal event in June 2003, we need a candidate with broad appeal who can beat Bush in a presidential election in November 2004.

Howard Dean got a standing ovation when he said, “Those folks at the DLC are wrong. The way to get elected in this country is not to be like the Republicans; it’s to stand up against them and fight.”

Yes, but I’m not convinced that the DLC wants the Dems to become GOP Lite.

The DLC is obviously aware of the fissure within the party. The group has even written an “Open Letter to the Campaign for America’s Future” about their differences.

“[W]e believe it is more important than ever for Democrats to put forward a compelling agenda that excites not only our core supporters, but also the vast ranks of ordinary Americans who don’t live for politics but who stand to lose the most from a second Bush term and to gain the most from a Democratic administration that expands opportunity for all,” the DLC said. “We need to do what President Bill Clinton, the only winning Democratic presidential candidate since 1976, did in 1992 and 1996: energize the Democratic base while expanding it to include political independents and even some moderate Republicans. Like most Democrats, we are genuinely angry about what this administration is doing to our country’s future. But we don’t believe that the Democratic Party will recapture the White House by simply preaching to the converted in a much louder voice.”

The DLC’s critics dismiss this talk and believe a giant liberal vote is up for the taking. TomPaine.com, for example, has published a new op-ad saying, “The key to success in 2004 will be turning out each and every liberal voter.” The ad goes on to ask, “Will the Democratic Party favor the DLC, which has plenty of money, but is otherwise bankrupt? Or will it adopt the vision, passion and values needed to get out the vote?”

From where I sit, every Democrat I know sticks to a straightforward philosophy — anyone but Bush in ’04. This intra-party bickering is interesting on a philosophical level, but it doesn’t help with the end goal — beating Bush.

I hate to oversimplify, but Democrats need to wrap up this “debate” in a hurry. Beating Bush is going to be very, very difficult with a united party rallying behind a great candidate. It will be nearly impossible to do with a divided, resentful party begrudgingly supporting a weakened candidate. Both factions of the party need to realize that if we nominate someone perceived as too liberal, the voter base for the party won’t be big enough for a national victory. If we nominate someone who isn’t liberal enough (yes, I mean Lieberman), party activists will stay home on Election Day, the Green Party will find great success, and Bush will win fairly easily.

One more thing: After reading all afternoon about what happened at yesterday’s conference, I’m almost convinced the Dems need to nominate John Kerry. Why? Because Gephardt, Dean, Sharpton, Braun, and Kucinich are too liberal for the DLC crowd, while Lieberman, Graham, and Edwards are too conservative for the Campaign for America’s Future crowd.

Kerry is progressive enough on all the right issues for the party’s liberal base and he’s strong enough on national defense to keep the DLC happy. In fact, Kerry, in speaking to the Campaign for America’s Future conference yesterday, delivered all his popular applause lines on liberal issues, but implored the activists not to ignore the importance of a strong foreign and defense policy.

“If Democrats are not prepared to make America safer, stronger and more secure, for all we care about all those other issues, we will not win back the White House and we won’t deserve to,” Kerry said to tepid applause.

Liberal on social issues, opposed to Bush’s tax cuts, loaded with cash, and a war hero committed to strong national defense. That’s not a bad combination. It might even be a winning one.