The Democratic Party is heading for dangerous territory.
Steady territory, mind you, much like taking a job you hate because it pays an extra five or 10,000 a year, but dangerous territory.
Allow me to digress for a moment. The Republican Party has been seemingly lost for some time. Lost in the sense that since 2008 they've been arguing over who they're standard bearer should be. In fact the Democratic party made gains in the house in 2006 and 2008. The Rove-Cheney-Bush machine was leaving an uninspired taste in folks mouths.
By 2010, of course, the Republican party benefited from the "Tea Party Revolution" they would eventually be able to co-opt (and which has often been said to have been an astro-turf revolution anyway).
In 2012, President Obama's reelection won the party 8 house seats, of the 84 seats lost in the four previous years. It's worth mentioning that the OFA 'revolution' only brought 21 Democrats into the house in 2008.
In 2014, the Republicans picked up 14 more House seats.
Between the 2006 and 2008 elections Senate Democrats picked up 13 seats, losing six of those seats the 2010 aforementioned 'revolution'. President Obama brought two senators with him in 2012. In 2014 the Republican party picked up nine senators.
The problem both of these parties have, is putting forth terrible standard-bearers.
The Republican's nominated president Bush over a field of candidates that included Senators McCain and Hatch, Activist Alan Keyes, Steve Forbes and Donald Trump and religious ideologues including Pat Buchanan and Gary Bauer.
The plague of wanting to 'win' the election means that conversations, ideas and philosophies lose out. I'm not saying anything new here, but I suppose it bears repeating.
Fast forward eight years to 2008 and the Republican party nominates Senator McCain over candidates such as Governor Huckabee, Rep. Paul and again, Activist Alan Keyes.
And 2012, being the first year that I was involved in presidential politics, was a disappointing nominating year for Republicans. In a field that included Fred Karger (a candidate who never got on the stage), Buddy Roemer (a pre-Bernie Sanders "no money from corporations" candidate, who also was never allowed on a debate stage) and future libertarian Gary Johnson the party nominated Mitt Romney, a person who I have never met a supporter of. Someone who doesn't excite conversation, who doesn't excite ideas, who didn't deserve to be a standard-bearer.
For those who may not know, George Washington, it is famously remembered, railed against party politics. But at least since the 1800s it has been popular to pledge allegiance to (political) party. Am I romanticizing a history I don't fully understand to imagine that parties used to be about ideas and thinking and pushing people towards an end goal, more than they were about winning elections (or even, for that matter, nominating candidates to run)?
The Democratic Party's problem in 2000 was a lack of primarying (A problem I thought six months ago they were going to repeat this year). In 2000 Al Gore was only opposed by two candidates. A fuller conversation could have been had, but such potential candidates as Howard Dean, Dick Gephardt, Bob Kerrey, John Gerry and Jesse Jackson decided not to run.
Even in 2004, when the Democrats nominated Kerry and had a fuller primary, such important contenders such as Al Gore, Jesse Jackson, Joe Biden and Tom Daschle didn't even run. They ran nine candidates. But who was on and who was left off of debate stages?
In 2008, the Democratic party again ran a fuller ticket. But people who decided not to come to the table included General Wesley Clark, Tom Daschle, Howard Dean, Russ Feingold, Al Gore, John Kerry, Al Sharpton and Mark Warner.
In 2012, when would-be democrats such as myself wanted an Obama challenger, if for nothing but to re-affirm Obama's need to answer to what would be a primary base, potential candidates including Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, Russ Feingold, Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader and Bernie Sanders opted not to run.
Now I can get back from my digression. If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, then what it means is that the party is willing to put forth their Mitt Romney, or, dare I say, their George Bush. An uninspiring politician who, even if they can win the election, will not inspire conversation, the base, or the general electorate.
Party politics, dare I say, could be something in this country. But instead, it has changed from party politics, to electoral politics and electoral politics are a losing game that no one wants to pay, except for those who get paid handsomely, regardless of whether they win or lose.
If the DNC doesn't schedule their debates, if they don't include all 5-7 candidates in these debates, they will be sending a message that winning is more important than representing, that winning is more important than having necessary conversations.
It is these things that drive people away from electoral and party politics. Even young, idealistic, dough-eyed The West Wing watchers such as myself.
Share This Article
