The line thrown by Walter Mondale at Gary Hart during his comeback in the 1984 presidential race was echoed in recent days, supposedly coming from Hillarians at Obama. This shows their filling the same roles from that era: Hillary as Establishment Dem and Obama as New Centrist Dem. The third role is Leftist Insurgent, now being played by Edwards, with Jesse Jackson playing it in 1984, after George McGovern dropped out. These roles frequently pop up in races for the Dem nomination for president, and I think can be traced back to at least 1960.
Labor's role in this has changed. They used to always be part of the Establishment candidate's support. But, ending of the Cold War, more youth in labor, and greater inequality, have pushed labor left, with it now split itself and also among the candidates. Another oddity is that the Clintons collectively have played in all three roles: supporters of a leftist insurgent with McGovern in 1972, Bill the New Centrist in 1992, and now Hillary as the Establishment candidate.
5 comments:
Interesting perspective. I have to agree with you.
The thing that so infuriates me is that the press has decided to make this a two-person Democratic primary, presumably because white male candidates just aren't that interesting. Edwards can send out all the press releases he wants, but the media is not paying any attention.
"....is that the Clintons collectively have played in all three roles:"
Which lends evidence to the idea that age rather than bringing wisdom in all cases, is often accompanied by a hardening of the cerebral arteries. Is there really much difference between centrist Dems and Establishment Dems? They seem to wear the same stripes with the former simply being the apprentices of the latter.
Is it just me, or does nay one else detect an aura of improbability in the platitudes that Obama offers. I don't trust Clinton, either one, to do what ever it is that she says she will do if elected. So I'm faced with a bleak view of yet another Presidential campaign season.
finnegan,
The press has been sidelining Edwards since before Iowa, where his chances really plunged (he needed a win there to really have a chance), with the closeness of the Hillary-Obama race now as it appears after NH, making things even more difficult for him. They never like the "Leftist Insurgent" candidate.
jack,
Certainly it is partly a matter of age, and also of experience. So, Bill became president, which is why Hillary is the Establishment candidate, even though she is still drawing heavily out of the centrist DLC well. However, having inherited the Establishment mantle, she needs to go more to the center of the party, which pulls her leftward a bit from Bill's presidency, plus there are rumors that she is more to the left of him anyway, and always has been, a bit like Eleanor and Franklin D. Roosevelt.
There is also that the DLC has pretty much faded out, having been taken over by people like Lieberman, with the latest New Centrists, such as Obama, having to reinvent the wheel on this. Indeed, part of being a New Centrist and appealing to Youth is avoiding existing institutions and being, well, New, not to mention fuzzy in one's triangulating centrism that will Unite All.
And, while I am for Edwards, I would note an element of opportunistic pragmatism in his positions. Now I am not questioning the sincerity of his invocation of his working class background, but when he was first elected Senator from North Carolina he had distinct elements of New Centrism and DLCism, even while maintaining a populist edge, and as VP candidate during 2004 and for a while afterwards, he also got the air of an Establishment Dem, even if for just awhile. But once it became clear that Hillary was going to be the Establishment Dem, he had to look elsewhere for a niche.
Barkley
Barkley,
Not that I disagree with your descriptive differentiation of these "varieties" of Democrates, but when put into so many words one gets the distinct impression that there is no statistically significant difference between any of these players. And the emphasis should be on the word players, for that seems to be what they are at the heart of their realilties. They are on a stage and they are reflecting to the world the images that they each believes to be the acceptable political person that the public wants to elect. There is little reality to the entire performance.
When the curtain comes down we get to see just who might lead the country in another direction, if that's the intent. With Hillary we have a prior history to judge by. With the crap being offered by the Republican Party there is also past history to prepare us for yet further disastors. With the other Dems there is some guess work to be done.
None of it is a pretty picture other than the indisputable fact that Bush and Company will be history. That is not to say that those who have influenced them will not still be prowling the halls in an effort to stoke further travesties on a somnambulant public. And last, but far, far from least, we'll have the same assinine Congress to contend with. LBJ is beginning to look better in hind sight. He was at least able to controll those fools.
jack,
There are some real differences in policy views out there. How sincerely individual politicians hold to these is quite another matter. I guess I have suggested that the three we have now are each somewhat opportunistic, supporting what they think will help them get elected. After all, Obama was a community organizer in Chicago at one point, with good leftist insurgent cred, and was against going into Iraq when both Hillary and Edwards were for it.
Frankly, in terms of leftist insurgents, McGovern remains one I take more seriously, and he had a good op-ed taking after Bush in WaPo this past Sunday. He may be old and a widower, but he can still kick butt.
Barkley
Post a Comment