The Coming Battle for the Soul of the Democratic Party

[TygrBright]

As things do sometimes, a lot of threads of meaning suddenly hit the saturation point and crystalized in my mind. I'm not ready to go to the wall on this prediction, because there are too many variables and the pace of change is far too fast to factor with any kind of accuracy, but I do think this is a likely path for the future:

The GOP will die. No more "Republican Party." There will be a token GOP for a while, that will run token candidates, probably representing the furthest-out millenialist nutjob fringe, but that, too, will gradually fade away and die as they realize there is not enough support to maintain a viable party machine for such limited gains. Here's how it will happen, roughly: The Big Money folks who pull the strings are well aware that 2008 is more or less of a writeoff as far as the national offices go. Check where their cash is going-- the flow is shifting again, a large stream diverging back into Dem coffers to buy them the access they need after the 2008 election.

But, because their true ideological home is the GOP and they will always feel more comfortable in the leather-covered armchairs in the Club smoking rooms, they want to maintain as much of a foothold as they can in the political mix. Their money will be selectively targeted at a comparatively small, but key, group of contests --some House and Senate seats, but mostly State and local elected officials in key areas in key states. They are hoping that these races can stay off the radar screen, or at least under the cover of the noise of the big races, and that they won't be too badly affected by the anti-GOP tide. They are also, of course, planning a fair number of closely-targeted illegalities and dirty tricks to decide what they still believe will be close contests in key races.

They are going to be stunned by the magnitude of their failure. There are going to be FAR fewer "close" races than they now imagine, and very few indeed that will be close enough for them to steal undetected. Many, perhaps most, of their carefully-selected fair-haired boys and girls in those supposedly low-profile races are going to end up as very costly defeats. And the margins of Democratic victory are going to be much greater than their worst fears.

They will write this off to a short-term backlash, and hope that 2010 and 2012 will see a resurgence of GOPpie viability.

They will also hedge their bets; that is, they will begin making terms with key interests in the Democratic Party. They will look to extend their power base here, even if it means some short-term losses in the regulatory arena, and the weakening of the cheap-labor paradise they've enjoyed for so long. They'll put on their happy faces and fund research into alternative energy technology, play 'green-minded good citizens' for awhile, and quietly move their most important investments offshore.

As the next two or three election cycles reflect the long-term demographic shift and the sustained distaste of the electorate for a GOP increasingly abandoned by all but the nuttiest extremists, they will stop trying to prop up the GOP at all, and go with Plan B.

Plan B is the takeover of the Democratic Party and the sustained pressure to achieve two goals that are a bit tricky because they tend to work against each other: One goal ("A") is to sideline the moderates, soothe them back to sleep, make them happy with what the Big Money interest is doing under the cover of "Democratic" policies and candidates. The other goal ("B") is to shove the more left-ideological elements of the Democratic Party out of the Party altogether, to form a new opposition party that will absorb left-leaning discontent, make plenty of public noise, even win a few races, but not develop any potent opposition power.

This will mean that the Democratic Party will replace the GOP, and the new party will have to replace the Democratic Party.

This will be quite a balancing act, because some of the things they will have to do to achieve Goal A will inhibit them from doing what they must to achieve Goal B, and some of the most effective and obvious tactics for achieving Goal B will interfere with their efforts to achieve A. The two goals are not, however, mutually exclusive and it is entirely possible that they will succeed. If they do, the left will face a period of at least two or three decades of political impotence even greater than what we have experienced over the last thirty-five years.

It is possible that the left would ultimately emerge as a stronger, more purposeful and more effective force at the end of that period, but not by any means certain. And in the interval, Big Money will have created a new 'normal' that will be solidly institutionalized. It will include elements of concession to the middle --possibly even some halfbaked version of National Health, and some new energy technologies-- in an effort to restore some of the economic security necessary for the middle's sound sleep. They will velvet-wrap the chains, in other words. (The middle just loves velvet-- so much classier than cotton chenille.) It will represent a status quo that will be very challenging for the left to alter.

I think a better scenario would be for the Democratic Party to accommodate the Big Money only minimally, and keep up a relentless counter-pressure that will ultimately force them to form their OWN new opposition party to replace the GOP. This will entail a concession of power and money that will impair the Democratic Party's effectiveness somewhat, and make it much less of a "sure thing" in swing districts. Our agenda will suffer greater dilution based on the continuing involvement of centrists and even old-style conservative Dems, but in the long run, it will keep greater leverage on the left than letting ourselves be shoved out to form a "pure" leftward party.

It could go either way. Right now, the first scenario (takeover of the Dems by the Big Money, splintering off a new leftward Party) looks a tad more likely to me, but I don't think it's by any means a foregone conclusion. Especially if we look clearly and strategically at these options, and make a calculating decision about how to meet the various contingencies that will occur over the next eight years.

presciently,
Bright

[Common Sense Party]

1. The GOP is nowhere near dead.

We underestimate them at our peril.

[BOSSHOG]

3. Agreed

the same applies to the Ku Klux Klan, dog fighting operations and meth labs. It takes a lot to get rid of evil things and they cannot be ignored.

[TygrBright]

4. But I'm not saying the EVIL will die. It's just the label for the evil...

...that is outliving its usefulness. The evil will have to find a new home. They hope it will be OUR house.

Let's not let it happen.

worriedly,
Bright

[Common Sense Party]

7. I'm saying that the PARTY is nowhere close to being dead.

You have to take a longer-term view of history. Political parties go in and out of power and favor like roller coaster cars. The GOP is on the ropes now, but it's naive to think that the powers-that-be will pack it all in and become Democrats.

[CanonRay]

2. I don't know what planet you're on, but can I come and live there?

No Republican Party? Oh, would it were so, but not in my county.

[nxylas]

5. Can't agree that "their natural home is the GOP"

The only loyalty of the wealthiest 0.1% is to themselves, and they will back whoever they feel best serves their interests, regardless of party labels. Rupert Murdoch's fundraiser for Hillary is a case in point. He doesn't care that she's a Democrat and not a Republican as long as she is a card-carrying member of the Business Party.

[OHdem10]

6. I wish I could agrree. Too many things happening this

week for me to write them off. Even GWB got an 8p bounce.

The Dems cannot decide who they are.

[Mojambo]

8. And a nice solid beachead for the "invasion" called the DLC. n/t

[AX10]

9. The GOP is (sadly) far from being "dead".

The wealthiest and the religious kooks will find themselves out of place within the Democratic party. There is no way that they would tolerate any re-regulation of any aspect of the market or allowing Roe v. Wade to continue as the law of the land.
Ignore them at your own peril, I will never forget them and will always fight them.

[wyldwolf]

10. what? ANOTHER battle for the "soul of the Democratic party?"

[Common Sense Party]

11. This is THIS MONTH'S battle.

Completely different from the "August Battle for the Soul of the Democratic Party."

[wyldwolf]

12. ohhh. Thanks!

:)

[ulysses]

17. nah - same one.

:D

[wyldwolf]

20. so it hasn't actually happened yet?

[Romulox]

13. With the DLC, we are seeing the rise of the neo-Dixiecrats...nt

[Dr.Phool]

14. Want to see it? Come to Florida.

[Stinky The Clown]

15. It might seem that your OP is the contrarian view .......

...... I disagree. I think you're assessment has great merit. The Republican and Democratic brands are, indeed, malleable and change with time (witness our party's racist past in the South).

My guess is the Repubs will hang on, but in a greatly diminished form. The Democrats will wind up being the refuge for their more (socially) moderate members. The Dems will also be seen increasingly as the ones with sane military and foreign policy views.

Some Democrats will also gladly become pro business. Not benignly pro business (such as in support of entrepreneurs and small businesses), but pro megabusinesselite - essentially filling the role of the non-socially-concerned fat cat Republicans.

I am less sure how this will all turn out.

I would not be surprised to see the Republicans move to (infiltrate) the Democratic party and to see the Democrats move to some new party (maybe the Greens, but I suspect something new, instead).

We can resist this by doing two things ...... keeping our party leadership in the hands of real liberals and by putting true liberals in local office and in office as local party members and delegates.

And MOST importantly, we can keep HUGE pressure on our elected officials to move to public campaign financing. If we can remove money from the equation, we get much more representative government.

[ulysses]

16. only two quibbles:

I agree with the poster upthread that the GOP ain't dead yet.

Plan B has been going now for some time.

:toast:

[cadmium]

18. The best strategy for the Democratic party is

that while we can struggle on issues and internal battles that when push comes to shove we should stick together. The Republicans get and hold power because --- they disagree on really fundamental issues but understand the power of teamwork vs individual issue agendas. Buchanan and his wing has been against foreign invasions. The Ayn Rand conservatives are atheist. The Federalist types tout small government while being in favor of total executive office control. The Republicans squelch their differences and unite against common enemies (us). Democrats are naive to think that issues trump loyalty when push comes to shove.

[starroute]

19. The future will not be shaped by just one trend

If the GOP brand becomes poison, the original poster's scenario looks extremely plausible -- if the GOP can convince people it's cleaned up its act, the way it did after Watergate, then much less so. That would be a far harder sell today than it was after Watergate, though -- both because the rot has gone so much deeper and because there's no contemporary equivalent of the New Right and the Reagan supporters of the 70's, who were outside the party establishment and eager to take it over.

More plausible than the GOP simply dying might be for it to linger on as the home territory of the hardcore religious right and other assorted right-wing extremists.

Regardless of what happens to the GOP, though, the struggle to control the Democratic Party has already begun, with more corporate donations, more GOP-leaning lobbying and PR firms taking on Democratic associates, etc. However, I wouldn't call it a struggle for the soul of the party -- because these folks obviously have no concern for souls -- so much as a kind of cultural gentrification: Buy up all the prime real estate and evict the locals.

Presumably the corporate carpetbaggers would be perfectly happy to wind up with one large middle-of-the-road party under their own control, flanked by marginalized right-wing and left-wing factions on either side. However, though that might last for a few election cycles, I'm not at all sure it would be stable. A winner-take-all system like ours pretty much demands two roughly equal parties.

Another factor -- which is perhaps ultimately more significant -- is that since the 90's we've already had a situation where the GOP is tied to the old extractive industries, like oil, and the Democrats to the "new economy" of electronics and entertainment. Both of those economic groupings are going to come under pressure over the next few years -- the old economy from peak oil and global warming, but the new economy from the wars over "intellectual property," which are already shaping up, and their own failure to understand that they're not in Kansas anymore.

A few decades from now, there may well be newly emerged corporate powerhouses, equivalent to what GE and GM were in the 20th century, but based in solar power or online file-sharing or whatever becomes the order of the day. And what they are, and who controls them, and what philosophies they follow may do more to shape the political geography of the nation than any allegiances based in current political alignments.