Moving the Democratic party to the right

[MadHound]

Last night we saw the victory of several Tea Party candidates winning their GOP primaries. While this makes for, at least at first glance, an easy Democratic win in those states this fall, these Tea Party wins also have a downside for the Democratic party as a whole.

Back in the days of Reagan, we saw the Democratic start moving to the right in an attempt to capture the votes of Reagan Democrats. This led to the beginning of an abandonment of traditional Democratic party values and the beginning of the party's demonization of the left within the party. This rightward movement gave us Clinton, among others, who were Democratic in name, but governed from a position that was formerly claimed by moderate Republicans.

Fast forward to 2008, when Palin's entrance upon the scene prompted the moderate Republicans to flee their party for ours. Again, we started seeing the Democratic party moved rightward by this influx of Republicans as those traditional constituencies on the left were abandoned for the foolish pursuit of bipartisanship on the part of the Obama administration.

With Tea Party candidates making their presence known in this election season, it looks like another large influx of moderate Republicans are going to be coming into the Democratic big tent. This will insure better election prospects this fall for the party, but the question is how much of the party's soul will this Republican migration cost it?

As the Tea Party continues it's takeover of the Republicans, the Democratic party is going to swell with the ranks of former moderate, pragmatic Republicans. This is going to push the party even further to the right, filling the power vacuum once filled with moderate Republicans. We're starting to see this happening already, with Democrats in Florida flocking to the flag of moderate Republican Crist instead of backing the candidacy of a the more liberal Meeks. Furthermore, these moderate Republicans are going to get a say in how the Democratic party is run. We already have seen that happen as the DLC, which is essentially a moderate Republican organization in all but name, has wielded an enormous amount of influence for the past eighteen years.

This means that the Democratic party will continue to move to the right, attempting to accommodate this influx of Republicans. This means that the left will be left out of the political equation even more within the Democratic party.

The left is already being dismissed by Democratic leaders. Their issues are on the back burner at best, if they're on the stove at all. "Pragmatic" Democrats rule the roost, willing to attack such traditional Democratic constituencies as teachers and unions while failing to reward other traditional Democratic constituencies such as the LGBT community and the anti-war folks. How much further right will the party be lean as it attempts to please its new found moderate Republican constituency.

You can have a big tent that ranges from the center to the radical left. However the more the party is filled with moderate Republicans, the more it will reflect moderate Republican values and views, and the more the left is marginalized. This seems like a welcome development to the party leadership, they don't have to deal with political views they don't really like, nor do they have to reward the left for our support.

Our political landscape is changing. On the far loony right, the Tea Party invested Republican party is diving even further into the crazy pool. This leaves the Democratic party strong, for now, straddling both the moderate left and moderate right center. But this leaves the left out in the cold, with no party really wanting them or caring about them. This is a power vacuum that will be filled. It may not happen this election, or even in 2012. But over the next decade or so, as the Republican party becomes the new National Socialist party, and the Democratic party becomes the new Republicans, don't be at all surprised if the left becomes the new Democrats, standing firm on such traditional Democratic platforms as support for labor, support for Social Security, and support for the ordinary people int his country.

Politics constantly evolve in this country, as do political parties. With the advent of the Tea Partiers, their going to evolve even more. And as they do, traditional Democrats are going to be asked to support views and positions, such as cutting Social Security, that are an anathema to them. What happens then? It should be interesting to watch.

[LWolf]

1. What happens then?

Things we don't talk about on DU.

The best thing to happen would be the rise of an actual opposition party on the left, imo.

[MadHound]

2. Sure, some group will move in to fill the vacuum on the left

We could even see the spectacle of the Democratic party becoming the standard bearer for the right, and some party unknown filling that role for the left. There could a period of time when we actually have three or four parties on the scene.

But what I do know for certain is that for the foreseeable future, the left is going to be dismissed by the party even more than it is now.

[LWolf]

4. I think you are right. nt

[leveymg]

3. Don't count on picking up a lot of "moderate Republicans". There aren't that many. The GOP is now

a hardened, unified ideological mass movement of the Right, more in the tradition of the European Right-wing. They are highly motivated and by-and-large pleased with the obstructive voting records of most GOP Representatives and Senators. Don't assume the Democrats are going to benefit from that, or that they need to turn right in order to pick up disaffected moderates.

If some Democrats turn right, it's because that's what they really are, and there has always been a Democratic Right-wing. Who the hell do you think purged the Left out of the Democratic Party in the 1950s and 1980s, and turned the Party Right?

[JamesA1102]

5. OK let's get some facts straight

Back in the days of Reagan, we saw the Democratic start moving to the right in an attempt to capture the votes of Reagan Democrats. This led to the beginning of an abandonment of traditional Democratic party values and the beginning of the party's demonization of the left within the party.

When I read something like this I can't help but think the person that wrote it has a political memory that only goes back to 1972. The traditional Democratic party was always a coalition that included many conservatives, mainly from the South. Remember that JFK cut taxes and increased defense spending. Even on civil rights Eisenhower was far more progressive than JFK. Of the four major wars fought by the U.S. in the 20th century(WWI, WWII, Korea & Viet Nam), all four were entered into by Democratic Presidents (Wilson, FDR, Truman & LBJ).

You mention Reagan Democrats, do you even know who Reagan Democrats were? Or why they were called Democrats? Because they were Democrats, conservative Democrats. Mostly white blue collar middle class Democrats who felt the party had shifted too far left over the previous ten years so they started voting for republicans like Reagan.

[BeFree]

7. Too far left?

In what way did the Democrat party shift "too far left"?

It may help some here understand your point, were you too explain further?

[JamesA1102]

18. I didn't say that the party shifted too far left but that

the Reagan Democrats felt it had because they tended to be more conservative.

[BeFree]

21. We're on the same page

I just wanted to see if you had an idea about why RD's felt the party had shifted too far to the left.

Methinks it was the Democratic support for MLK and civil rights.

It is a fact tho, that a large percentage of Republicans back then also supported MLK and civil rights.

[JamesA1102]

34. Civil rights is why the Southern Dems shifted to the GOP

The Reagan Dems were more northern, blue collar, union workers and they shifted over in the '80s more due to social issues.

[NorthCarolina]

9. The Party that created Social Security

has become the Party that now seeks to cut Social Security. I think that fact alone is ample evidence of the Party's rightward shift.

[another saigon]

12. exactly right

I think it is pretty clear the party left us in the dirt a long time ago. Save a few good Dems in congress, there really is no difference in platforms these days. Rahm did his job and loaded the party with repuke-lite. Mission Accomplished!

[JamesA1102]

19. And when was the proposal or bill to cut SS?

I really don't remember seeing that on the news.

[NorthCarolina]

25. Don't get your panties in a bunch, it will happen soon enough.

There is a reason that the recommendations of the Deficit Commission are not due until AFTER the November elections don't you think? If you go back and watch the recent Cenk interview of Congressman Chris Van Hollen, I think it will all become very clear for you.

[JamesA1102]

26. So you're slaming the Democratic party for something

that they haven't done yet and that you really have no proof they are going to do. Just something you think they might do. Damn and we blamed Bush & Ashcroft for treating people as if they were guilty until proven innocent.

[NorthCarolina]

28. Call it any way you want to, but I think the signals are pretty clear. eom

[JamesA1102]

33. Signals???

That's the funniest thing that I've heard all say.

[NorthCarolina]

38. Doesn't take much to amuse you I guess. eom

[MadHound]

14. Well, gee Wally, sorry for not going back and explaining the entirety of modern political movements

To you like you were a small child. Next time I'll remember to never assume that people such as you can make the connections on your own.

You are correct, the Dems, up until the passage of the Civil Rights Act, were, in many way, a much more conservative party.

However I was addressing the more modern political movement, a movement that started with Reagan.

And yes, despite your condescending tone, I know perfectly well what Reagan Democrats were, after all, I fought the good fight for Carter back in the day. Your definition does nothing to add to what I was trying to say however, and frankly it sounds like gratuitous snark to me.

Oh, one other minor detail, the Vietnam war began a long time before LBJ or even Kennedy. I suggest you go read Fire on the Lake in order to learn what happened before the "official" opening of the war.

Let me boil this down to one succinct point for you. Yes, the Democratic party has always had conservative members of the party, but few, if any, outright Republicans. Over the past thirty years we've seen a tremendous influx of real, live Republicans, which has had a negative effect on Democratic policy and actions. With the ascendancy of the Tea Baggers, more and more Republicans are fleeing to the Democratic party, and their increasing influence upon this party and what it stands for is going to move the Democratic party further to the right, perhaps even into the position occupied by the Republicans. Is that clear enough for you?

[bvar22]

17. he White House actively campaigned for a REAL Republican...

...in the Pennsylvania Democratic Primary.
Thank gawd the Democrat WON despite the White House opposition.

[JamesA1102]

20. Actually you didn't know what Reagan Dems were

If you did than you wouldn't have made the statements that you made.

And who are these republicans who are invading the party? Membership and party identification in both parties are declining with most moderates becoming independents.

[MadHound]

24. What statements did I make concerning Reagan Democrats?

All I said was that the Democratic party moved to the right in order to try, usually in vain, to bring them back into the fold. This is common knowledge, historical fact.

As far as the Republicans invading the party, take a look at the DLC, its personnel and policies. Furthermore, take a look at the last election. As soon as Palin was nominated for VP, the moderate Republicans started jumping ship. Hell, go back and watch Palin's acceptance speech. As the cameras pan the audience, sure enough, you have the hoot and holler section up front. But as you take a look at the upper deck, where the big money 'Pugs were, you start seeing expressions of horror and disgust. You can almost hear the check for the Obama campaign being written right then and there. This is further backed up by McCain's dismal ability to raise money, and by the voting demographics of the last election.

If you want to stick your head in the sand and deny this, fine, that's your perrogotive. However just because you choose to deny these facts doesn't make them any less factual. If you think that you can counter what I said, and do so with actual facts, then bring it. Otherwise all you're doing is showcasing your own political and historical ignorance.

[JamesA1102]

27. Please point out who the Republicans who moved into

the Democratic party were. What major voting blocks switched from Republican to Democratic? What major figures other than Sen. Spector?

[MadHound]

31. I was, and am, talking about voters.

Voters, donors, supporters. Got it?

[JamesA1102]

32. What voters?

I asked what voting blocks.

[MadHound]

35. That would be moderate Republicans, back in '08

The ones that freaked when they saw Palin as their VP candidate and fled the party.

[JamesA1102]

39. I thought we were talking about the '80s

but since it is about 2008, what are you basing this on?

[DrDan]

6. it is the common comment here that the teabag party is a joke . . .

but they have come a long way in the past two years - from nothing to now having several national candidates. As you suggest, this is having an impact on both major parties.

I think to continue to dismiss them as a joke will imperil us in the long-run.

[BeFree]

8. T-baggers

Yes they have come a long way. What is it that blows their bubble?

[DrDan]

10. unbridled greed from the mainstream repubs

[BeFree]

11. If that is true...

...then they must really be pissed at their hero, bush.

[another saigon]

15. interesting

I could not help but think as I watched that crazy christine this morning on ALL of the tv channels, What if a genuine leftist had won a primary? Do you think it would be all over the media like the baggers are?

[DrDan]

16. perhaps so . . . think of all the airtime Grayson has been receiving

[Octafish]

13. That's why billionaires back the Tea Party.

Makes sound investment sense, to move the country rightward. Less taxes for them, fewer social services for the "lower orders."

With that comes reduced public understanding of what the "Left" really means and stands for, let alone Democrats who know what it means to be a Democrat.

Thank you for an excellent essay, MadHound. You are spot-on.

[glitch]

22. And as long as the Democrats would rather triangulate than fight, moving rightward is the outcome.

It's irrational unless all you care about is personal gain.

Agreed, well said Madhound.

[Edweird]

23. Yep.

[kentuck]

29. The more "bi-partisan" they are, the more longevity in Washington...

In other words, the more they are alike, the more secure they feel in their profession of politics.

If they make sharp distinctions on policies and philosophy, then people have to make a choice and one of them may lose their vaunted positions in the House or Senate.

That is why they don't like too far right or too far left. It threatens the status quo.

[Ignis]

30. K&R

The big tent approach is great--but not at the expense of our core values.

[BAU]

36. Mike Allen of Politico brought up the left's Elephant in the Room this morning

...and I think it helps support the original poster's point. All 30 of the Democratic House members that voted against the Health Care bill won their primaries. Zero of the people who did vote for it, used that as a point to help them get re-elected. And all 30 of those who voted against it used that as selling point for their own re-election.

[Zorra]

37. They can become Independents, and put up their own tent.

We'll send them our whole pack of "Blue Dogs" to guard it for them.

Besides, the egg sucking Blue Dogs are stinking up our tent and are always stealing our food.