Read Senior Editor Susan J. Douglas's 8 reasons to make a tax-deductible donation to In These Times.

The Democrats’ Path to Victory

The public demand for progressive politics is growing stronger

By David Moberg

Voters are likely to choose the next president primarily on economic issues, especially if the financial crises deepen. But they will also decide the election based on concerns about the war in Iraq and, more broadly, America’s place in the world. On both counts—the pocketbook and the globe—Democrats hold an advantage. But to retain that advantage, Democrats will need to… return to article

  • subscribe to print magazine

  • Zoom OutZoom In Reader Comments (6)

    Page 1 of 1 pages

    I’m unsure whether the author is out of touch with reality or just too young to realize this, but there is nothing new about the Democrats’ “generous corporate financial backers on trade.”

    As I recall the Democrats controlled Congress except for about three years of the last several decades and there was a steady increase in lobbyists all the while. About the only way the Republicans can be given any additional blame is they managed to double the number to over 36,000 under the guidance of Tom DeLay.

    There are a very few individuals in Congress whom I would trust to look out for the working people and absolutely no party who gives more than lip service. It’s also notable that Ron Paul got no mention regarding the sellout of the U.S. middle class in the jobs category. He has been far and away the most outspoken.

    It was obvious to many of us before the GWH Bush/Clinton pushing through of NAFTA that this was NOT a good idea for any but the most wealthy among us. Perot and Buchanan were ignored and while Perot’s assessment was off on the sound effects, he was dead right on the effect.

    I fear the only thing Paul will accomplish is a repeat of the Perot effect of splitting the vote which gave Clinton eight years to cater to businesses.

    I certainly agree with this statement — “It is not enough to be anti-Iraq and anti-Bush,” for the Democrats and it is not enough for Republicans to be tough on terror. We are of aware all the problems, but there is a dearth of ideas being presented to deal with any of them.  A whole host of polls give Congress ratings as bad as the President.

    United States Posted by whattheheck on Dec 6, 2007 at 2:06 PM

    I agree that economics will become more and more an important issue.  But the only candidate that has the vision and the leadership to tackle this issue is Dennis Kucinich.  He is not beholden to corporate special interests.  He is the only Presidential candidate that will get us out of Iraq, end NAFTA, create a Department of Peace and bring about Medicare for All.  No other candidate running in the Democratic Primary has that progressive platform.  So if you call yourself progressive or liberal why aren’t you supporting him?  Don’t give me the defeatist response of “ I agree with his positions but he is “unelectable”. “ That is true if you don’t work and vote for him.  Why do you want to settle for the lowest common denominator?  Do you want another corporate Democrat, “Republican lite” or DINO in the Whitehouse?

    United States Posted by Trainer12 on Dec 7, 2007 at 12:32 PM

    When I read an article like that that totally ignores Dennis Kucinich, placing him parentheses, I have no confidence that the Democrats will ever find a path to meaningfulness.  What use is victory if even the self-described progressive pundits like Moberg don’t get it that Kucinich is the candidate who embodies the very things they are talking about, yet they ignore his candidacy?

    United States Posted by Gregory Wonderwheel on Dec 9, 2007 at 4:12 PM

    I agree on Moberg’s choice of issues, but the Democrats are gun shy after so many defeats. Clinton’s victory in 1992 was undone two years later in the Newt Gingrich Congressional election of 94. Moreover the candidates who have gravitated towards progressive issues are dividing the vote. Obama and Edwards have shown the greatest sympathy for the progressive views, but the three way race means that a candidate wins with 35 to 45% of the vote. I believe Hillary Clinton will do this as will Giuliani on the GOP side. Although the GOP predictions are harder to make.

    This means that candidates supportive of military spending and who define consensus as agreement between moderate Dems and moderate Republicans will be in the White House. Finding a way out of this trap is a key problem during the next 4 election cycles.

    However I offer this thought. The war in Iraq will be settled or tantalizing close to a settlement by Nov 08. The NIE report is only one of many break throughs we will see as new regional power arrangements are developed. These will include U.S. military bases in Iraq and regional treaties making Iran one of the status quo powers in the region. If sanctions remain they will be only applied by the U.S. The U.S. will abandon regime change in Iran as a goal and Iran will get guarantees from Sunni States that they will not attack.

    Consequently we will go into the elections with peace and lower oil prices. This doesn’t guarantee a GOP victory, far from it. But it does make the Democratic message harder to articulate.

    United States Posted by natriley on Dec 12, 2007 at 1:54 PM

    Dennis Kucinich won the Progressive Democrats of America poll operated by Howard Dean. John Edwards came in second and was the only other candidate with double digit favorability.  85% of voters in candidate-blind issue-based polling are matched with Kucinich on the issues.  ABC operated an online poll after the first Democratic debate asking who won?  Dennis Kucinich won that poll and the site administrators immediately withdrew the poll without explanation.  A new poll was posted which Kucinich also won and it was taken down. Running moderate Democrats such as Gore (now more progressive than he was perceived to be when he ran for president) and Kerry failed to rally the base of the Democratic party and many stayed home.  The concept of “electability” is flawed if you think you only have to mobilize swing voters and then that you have to mobilize them on the basis of conservative issues.  Mobilize the base and mobilize swing voters by emphasizing issues on which they are progressive, and we’ll have an electable candidate.  When public interest rules politics instead of pacs, it will be a brighter day.

    United States Posted by zeitgeistboheme on Dec 12, 2007 at 3:47 PM

    Because it would be impossible to vote for a Republican hack, the Democrats have my vote (unless I write in “Dick Gregory” as I did for 3 elections in the past) whether the Dems nominate Minnie Mouse (Hillary Clinton) or Donald Duck (Barack Obama).  And they will do that, and the voters will go along with it, so long as the “pundits” fail to give space to Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards. 

    The former is the visionary this country needs.  The latter is a candidate whose heart, at least, is in the right place.  And . . . he has committed the ultimate crime: he has become rich while still caring for the poor and middle class.  This crime earned FDR the enmity of his social peers in his time; and this crime has earned Edwards the enmity of the grasping rich in our time. 

    It is very disappointing to me that an “In These Times” writer would focus only on the two establishment candidates, at a time when we need the voices from the “outside.” Kurt Vonnegut said that without ITT he would be a “man without a country.” I fear if he read this article and the others like it, he would have to say that “even WITH ITT, he is a man without a country.” I know that I am.

    United States Posted by VivaldiCO on Dec 14, 2007 at 6:47 PM
    Page 1 of 1 pages

  • register a new account »Posting Security

    To participate in our forums, please register for a free account.
     

    Retreive lost password »

Article Appeared in this Issue

Full contents
Past issues

Also by David Moberg
Popular Discussions