Susan Gardner and Markos Moulitas take far too much credit for the 2006 Democratic victories in a Washington Post op-ed today. Just as 2004 was no mandate for George Bush’s policies, 2006 did not signify majority support for all the views held by the liberal blogosphere. As much as liberal bloggers might like to believe this, holding such delusions could lead to another lengthy period of Republican government.
Voters rejected the Republicans after years of failures. Some voted for the Democrats because they were the only choice available. A majority agreed with the Democrats on many issues, but not necessarily all. It must be kept in mind that there were reasons that people voted Republican, even before 9/11, and they may do so again if they don’t find the Democrats to be an improvement.
While the net-roots certainly helped, it is also quite likely that by 2006 the Republicans would have been rejected even if Daily Kos never existed. For Gardner and Kos to take credit for Lamont’s primary victory is particularly bizarre considering the general election outcome. While I was not happy for the result, this was hardly a victory for the net-roots, although incumbency and Republican support were probably more important than ideology in the general election.
Gardner and Kos take on an easy target in Harold Ford and the DLC. As Ford has been vocal recently with his recommendations it is understandable that Kos would respond to him. It would be a dangerous falacy to assume from this that the only possible Democratic positions are liberal versus the DLC’s version of centrist.
As I’ve recently discussed, the DLC is not representative of the views of independent and more moderate voters. While voters do not support progressive Democrats on all issues, looking for a mythical centrist position is not the answer. One reason people voted Democratic was dissatisfaction with the war, and the DLC’s “centrist” views are now far to the right of mainstream America.
Many voters also rejected the Republcians because the social issues they used to turn out the conservative vote in 2004 backfired against them. Many people objected to the increased intrusion in what should be individual decisions. This includes end of life decisions such as in the Terri Schiavo case, abortion rights, stem cell research, and Republican intolerance of homosexuality. These are also not areas where we can look for a center. Just as with Iraq, holding the DLC positions would leave the Democrats as no better choice than the Republicans are.
It is on economics that many Democrats fail to understand why their party has lost so many elections. Most Americans see not two but one America, where they can strive to succeed. While there is no doubt that there is inequality, those who strive for success concentrate on what they can achieve rather than live in jealousy of others. There is a reasonable middle ground between the corporate welfare policies of the Republicans and the economic views of the far left.
The lack of mainstream support for populist economic positions can be seen in polls which break down people who intend to vote in Democratic caucuses and primaries by whether they identify themselves as Democrats versus Independents. The winners in such polls are Bill Richardson, who campaigns as being more business-friendly, and Barack Obama, who works to transcend the usual left versus right differences. In contrast, John Edwards does poorly among these independents. The affluent suburbs are starting to vote Democratic, but this is over Iraq and social issues, not economic issues.
In recent years the Democrats have moderated on economic issues. With tax rates for the upper middle class no longer as high in the past, and with Democrats being the party which last balanced the budget, many who are moderate on economic issues felt safe in voting Democratic based upon Iraq and social issues. This will quickly change if they perceive the Democrats as moving to the left on economic issues.
If there is a new center to American politics, it is not found by trying to find a place in the middle on all issues, and it is certainly not found in the policies of the DLC. The real center is an area of common agreement between many Democrats, independents, “Starbucks Republicans,” and “South Park Republicans” in opposing the war, holding liberal social positions, but being more moderate on economic issues.
So exactly whose side are you on, Ron?
Seems you reserve your grandest contempt for “Liberals.”
I guess that’s why the GOP is winning, and will continue to win.
Hart,
Posting under a fake name does not hide your identity.
Anybody who both reads this blog and has an ounce of integrity knows your statement is not true. Of course its already been made quite clear that you don’t possess an ounce of integrity.
Rather than claiming that I show the grandest contempt for liberals, why don’t you show a little honesty. My political positions are quite clear in this post, as well as elsewhere on this blog.
We all know very well that it isn’t contempt for liberals which you object to. What you have repeatedly objected to is my contempt for you and your buddies at The Democratic Daily for your support of anti-Semites, Holocaust Denial, Astologers, violence against those who disagree with you, and conspiracy theories. I hardly think of your crowd as liberals.
I have to take exception about the netroots not having a considerable role in the 2006 elections. I speak of my state Virginia. I think the blogs, particularly Raising Kaine, DID make the difference for Webb winning, because they pounded that macaca story day in and day out, while Webb could stick to his campaign of Iraq and Economic Fairness, staying away from the mud. Since Webb was the deciding seat to make the Senate majority Democratic, that role cannot be underestimated. I do agree that some of that WaPo editorial took credit for too much, but do not underestimate the power of LOCAL BLOGS. They still remain the unsung heroes of ’06.
Beachmom,
Webb may have been an exception, and you do make a good point that, as it came down to one vote, getting Webb in was major.Still this was far more local blogs as opposed to the big national blogs like Daily Kos. I also wonder ot what extent it was the blogs and to what extent it was Allen self-destructing. Of course there was syngergy there as the blogs kept the story alive.
The op-ed was speaking of the “netroots”, not Daily Kos in particular. I know you’re not a fan of dkos, but I still think the larger netroots, taken as a whole, including your own corner of the blogosphere, has and will continue to make a difference.
Beachmom,
The question is not whether the net-roots makes a difference. I’m not questioning that they made a difference. One problem with the op-ed was that it takes too much credit for the victory when opposition to the Republicans was a major factor independent of the net-roots.