On Thu, 13 Jul 2000, Doug Henwood wrote:
> Nathan, I wonder what you think of this quote from a Wash Post story
> the other day that a friend just sent me:
>
> >But Gore strategists contend that the major fissures in the party have been
> >generally resolved during Clinton's tenure in the White House.
> >"If you think of the last eight years, the party in government worked
> >through all the biggies," a Gore operative said. "It worked through trade;
> >we are a free-trade party. We worked through welfare reform; we are the
> >party that reformed welfare. We worked through fiscal discipline, because we
> >are the party that got rid of this deficit. So a bunch of the cleavages, if
> >you go back to '92, actually have been settled by the process of governing."
Well, as far as Democrats meaning Congressfolks and voters, he's obviously blowing smoke, given the fact that on NAFTA, fast track and PNTR, two-thirds to three-quarters of House Dems voted against the "free trade" position. On welfare, 50% voted no and fights continue down to the state level where implementation draws broad battlelines within party leaders and members. As far as "fiscal discipline", there was a consensus on raising taxes on the wealthy back in 1993 and that accomplishment is why the government is flush with money for the next decade, but what to do with the surplus is obviously contentious.
That said, this comment was made by Gore in terms of the party platform and in practive, the consensus mentioned reflects the Presidential wing of the party and that consensus is all that matters for the party platform. The fact that the Congressional wing of the party now has zero influence in writing the party platform is an inheritance from George McGovern, whose pre-1972 reforms of primary rules essentially gutted the power of local party activists and Congressional leaders and handed all convention and DNC power to the winner of the Presidential primary.
McGovern pioneered the system of using large-scale independent fundraising to bypass the need for accomodation to local party organizations. He hired his own organizers, ran his own media and elected his own delegates. And imposed his own platform on the party. That more business-oriented elements would hijack this approach to bypassing local party activists was inevitable and Clinton and Gore are the obvious result.
The irony of course is that back then, the Congressional wing of the party was the conservative wing of the party - the reason progressives were so excited to see McGovern gut its power over the party machinery. Now, the House wing especially is more progressive than the Presidential wing. One reason I continually criticize the argument than Democrats are "more conservative than they used to be" is that people who say it (including yourself) inevitably are speaking only of Presidential candidates. House Democrats, especially its leadership, are far more progressive than back in the 60s. Conservative Dems dominated committee chairmanships back then and none of the Speakers or Majority Whips were anywhere close to the progressive politics of Gephardt or Bonior.
But the House Dems don't have the numbers or the liberal GOP allies they had then to force through legislation, so we have analysts comparing the apples of massive Dem majorities to the "policies" of a minority party. As I've said, most of the comments on party politics made ignore the messiest and refuse to compare apples with apples. But when you compare the House Dem leadership of the 60s with the House Dem leadership of today, there is no comparison - they are far more progressive by any measure.
Too bad McGovern made sure they would have little influence in nominating the Presidential candidate.
-- Nathan Newman