I don't think you can reliably judge how far a party has moved to the left or right from candidates' campaign rhetoric in primaries. Primary campaigns are aimed at an atypical minority of the voting public. And, since this Democratic primary campaign is the first genuinely competitive one in twelve years, the pressure to appeal to the hardcore is probably greater than it has been in the recent past.

Has Mickey Kaus ever heard of a guy named Al Sharpton? The race baiting Reverend is going to put the Democrats’ feet to the fire. Somebody forgot to tell Sharpton about “ the perverse effect of freeing Democrats to be paleoliberals on race again....”

“The Dems certainly haven't abandoned the Clintonian emphasis on balanced budgets.”

Dan Drezner is mistaking cynical political rhetoric for reality. The Democrats who will determine the party’s presidential nominee are indifferent about balancing the national budget. They are just using this issue to beat up on President Bush. People like Laura Tyson and Robert Rubin have been effectively marginalized.

“Undoubtedly, on some issues, the party has lurched leftwards. This is certainly true on trade matters..”

Trade protectionism is now a dogmatic requirement for any viable Democrat national candidate. This issue may be the most important economic issue. A viable economy must allow outdated jobs to be destroyed.

“But I'm not sure if the general claim can be made that the Democratic party has shifted to the left.”

Our host might even be correct in the general sense. I suspect that there are still many 1992 Bill Clinton Democrats in the hinterlands. But so what? They don’t hold the real power in the presidential nominating process. And that is essentially all that matters!

"This issue may be the most important economic issue." should read "This issue may be the most important."

I think all the talk about trade--with the possible exceptions of Gep and Kooch--is just pandering.

I doubt that Dean or Clark would throw up tarrifs.

And maybe I'm missing something, but I fail to see, moreover, how requiring foreign countries to buck up their environmental and labor rules is fundamentally "anti-trade," unless that's used as an excuse.

And I'll note in passing that our current President is only a free trader himself *cough* *ag subsidies* *cough* *steel tarrifs* when he deems it politically useful.

Democrats promoting a balanced budget is an illusion. Just add up all the programs they are proposing and even with the tax increases they want the budget is getting nothing but bigger. Bush has been bad on spending, but I see zero evidence that any of the dems will be any better.The first candidate promoting axing farm subsidies might get my vote, but im not holding my breath.

This is completely unrelated to previous comments, but here goes...

"There wasn't a nano-second in which any candidate said anything to suggest that minorities can do anything to benefit themselves without more government help, more money and more white condescension."

This struck me as racist on the part of the Democrats. As minorities are just as good and capable as white people, wouldn't the whites not need to condescend?

The major parties go bananas periodically like this with little noticeable carry-over to the next election. Nixon in 1968 wasn't much hurt by Goldwater in 1964, nor Carter in 1976 by McGovern in 1972.

IMO there are two crucial differences this time which might be exceptions to the above general rule.

1) We were attacked at home on 9/11.

2) The Democrats are in some danger of becoming a sectional party. Being frozen out of one of the country's major sections is no big deal - the GOP did fine without the South for a hundred years. Being frozen out of two is trouble.

Being frozen out of two or more sections, AND being perceived as supporting the country's enemies, is big trouble - ask the Federalists.

The Democrats risk long-term harm given their current position in the war on terror. If they are frozen out of the West (whose dominance by the GOP is hidden by the abortioniac GOP collapse in California), their party's continued existence will become an issue.

Political parties need to be big tents to survive. The Democrats drove out their national security aka Scoop Jackson wing in the 1980's (one of whom was me) and are now paying the penalty for that. Leiberman didn't discover that he was a hawk until it was obvious he had lost, and has no influence over the Party's image.

It will be interesting to see if Governor Schwarzenegger can turn the GOP around in California. If he can, the Democratic Party will have an existential problem.

Shorter Dan D:

Measuing how far the Democrats have swung to the left is rather simple.

If the very extreme left isn't the center of the Democrat Party today, where are the Democrat leaders who are willing to object to this extremism of equating Bush with Hitler? Even Liberman isn't willing to raise his voice to object to the constant chant of "Bush Is Hitler", even though Liberman is Jewish, for pity's sake.

There's only two logical reasons for the 9 dwarves NOT to object to this tactic;

1: they agree with the statements

2: They know where the political center of the party they want to be nominated by really is, and know that if they object, their chances for being nominated will be zero.

Dan,

In trying to determine if the Democrats have moved, I think you're going to separate their message from their belief.

Take gun control, for example. Compared to 2000, the Democrats are putting much less emphasis on this.

Is it because they've come to believe that it is an important individual right which they should defend, or because they think that it improves their chances to be elected if they don't admit to or lie about their desire to ban guns?

Personally, I think it's the latter. And if so, they will just hurt themselves by changing their message but not their underlying beliefs. Voters are pretty good at sniffing out fake sincerity.

(Does anyone really believe the democrats when they say "mend it, don't end it" about affirmative action or "safe, legal, and rare" about abortion? On abortion, I think Wesley Clark was honestly articulating party doctrine when he said "life begins with the mother's decision" the other day).

But I may be wrong about the democrats, and they can easily prove it. Let's see Schumer, Kennedy, Feinstein and Boxer show they have changed their belief by introducing bills to repeal some of the gun laws they've passed in the past.

I fail to see, moreover, how requiring foreign countries to buck up their environmental and labor rules is fundamentally "anti-trade," unless that's used as an excuse.

Two responses - (a) yes, its an excuse to impose trade barriers and (b) its anti-trade because it will have the effect of choking off trade and competition. Many countries simply can't afford the same enviro and labor rules as wealthy Western nations, so this policy has the inevitable effect of reading them right out of Western markets.

Tom,

As you pointed out to me. In 1992 the Democrats had the Presidency, the House, the Senate and 40 state governorships. Today they face Republican majority control of the Federal government and the largest state governorships -- Texas, California, New York, Florida -- are in Republican hands.

What we are seeing here is the politics of political mono-culture. When the Democrats exiled their "Scoop Jackson" national security wing. They turned their party into a hot house flower that could not stand the frigid wind blasts of war. No Democratic candidate, even a four star general, will be trusted to run the war on terrorism because of the of the nature of the party behind them.

Some Democrats see the problem. The following paragraphs are from a Donna Brazile column on the WSJ op-ed page:

"Democrats have yet to fully comprehend the new reality of the post-Sept. 11 world. While most Americans viewed the war in Iraq through the prism of the Twin Towers attacks, many prominent Democrats still seem not to grasp the profound sense of insecurity that so many people feel in our country. This unease is especially pronounced among women, who have been a cornerstone of our party's strength and without whom we cannot hope to win back the White House or Congress. The American people agree with us on many vital issues --but they believe that we Democrats are weak and indecisive when it comes to standing up to dictators and terrorists, and when it comes to the primary responsibility of government: defending the nation. No matter how compelling our positions on the economy, health care, Social Security, the environment and privacy, if voters continue to see us as feckless and effete they will not listen to our message next year and they will re-elect Mr. Bush.

As we prepare to mount our challenge in 2004, Democrats need to return to the muscular national security principles of Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy and the other Democrats who understood that only by confronting threats abroad could our party achieve its other great mission of expanding equality, opportunity and progress here at home."

I even figured out a way for a Democratic candidate to start the national security rehabilitation process Brazile talked about and posted it to Winds of Change:

Dead and Damned -- Democrats after 9/11
May 30, 2003
Trent Telenko
http://windsofchange.net/archives/003510.html

The Democratic Party will only cure this problem when they have a 1948 Truman style presidential candidate purge of the Democratic leftists. To give it credit, the Democratic Leadership Council is trying to pick this fight. The problem is that it isn't the DLC's place to do that. That fight must be done by the Democratic nominee after he has secured his position and before the Democratic National Convention.

The easiest way for that nominee to pick that fight is to answer Donna Brazile's "What Would Scoop Do?" question, by naming Richard Perle as his Secretary of State choice before the convention ballots are taken.

Last I read, Perle is still a registered Democrat. If Perle was really guarantee that he would be supported by the Democratic Presidential nominee. That the Democratic nominee had seriously "gone over to the dark side." Perle would take the job. This would drive the Democratic activist base insane and they would walk out of the party...which is the point of the exercise.

Perle as the Democratic face on national security combined with the activist walk out would go a very long way towards rehabilitating the Democratic Party's national security credibility with the American people. Unfortunately, none of the current Democratic field will do this.

Which brings up something else I posted regards the nature of political parties that have locked out factions. This is from a post of mine commenting on a Tod Linberg column:

Going Off the Cliff -- Democrats in 2004
July 22, 2003
Trent Telenko
http://windsofchange.net/archives/003808.html

Lindberg is right to choose the role of Goldwater in remaking the Republican Party. He is wrong in casting centrist Democrats as Goldwaterites. That role belongs to the Dean-istas because they have a candidate and the pro-war Democratic centrists don't.

American political party factions without candidates in their party either die or walk to other political parties. An example of this happened in the 1980s when the Democrats national security wing, the "Scoop Jackson Democrats," became today's Republican Neo-Cons. The reason that happened is because the rest of the Democratic Party made Reagan-hate and Pro-Soviet anti-anti-communism a political litmus test for Democratic Party membership in 1984.

In 2004 the Democrats are making Bush-hate and anti-war opposition another litmus test for the party. Those, like Armed Liberal, who fail that test will be treated no differently than Richard Perle, the Neo-Con "Prince of Darkness" and still a registered Democrat.

All I can say to Armed Liberal and other pro-war Democrats is you are going to have no home in the Democratic Party so Welcome to the Republican (AKA Dark) Side of the Force.

Mwa ha ha ha...! (Key in the Star Wars Imperial March theme music)

You don't know how much fun I had closing that column.

Dan,

You are a political scientist.

Do you know of any way to 'measure' ,however crudely, the left and right bias of the parties?

I agree the Dems may have moved right on some issues. But the GOP has moved, dramatrically I would argue, to the left on many issues. It has all but given up fighting the 'cultural' wars except in token form. And on fiscal matters the move is even clearer. There is simply no constituency among the GOP to reduce the size of government in any meaningfiul way. The only debate with Dems is on how to pay for it, not on the size of spending.

Your statement about democrats continuing Clinton's fiscal discipline (i.e. balanced budgets) will only be true - and not hollow rhetoric - the moment democrats advocate ANY problem (other than defense) be solved with LESS money than what Republicans put forward. And the moment those pigs fly....

The "center" of a party differs on Election Day from the "center" of people who are crazy enough to care deeply about the primaries in Iowa

The center will also move quickly when Dean gets whupped. The Democrats ran a fairly centrist guy in 2000 and lost. That's why they became (temporarily) nutty.

Maor, Gore was long a very centrist Democrat, even at times a bit conservative, but in 2000 he abandoned his own legacy and veered off of centrism.

Dave Thompson--you seriously mean to imply that Sharpton has serious influence on the Democratic party? He's influential only in NY, which the Democratic candidate will carry with or without Sharpton's approval, so he will be ignored.

To Dave and all the others arguing along the lines that "Trade protectionism is now a dogmatic requirement for any viable Democrat national candidate": Clinton/Gore were the trade liberalizers; Bush/Cheney are the administration of steel, textile, and sugar tariffs as well as massive farm subsidies.

Can you find Dems seriously advocating protectionism? Sure, Dennis Kucinic and some others. Do they have much influence? No.

For the mainstream Dem candidates, I think it's just primary rhetoric. I'm a major free trade advocate and whenever I make a post to that effect, many of my (mostly liberal) readers get very upset. So Dean and Clark have to make vague statements about "protecting American jobs" and "ensuring fair and free trade," but neither one, to my knowledge, has any proposals to substantively reduce free trade.

Look at the actions and policies, not the rhetoric. Bush talks free trade but is protectionist. Mainstream Democratic candidates may talk protectionist at times, but their actions and proposals are generally in favor of free trade.

AB

P.S. Dan -- it's nice to see a sober conservative who can honestly assess the Democratic party and conclude that it has not moved left. (At most, it tried moving Right in 2002, got creamed, and is moving back to it's 2000 location.)

Mark Buehner wrote:

Democrats promoting a balanced budget is an illusion. Just add up all the programs they are proposing and even with the tax increases they want the budget is getting nothing but bigger. Bush has been bad on spending, but I see zero evidence that any of the dems will be any better.

Angry Bear wrote:

Dave Thompson--you seriously mean to imply that Sharpton has serious influence on the Democratic party? He's influential only in NY, which the Democratic candidate will carry with or without Sharpton's approval, so he will be ignored.

In 2000 both Democratic Presidential candidates and then Senate candidate Hillary Clinton evidently thought he was important enough in Democratic politics to show up to kiss his ring (Bradley even laughingly referred to Sharpton as a “civil rights leader”). Do you have any evidence to show that the racist, anti-Semitic Sharpton has declined in stature in Democratic politics? If so, one would think that by now the leading Democratic contenders would have denounced having this piece of filth share the stage with them – unless they either agree with his views or consider him too influential to risk offending.

To Dave and all the others arguing along the lines that "Trade protectionism is now a dogmatic requirement for any viable Democrat national candidate": Clinton/Gore were the trade liberalizers; Bush/Cheney are the administration of steel, textile, and sugar tariffs as well as massive farm subsidies.

Can you find Dems seriously advocating protectionism?

Since fighting terrorism is a pretty tricky and almost invisible fight, what the Democrats need is a good gesture. This works best if there's a demonstrable enemy and a quick victory.

I would recommend that the Democratic candidate advocate invading Syria. It should be easy to scare up links between Syria and terrorism (easier than Iraq), and it shouldn't be too hard to achieve a quick victory, especially if you paste the place with air warfare. The important thing is to pull out quickly to avoid having to pay for rebuilding. Voila - you save America from terrorists and you are far keep the budget deficit down, unlike that spendthrift Bush.

When the next unpleasant faction takes up the reins of power in the chaos, you squish them, giving you a nice, regular, television-friendly proof of your toughness on terrorism.

Since fighting terrorism is a pretty tricky and almost invisible fight, what the Democrats need is a good gesture. This works best if there's a demonstrable enemy and a quick victory.

There might be an aspirin factory or two somewhere in Africa that they missed the last time . .

Brilliant post, Tom West.

Trent Telenko:

>The Democratic Party will only cure this problem
> when they have a 1948 Truman style presidential
> candidate purge of the Democratic leftists.

It's interesting you should mention this. I hear through the vine, that Dean's people are running ads in Iowa, trying to make him out to be the Truman of the new generation.

Are the Dean-Brains reading your Blog, I wonder?

Bithead,

Winds of Change is Joe Katsman's blog. I was just a contributor.

And yes, I expect a number of the Deaniacs have read Joe's blog, judging from some of the comments that pop up there.