I think they both nail it. I think Ross Douthat's claim that the Democrats are about nothing but a cult of personality surrounding Hillary Clinton is exactly wrong. As Krugman says, any number of Democrats-Biden, O'Malley, could rally the party around them in just the same way because the party is more unified than it's been in many years.
"As Yglesias says, Democrats are remarkably unified on policy. They want to preserve health reform; they want to preserve financial reform, even though some would want to push it further; they want action on climate change; they may be conflicted on immigration, but that’s mostly internal soul-searching rather than a division between party factions."
"This policy unity has been helped by the fact that Obama has had a moderate degree of success in achieving these goals. If he had had an easy time, the party might be divided between those wanting more radical action and those not in a hurry; if he had failed utterly, the party might be divided (as it was for much of the past three decades) between a liberal faction and a Republican-lite faction. As it is, however, Obama has managed to achieve a lot of what Democrats have sought for generations, but only with great difficulty against scorched-earth opposition. This means that the conflict between “the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party” — exemplified these days by Elizabeth Warren — and the more pro-big-business wing is relatively muted: the liberal wing knows that Obama has gotten most of what could be gotten, and the actual policies haven’t been the kind that would scare off the less liberal wing."
"How do personalities matter in all this? Not so much. In the end, Obama implemented Clinton’s health plan (remember how he was against mandates?), and Clinton, if elected, will continue Obama’s legacy. The party is willing to rally around an individual because it’s unified on policy, not the other way around.
"As Yglesias says, Democrats are remarkably unified on policy. They want to preserve health reform; they want to preserve financial reform, even though some would want to push it further; they want action on climate change; they may be conflicted on immigration, but that’s mostly internal soul-searching rather than a division between party factions."
"This policy unity has been helped by the fact that Obama has had a moderate degree of success in achieving these goals. If he had had an easy time, the party might be divided between those wanting more radical action and those not in a hurry; if he had failed utterly, the party might be divided (as it was for much of the past three decades) between a liberal faction and a Republican-lite faction. As it is, however, Obama has managed to achieve a lot of what Democrats have sought for generations, but only with great difficulty against scorched-earth opposition. This means that the conflict between “the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party” — exemplified these days by Elizabeth Warren — and the more pro-big-business wing is relatively muted: the liberal wing knows that Obama has gotten most of what could be gotten, and the actual policies haven’t been the kind that would scare off the less liberal wing."
"How do personalities matter in all this? Not so much. In the end, Obama implemented Clinton’s health plan (remember how he was against mandates?), and Clinton, if elected, will continue Obama’s legacy. The party is willing to rally around an individual because it’s unified on policy, not the other way around.
In fact, it’s the Republicans who desperately need a hero. In retrospect, they needed W much more than they realized: he combined policy fealty to the plutocrats with a personal manner that appealed to the base, in a way no Republican now manages."
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/15/disciplined-democrats/?_php=true&_type=blogs&module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs®ion=Body&_r=0
Krugman is exactly right: as counterintutitive as it sounds, it's the GOP that is totally undisciplined and 'needs a hero'-the desperation for this is getting so bad they're actually now even thinking that Romney will save them (!). I know I've pointed out numerous times that the GOP has learnt nothing from 2012-even on immigration-the one thing everyone seemed certain they had learned. However, this would truly put an exclamation on truly learning not one single thing form 2012-even opting for the same candidate again.
"How bad is it? So bad that some establishment Republicans — which means people who work for the corporate side — are pining for another run by, yes, Mitt Romney."
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/?module=BlogMain&action=Click®ion=Header&pgtype=Blogs&version=Blog Post&contentCollection=Opinion
Actually what's hard to believe is not that the GOP has completely imploded-this is obvious to anyone not living under a rock for the last 10 years, but that the Dems are now a disciplined party. I mean this is the Democratic party for God's sake. The party that has always been divided among itself-think of years like 1924 or 1968, or for that matter 2000 when Nader's candidacy likely cost Al Gore the Presidency. Here Yglesias makes a truly excellent point:
"The much greater demographic diversity of the Democratic Party coalition may give it an illusion of fragility. Talk during recent primary campaigns of "wine track" versus "beer track" Democrats further amplifies that sense. But a look at the congressional caucus' behavior reveals a party that is dramatically more united than at any time in the past hundred years. Defections come overwhelmingly from outlier legislators representing very conservative states like Arkansas or Louisiana."
"What you would expect to see from a party torn apart by demographics is elected officials who put together very different voting records. But even though Jerry Nadler (Greenwich Village and the Upper West Side), Peter Welch (in Vermont), and Maxine Waters (South LA) represent very different people they vote in very similar ways. And you see that on most big issues Democratic Senators representing the contested terrain in the Midwest, Southwest, and Virginia vote together with those from the Northeast and the Pacific Coast."
"Rustbelt legislators back Obama's EPA regulations, and comprehensive immigration reform was unanimously endorsed by Democratic Party Senators. American politics is becoming more ideological, and the Democratic coalition is increasingly an ideological coalition that happens to be diverse (and, indeed, that upholds the value of diversity as an ideological precent) rather than a patchwork of ethnic interests or local machines."
http://www.vox.com/2014/6/14/5802564/democrats-are-more-unified-than-ever
Demographic diversity does not mean ideological divisions and as he points out the ideological center of the party is widely held and cuts through ethnic lines. The irony is that this is the Democratic party which has always been a patchwork of ethnic interests and local machines-the original dominance of the old slave owning Dixie South during the first 60 years till the Civil War was thanks to the Faustian Bargain of the Northern Democrats in giving way on slavery and other regional interests to the South in exchange for party unity.
Ironically with the final fizzling out of any old blue dog Democrats in 2010 the party has finally become a truly national party-with the regional stuff finally tamped down on. In any case, Douthat should worry about the Republicans more and the Democrats less as the GOP's problems truly are dour and indeed are the powder keg he wants to believe is the nature of the Democrats.
P.S. Throughout most of their history the Dems have been at least two and often three distinct parties. You had the Northern Yankee Democrats, the Southern Dixiecrat Democrats and then the 'ethnic' Democrats of the local machines Yglesias hints at-the Tamany Hall, the Daly machine in Chicago, the Catholic, Italian, Jewish, and Polish Democrats, e
No comments:
Post a Comment