November 05, 2004
Balm
John Belisarius gives the historical view of Kerry's success:
Sometimes you have to lose an election to build the foundation for later victory.Just ask the Conservative Republicans. They can recite you this lesson by heart. In every glowing account they write of their gradual rise to power they always point to Barry Goldwater’s unsuccessful 1964 campaign and Ronald Reagan’s 1976 bid for the Presidency (which did not get beyond the Republican primaries) as the pivotal campaigns that laid the foundations for all their subsequent victories.
And when you look at it from this point of view, the true scope, the genuinely impressive magnitude of the Democrats’ success this year can be expressed in a single sentence: In 2004 the Dems accomplished in 8 months what it took the Goldwater-Reagan conservative movement over a decade to achieve.
It's a compelling argument that I hope is correct, but I don't know enough about political history to judge. It could simply be wishful thinking, too. However, this last year did seem to redefine and restructure the Democratic party. A lot of that credit goes to Howard Dean who, though he would have been a disastrous general election candidate, did build an incredible grass-roots organization, fire up the left side of the party, and demonstrate how to raise money effectively via the Internet. I guess we'll find out in 2008 how deep and long-lasting any of the changes the 2004 campaign has made.
I think there is a difference between electoral politics and an ideological movement, although the two feed into each other. It's an interesting question whether or not Goldwater's run helped or hurt the GOP in the long run.
I'm inclined to believe Goldwater's defeat hurt the GOP more than it helped. He lost disastrously and probably helped the Democrats maintain their hold on congress, thereby giving the Dems a chance to institutionalize the liberal ideology that prevailed at the time. The Dems were able to enact the "welfare state", civil rights and affirmative action legislation, and other things conservatives consider evil.
But then again, the Johnson's actions mobilized conservatives down the road. And Goldwater gave a modern conservativism a sort of emotional birthright and defined its goals for generations.
But history does not necessarily repeat itself. Did George McGovern's disastrous defeat lead to long term electoral success via the strengh of his superior ideology? No it didn't. The Dems simply nominated Carter the next time around. Since Johnson, the Dems have been dependent on Southern Dems for national electoral success. Now, we need to find some other formula.
I think the Dems today are on the right side of reason on most issues. Whether or not they are on the right side of "history" will come down to how hard they are able to fight for their beliefs and whether they will able to eventually institutionalize them in America. We cannot simply rely on history and demographics.
Conservatives do not consider civil rights evil.
Unless they're for fags.
Correct. Like the legislation we are calling for that would allow the lynching of fags. And the bill currently being proposed that would demand that fags not be given government jobs. Or all the local right-wing school boards that are setting up "fag only" schools. Or the way we are always saying that fags shouldn't have the right to free speech or that fag newspapers should be shut down. Yep we are doing everything we can to see that fags have no civil rights.
Piraeus,
I should have written "considered evil" in the disputed passage, and of course I don't mean all "conservatives". But certainly there are conservatives out there that still oppose civil rights--just a lot less than in the 60s.
Once again, the issues depends on the definition of conservative--obviously you Catholics were more sympathetic to civil rights given your 60s orientation on social issues and demographic concentration in the north...
"you Catholics" cute.
Look, you fundamentally do not understand the southern mind nor do you understand the conservative mind and the traditions it draws from. Otherwise you would not refer stop equating the Klan with the conservatives. Two very distinct groups with very little cross over. In fact most klansmen were considered leftist on labor reform and government expansion. FDR democrats and Wilsonian wet-eyed wonders. Wilson used to show the Klu Klux Klan movie at the white house. It is in his biography. He loved the film. Quit tarring the conservatives.