Jonathan Weisman reports for the Washington Post that there seems to be trouble in the Democratic camp. According to Weisman, the Democrats’ failure to “halt President Bush’s most controversial tactics in the fight against terrorism has exposed deep divisions within the party, with many Democrats angry that they cannot defeat even a weakened president on issues that they believe should be front and center.”
Again I get the feeling that we are witnessing a battle between the left-wing of the DP on the one hand, and the DLC Democrats on the other. DLC Democrats seem to oppose these tactics, but seem to be unwilling to steer towards a big confrontation. They oppose it, but they do not wish to appear “weak on terrorism.” The left-wing, on the other hand, disagree strongly with the DLC Democrats and believe that these tactics are hurting America (and the war on terror). Besides that, they consider these tactics to be immoral.
Of course, the left-wing of the DP (bloggers but also special interest groups and activists) have a good case when they argue that many moderates agree with them on this specific issue and oppose the policies of Bush et al. On the other hand, one can wonder whether these problems rank highest on the list of issues moderates want the US Congress to deal with. Furthermore, it seems to me that moderates are willing to compromise on these issues, while the left-wing has no intention of doing so. The DLC Democrats, therefore, try to take the ‘safe road’ by criticizing Bush, but not doing anything to stop him. The result is that Democrats are still able to present themselves as the party of human rights, humane treatment of prisoners, etc. without appearing to be weak on terrorism.
Or so they hope.
The problem with this last approach is that one gets the impression that Democrats shout something every now and then, and complain but are utterly incompetent or unwilling to actually do something. If voters want one thing, it is a party that actually does something. The DLC Democrats basically walk (on) a very thin line: they have to be extremely careful, if they are not, they will fall and take the Democratic Party with them. They cannot afford to appear to be rhetorically skilled, but politically powerless and incompetent, but they can most likely also not afford to join forces with the left-wing too much – for if they do, it will be used against them.
This is all from a political point of view, of course. There is however more to it. Sometimes one has to take a stand, even when doing so may result in losing elections in the (near) future (although that is far from certain – as I said, quite some moderate voters do not exactly agree with Bush’s policies either, although they have a more nuanced view than the left-wing of the DP). The question becomes, then, what will the Democrats do? Will they try to take the safe road (which may result in failure nonetheless), or will they take a risk and, therefore, risk losing elections because the Republicans may once again successfully portray Democrats as being weak on terrorism?
NOTE: just to make sure we will not have a debate about something I didn’t say – No, I do not say that the Democrats are weak on terrorism. I’m saying that the GOP has successfully portrayed them as being such in the past, and that DLC Democrats are (probably) afraid of being portrayed as such again in the near future.
PAST CONTRIBUTOR.