Democratic Self-Destruction Proceeding on Schedule

Thursday night, in Vegas, the Democratic hopefuls meet again for the next big debate showdown of this intensifying primary season. But before we get there, it is worth pausing a moment to consider the memorable events of the previous big debate showdown in Philly - and why the GOP was so tickled with the result.

True, the Philly debate was interesting for a change. But at what cost? Consider the two most memorable takeaways (not counting UFO sightings):

1. Our likely nominee looked bad on the critical issue of integrity. Everyone knew Obama was coming after Hillary; he announced it ahead of time, and Brian Williams started with a question about it. Obama likes to say he has a different approach to politics than Hillary - more inclusive, less combative - that appeals to voters turned off by politics as usual. That may be, but by the time Edwards and Tim Russert and then Obama again got into it, they were no longer discussing Hillary's policy positions or political philosophy: they were openly saying she lied to the American people. They pounced when she stumbled in discussing drivers' licenses for illegal immigrants, and they didn't stop there. They used that as a jumping-off point for a more sweeping accusation: that being misleading is business as usual for her. Hillary didn't back down, but she didn't escape unscathed either.

Ronald Reagan was fond of invoking what he called his 11th Commandment: "Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican." We don't aspire to operate as a cabal like the GOP has; we need to criticize each other to figure out how to move the country forward. But attacks on personal integrity are especially poisonous. By the end, Obama was even saying he couldn't tell whether Hillary was "for it or against it" (referring to the drivers license policy), echoing the devastating attacks on John Kerry's "for it before I was against it" comment about his war funding vote.

We will all rally around our nominee when the primaries are over. But if the papers are now saying that even democrats think Hillary's personal integrity is questionable, we will not be allowed to forget that if she is our nominee. What's more, she might yet give as good as she gets. Hillary took a real hit in her polls numbers after this last debate, and if she falls too much further, expect to hear more about shady real estate deals and lavish lifestyles as Obama and Edwards have their characters called into question as well. Our band of crusading heroes could become a circular firing squad real quick.

2. Our next most likely nominee took a radioactive position on the critical issue of immigration. Immigration is likely to be a bigger deal in this election cycle than ever before. It may not feel like a big deal to everyone, but a lot of people in a lot of places around the country are understandably unsettled that recently there are a lot more people around who don't look like the folks they are used to seeing around, who speak in an unfamiliar accent, if not an unfamiliar language. It's not racist to find this unsettling, it's just human nature. As with national security, this issue resonates in some of the deepest recesses of our psychology.

The issue of whether to issue drivers' licenses to illegal immigrants is a complicated one; ultimately the experts consider it a sensible idea that benefits the citizens they may crash into. But that subtlety is lost on three out of every four voters, including a lot of likely democratic voters and the vast majority of swing voters, who find the idea of issuing licenses to people who aren't legally supposed to be here incomprehensible, if not offensive. New York's Governor Spitzer, whose complex three-tiered licensing plan was at issue in the debate, announced this week he was abandoning the policy to try to save his governorship after "his standing with voters [had fallen] faster and further than any politician in recent New York history," as the Times reported.

Yet Barack Obama, after criticizing Hillary for sensibly trying to explain her way out of supporting the policy, declared his own unconditional support for it. (If you're among the minority who supports it, you may have found this a noble gesture; if you're among the other three quarters, "sanctimonious" is probably closer to the mark.) And even after Spitzer was forced to ditch the policy, Obama's spokesman has reassured us he remains as firmly committed to it as ever.

Somewhere in this great land there must be other politicians still willing to support giving licenses to illegal immigrants. But I doubt many of them are daft enough to expect to inspire a historic movement to heal our nation's political divisions while championing such an overwhelmingly unpopular policy.

Of course, we are Democrats, we stand on principle for the right and the good. But if three-quarters of voters fail to understand where we are coming from, whose fault is that exactly? Is it their fault for being too busy and/or not studious enough to get the public policy degree needed to appreciate the logic of this policy? Are we democrats, or Platonists?

Immigration can be a tricky issue for progressives to connect with voters on, but it is not impossible. Hillary was inexplicably unprepared, but at least tried to make the point that our whole immigration system right now is crazy, and that's the only reason governors would ever consider a patently crazy idea like issuing licenses to illegal immigrants in order to protect their own citizens on the road. Like Hillary, you don't support licensing, you support comprehensive reform. We can be true to our principles and not get beat up on the immigration issue (this memo [pdf] explains a sensible way forward on pages 12-13). But we have to respect and respond to voters' concerns on this one, or we're going to get burned.

--

One year prior to each of our last two presidential elections, we democrats felt confident we would win. The opportunity was there. It is there again now. Anyone want to bet who wins?

Comments

[peaceandfreedom]

Ruleoflaw said it better than I could,I don't know about MitchW, but it sure saves time on typing and pretty much sums up my take on this deal. Beliefs really are all we've got. We got a constitution out of 'em once...

[CubMom]

(esp. to MitchW and Rule of law)
To any of you who think the writer is a typical elitist anything, just remember the ol' Lotto slogan. "You gotta be in it to win it." So what if we take some cues for winning a presidential seat from the scumbags. That doesn't violate our integrity. Not every great thing was invented by a great or moral person; the lack of integrity of the creator is beside the point.

Sure, we can do the same old thing and lose again, and rightly so, because that seems to be our current M.O. Or, we can change our strategy, which presently stinks, and possibly win. I vote for winning, and not sitting on my moral high-horse and complaining about how exactly we did it. Sure, I'd love to say the Dems are and always have been as pure as the driven snow, and that's exactly how they should continue. They aren't. They never will be. Might as well use what they know to win, rather than to stand impotently at the sidelines, cringing and criticizing the other side for an ever-growing, fearful, and needlessly helpless audience.

[Plowboy]

I do not see any Democrat self destruction. I do see Democrats arguing about some serious matters as they should. No party that puts its own interests above those of the nation is worthy of consideration. Democrats who would copy the behavior of the treasonous Republicans (who have been selling America out for their own advantages) should be exposed and defeated. That will give us an honest set of America first candidates. It isn't GOOD Democrats who have been harming the paqrty and the nation, but Neodemocrats (copies of the Neocons running bthe Republicans recently) and the "fair and balanced" media (Fox and its imitators) who have refused to fucus on the important issues brought forward by Kucinich, Richardson and a couple of other candidates. It seems that instead of looking honestly at what those two (and sometimes Edwards, Obama, and Dodd) have said, the complaint here is that they should be like the Republicans (and acquiesce to a Republicanlike candidate who will continue the Republican agenda.)
If that is the only choice we have, why bother to hold elections at all?

[scooperss]

Our immigration system is not crazy. We just have a bunch of politicians in office who have not been enforcing the law.
I wish someone could get a number of how many politicians were in office and voted for the last amnesty for illegals and are still in office wanting another amnesty. Kennedy for sure, even after he promised that there would be no more amnesty if it was given then.

[kroses98]

All I know is that I will not be told what to do, nor who to vote for. Hillary does not speak for me, nor does the Right-Wing of the Democratic Party. There are more Democrats like me around, than the others. We will NOT take orders! So STOP giving them to us. Neither will we take advice! We have minds of our own, and if you want the Democrats to win, come over to OUR SIDE, because WE will not compromise!

[akhinaten]

I don’t understand this, she is in a contest just because you have settled for here does not mean that others have to settle for her.

I am sorry if she did not measure up, but if you think that the metro-sexual Edward and the Over domesticated Obama are being hard on YOUR girl you have seen nothing yet. We she cannot hold up against these “girly-man” does she have a chance to recapture the white house.

[jsarets]

Both parties look quite likely to self-destruct, and I couldn't be happier. Down with the two-party system! Here's to hoping that 2008 will bring an independent or mixed ticket to the White House.

I'm not a team player. I have my own personal beliefs on politics, and while some of my positions are almost exclusively held by Democrats, I don't feel that either party speaks for me. The Democrats squash the wing of their party that most closely reflects my views and elevate the wing that fills me with seething frustration.

In 2008, I'm going to vote for the ticket whose world-view is most like mine. I'm not going to vote defensively. If people like me end up helping the Republicans keep the White House, then the Democrats deserve it for advocating policies that I can't possibly support. I'd rather be angry at Republicans than frustrated with Democrats.

I know I've had it with partisan politics when my progressive bleeding heart would be much happier with Ron Paul in the White House than Hillary Clinton. How could I ever tolerate a candidate that doesn't believe in public education!? I don't know, but the Democrats found a way to make it happen.

Kucinich/Paul (or vice versa) 2008. For the American people, from the far left to the far right and everywhere in between.

[STWoodworth]

So, three quarters of the population (voting population, that is) "too busy and/or not studious enough to get the public policy degree needed to appreciate the logic of this policy"? And we apparently don't "stand on principle for the right and the good."

We are talking about illegal aliens, not gold star mothers. They are here illegally. Even Lou Dobbs knows that the United States of America has the wherewithall if not the will to track down and deport every single one.

More people were murdered by or killed by drunk-driv­ing... Oh hell, look it up the statistics yourself. Drivers licenses for illegal aliens will not make the roads or these drivers less dangerous. They simply reduce the number of infractions committed by the illegal alien driver by one when he is pulled over, no doubt due to racial profiling.

[Peter Brown]

You seem to present the case as if the biggest problem is one of tactics--that our pool of uniformly worthy candidates is naively lining up in a circular firing squad. If only we could get them to form a straight line and fire at the Republicans--we win. But do we really win if our candidate does not have a balanced and principled position on the Palestinian/Israeli conflict? Do we really win if we elect a candidate who either naively or cynically embraced Bush's invasion of Iraq. Do we really win if we elect a candidate who either naively or cynically embraces the current administration's view that Iran poses an existential threat to the United States? Do we really win if we elect a candidate who will hide behind pretext and wage war over oil or become a private beneficiary of the emerging security/industrial complex? Some things are worth fighting for. We probably should have made a bigger stink when Howard Dean was knocked out of the race last round because of his loud whoop. And I don't think it is wise to sit by as Hillary is maligned for sticking with her marriage or Obama is discredited for not having enough or the right kind of experience. This stuff is pure bull shit and we should call it for what it is. But when Democrats line up during the primary season and start holding each other accountable on core policy issues, I think that is a good thing. I also think it is fair and healthy to get our candidates to state and defend their positions on controversial policy issues such as immigration---I'm sure the public will expect no less during this election season.

[VitriolAndAngst]

Hillary polls the lowest against the Republicans. Edwards the best.

If they don't take out Hillary, then the Republicans will. It doesn't matter what comments are made now -- not really. Because what you disclose now, becomes "old news."

If Bill Clinton's affair had not come out during the primaries, but instead when he was facing Bush and Ross Perot -- he would certainly have lost.

Better to get your bruising from friends. Americans are going to vote for the toughest candidate -- not the smartest, or most honest. The ONLY thing the Republican "image" has, is fighting on regardless of making sense. It's amazing that that quality, coupled with not being gay, has gotten them almost 50% of the vote.

[rh654]

Democrats - look - the Republicans have done everything they can to help you win in 2008.

* A disastrous war in Iraq.
* Over $600 BILLION spent for nothing.
* Almost 4000 dead for nothing.
* A President who has failed on almost everything he wanted to do.
* Social Conservatives caught in bad situations with men and women.
* A rising deficit.
* The housing market is bad.
* Alberto
* Cheney
* The Supreme Court is close to being completely controlled by the Conservatives.
*** and on and on and on

If you Democrats can't win huge in 2008 - sweeping the Whitehouse, House and Senate - you really need to hang it up and just fold as a Party and come back under some other banner - the Republicans would be hard pressed to blow it bigger than they have over the last 6+ years...

[eddiestardust]

If Hillary or Obama wins then kiss your job
goodbye

If a Republican wins though, Pro Choicers will get kicked out of the Democratic Party just wait and see.

[LeeFromVA]

It's amazing to me that there are still people out there that think Hillary has the best chance of winning. This is a liberal web site and the anti-Hillary posts are overwhelming. Doesn't that tell you something. How hard would it be for the Republicans to capitalize on her negatives? They don't have to convert liberals into conservatives, they just have to energize their base and put some doubt in the swing vote. Hell, 51 percent say they'll never vote for her and they haven't even begun their campaign against her yet. The problem is people think she's the same as Bill. But Bill was likeable, and she simply is not. I loved him and hate her, and there are many like me. This election is the Democrats to lose, and the quickest way to do that is to nominate Hillary. I'm a supporter of Obama, as I believe anyone that read Dreams from my Father would be, but PLEASE, I'm begging you, vote for anyone but Hillary.

[GoreSavingPlanetForJesus]

The democratic debates give you an idea of how democrats have perfected the politics of personal destruction.

I agree with the writer...i­t's poisonous.­..

...but that is how democrats debate. First they will personally attack each other (it's actually fun to watch), then the democratic nominee will personally attack the republican nominee (& their family).

[burneb]

Well, yeah it IS largely voter fault among those who do not pay any attention or those who expect complex issues to be fully explained on bumper stickers. It never took a lot of time or a public policy degree to realize that the Bush admin is a lying sack of weasels, or that patriotism and concern for our troops is not the same as blindly supporting a unneeded war based upon bogus claims by bunglers, or that mindless hysteria over God gays and guns is no answer for health care, Social Security, trade deficits, illegal immigration, or domestic security.

Inconvenient truths and difficult choices are hard to sell in a democracy. Historically, American voters in total are usually slow to punish Repugs for doing the wrong things and quick to punish Dems for trying to do the right things. As a whole, they do not think or vote the way Huffington Post readers do, and even HuffPo comments seem to be coming from a circular firing squad from what I read here.

As you know, you go to elections with the voters you have. They are not the voters you might want or wish to have at a later time. Neffinger does make some valid points about Dems needing to work forcefully and imaginatively within the range that voters will accept. Or we get the worse of evils elected instead.