Three Traditions on Display in Iowa and New Hampshire

This year's primaries showcase three distinct political traditions within the Democratic Party. While reporters tend to focus on "gotcha politics" and fanciful psychological analysis of the candidates, something far more interesting is at stake. What kind of party should Democrats be? Each of the three traditions - populism, anti-politics, and pragmatic liberalism - is represented by one of the major contenders.

John Edwards has tapped into the populist tradition. Dating back to the late-nineteenth century, many Democrats have appealed to "average" workers and farmers by promising to take back power from America's wealthiest citizens. Edwards echoes the rhetoric of William Jennings Bryan, who in his 1896 Democratic Convention "Cross of Gold" speech supported free silver as a panacea to help farmers. Edwards also calls to mind Senator Huey Long's "Share the Wealth" plan in 1936, which tried to undermine President Franklin Roosevelt by promising a tax program to redistribute wealth -- and make, Long declared, "every man a king."

The appeal of the populist tradition is not difficult to explain: it resonates with portions of the electorate who feel that they have been abandoned, economically and politically. Populism often identifies real problems in America. But the tradition is flawed. The policies that populists promote are almost always simplistic or vague. And populism easily serves as a vehicle for ambitious politicians who feed off the voters' hurts and anxieties. Once in office, populist Democrats have often betrayed their egalitarian promises.

Another tradition comes to us through Senator Barack Obama: the tradition of anti-politics. This tradition has less to do with ending economic inequality or promoting radical foreign policy. Instead, candidates like Obama promise new approaches that supposedly move beyond existing debates while remaining pure. Democrats from this tradition have appealed to independent voters who are alienated from what they call "politics as usual." Adlai Stevenson ran in 1952 and 1956 with campaigns that shunned what Stevenson considered crass political appeals. In 1976, Jimmy Carter tried to shake America free from the ghosts of Watergate by telling voters they could trust him.

Anti-politics can exert powerful appeal in a political culture that tends to distrust politicians. The tradition has built support for reforms that vastly improve our democratic system. Yet anti-political Democrats have frequently been defeated when they face candidates who understand that cynical voters generally find bread-and-butter issues more important than assurances of a whole new style of politics.

More important, those anti-politics Democrats who win have had trouble achieving very much. Carter's agenda, for example, remained largely unfulfilled as he found himself in conflict with Democratic legislators. Speaker Tip O'Neill felt that, "too many of the troops he brought with him were amateurs. They didn't know much about Washington, but that didn't prevent them from being arrogant . . . ." Other observers blamed Carter directly for his high-minded disdain for wheeling and dealing - that is, for politics itself.

Hillary Clinton reflects the third Democratic tradition in the primaries, one that the populists and anti-politics Democrats like to disparage as unprincipled -- the tradition of pragmatic liberalism. Clinton learned the value of the pragmatic tradition the hard way in 1994, when her husband's health care plan, which she spearheaded, collapsed. While in the Senate, Clinton has became a much different type of politician. She moved from attempting to restructure the national system to more focused issues such as the treatment of medical information and the children's health care. She surprised Republicans by pushing for improved benefits for soldiers and lobbying against closing military bases.

Pragmatic liberal Democrats believe in the value of government but are also realists committed to working within the political system, with all its imperfections. Dismissed as disingenuous, flip-floppers, or opportunists who lack any core values, they been effective presidents. The most successful case was Franklin Roosevelt. When he rose to the White House, many people inside Roosevelt's own party distrusted him for his willingness to compromise and switch positions on almost any issue. Senator Long complained that when he spoke to Roosevelt, the president said "Fine! Fine! Fine!" But the next day Roosevelt told Long's opponent the same. "Maybe he says 'Fine!' to everybody," Long concluded. But Roosevelt was not simply indecisive. He believed that Democrats needed to achieve legislative results, especially in an era of crisis, and that meant working through the legislative process. As a result, he was able to win the enduring victories of the New Deal.

There are pitfalls to liberal pragmatism, as there are to the other traditions. Sometimes, its proponents can too easily confuse clever political maneuvering with overreaching, as Roosevelt did when he attempted to pack the Supreme Court in 1937. Lyndon Johnson, another gifted pragmatic Democrat, saw the Great Society, go up in smoke as a result of his calculations over Vietnam.

During the coming months, Democratic voters must not only decide which candidate to support but which of their party's traditions they prefer. The fact that all three traditions are on display is a healthy sign that the party is invigorated and on the move, and it makes this an important primary season -- one that can define the party's direction long after November.

Comments

[Querent]

I think this analysis is extremely superficial and artificial. You could just as well say, "There are three traditions in the Democratic party, red, white, and blue." Then you could assign the leading candidates to colors, and proceed to comment on the colors instead of the candidates. So what?

Notice that the categories are not "populist liberal," "anti-politics liberal," and "pragmatic liberal." So is Hillary really the only liberal? Are populism and pragmatism mutually exclusive? Or is this schema just a shorthand which immediately loses its connection with that which it aims to describe?

After a year-long campaign, enough is known about the candidates and the issues to enable us to describe the real situation in detail without resorting to crude and clumsy labels which obscure more than they reveal.

[WomanInOrangeSweater]

Woah...there are three candidates? I thought my only choices were Obama or Hillary. I have to admit that I was a little depressed that Hillary and Obama were my only choices, not that they're terrible or anything...but hillary has all that baggage and voted for Iraq and obama is a muslim coke dealer. Did this Edwards guy just jump into the race? What's his deal? All I know is that he gets really expensive haircuts has a really big house and has a love child somewhere. That doesn't seem so bad. I mean, didn't Thomas Jefferson have a love child? And he was a great president.
Jim Edwards for president! 2008. Go Edwards!
That is his name, right?

[cheforacle]

I generally agree with the author's formulation but I also think its dangerous or overly simplistic to merely pigeonhole each of these candidates into those categories and predict their behavior based upon the past experience of previous polticians who practiced each of these traditions. Times change. The country always needs different types of leaders at different times in our history.

[LeeFromVA]

I used to worry that HRC couldn't win in a general election, now I worry that she could. I was a big fan of Bill Clinton, now I can't stand either one of them. I can't move on from HOPE in a greater America to "Staying the course" with Hillary. If she wins the nomination I will do something I have never done in my entire life, vote Republican. If she somehow weasles her way to the Democratic nomination, the Obama sign in my yard will be replaced by one for Rudy, Mitt, or Mike.

[elleng]

Professor, I am certain that your evaluations of students at Princeton reflect negatively when they eliminate 2/3 of the story.

You fail here for failing to MENTION THE EXISTENCE of the majority of the Democrats running for President. The Yale and Harvard University presses might not appreciate an author who eliminates large parts of history.

He might not be compensated, and if we the people were so able we would not compensate you or the main stream media for failing to uphold your duties, to inform the electorate.

Most of us consider such

[happytrails]

OK, what happened to my post? It wasn't abusive or slanderous. It was a question. Why has the media, controlled by moneyed interests, supported Hillary? Not supported, rather pushed her candidacy. Can anyone explain this to me? And will you post it?

[mamacat]

A thoughtful, well written article, but I am not at all sure that I agree with identifying each of the three Democratic frontrunners with one of the political traditions identified. Such oversimplification has limited usefulness when it comes to deciding who to vote for.
On another matter, have any of the candidates for the nomination, from either party, come out against the media consolidation pushed through by the Bush administration?
It seems to me that a free, responsible, independent "press" is an essential pillar of democracy, and that the neo-cons' fight to undermine the free press in our society will have very damaging, long term effects. Venues such as the Huffington Post are wonderful, but they do not reach most people directly, and probably never will. If the major media institutions are allowed to be gobbled up by the politically dogmatic, then it seems that many among us will, inevitably, end up having our views influenced by propaganda. Obviously, it is the neo-cons who are attacking our free press, and trying to replace it with their right-wing spin. Given the recent actions of the Bush-controlled FCC, it looks like our choices in the media are about to become even worse than what they already are.
So, I repeat, have ANY of the candidates come out against this attack on the fourth estate?

[Marlyn]

"the tradition of pragmatic liberalism." ???

But Hillary has said "She is NOT a Liberal"!
Now she calls herself a "Progressive Independent" or some such ...
I call her "Republican Lite".

[Marlyn]

"Clinton learned the value of the pragmatic tradition the hard way in 1994, when her husband's health care plan, which she spearheaded, collapsed."

But WHY did her plan for health care fail? because she didn't "play ball" with the insurance companies?

She is in their pocket now. She no longer represent the people. Now she represents the corporations, so if elected, her plan will be implemented.

NO THANKS!

[pzman84]

Considering Clinton refuses to call herself a liberal (look at the YouTube debates), that term does not apply to her. Also, when talking about the Clintons, why doesn't anyone bring up Ricky Ray Rector, their darkest secret?

[eustiscg]

You know, I would like to think that Clinton's center-right politics are simply "pragmatic," but if they are, the praxis is mainly at the service of her own power.

[DemandTruth]

Gee, we could always go with the Republican traditions instead:

Giulinai: Greed, secrecy, corruption, infidelity, hypocrisy, and a need to utterly destroy anyone who disagrees with you. Oh, and he gets the hots for animal abusers.

Huckabee: Greed, secrecy, corruption, hypocrisy, sympathetic if not empathetic to animal abusers and rapists.

Romney: Greed, secrecy, corruption, hypocrisy, animal abuse.

Let's see, all the republican candidates pretty much cover the greed, secrecy, corruption and abuse traditions.

So, what makes you believe that John Edwards would betray his populist message once he gets into office anyway? Is is just that others have done so before him? I don't suppose the fact that he's dedicated his career/adult life to fighting for and defending those of us who are victimized the most by big corporations and who are least able to defend ourselves makes any difference to you?

Edwards is the only candidate I believe. The only one I trust & he's got my vote.

[LeeFromVA]

You like to compare Barack Obama to Jimmy Carter and his failed presidency. I think I have a better comparison. I see Obama as coming to the rescue of the Democrats the same way Ronald Reagan came to the rescue of the Republican party. At the time the Democratic party was demoralized with what seemed like a failed presidency, much like what Dubya has done to the Republicans. Reagan offered a glimmer of Hope that we could turn the page. He made it cool to be Republican and he won over many Dems, who would become known as the Reagan Democrats. His appeal was broad and inclusive. He provided inspiration and motivation that America could be great again, and good will lived on way past his 2 terms. What we need at this point in history is someone to finally unite the red and blue states. Someone to motivate people. Someone to lead us, all of us as one nation. Obama has already won over many Republicans. We need inspiration. We need HOPE. We need Barack Obama. He is the ONE. It's not time for him to WAIT HIS TURN. The time is now, and he's the one!

[STParker]

Oh, BTW it's not just about pragmatism, it's what you are pragmatic about.

[YankeeCanuck]

How informative! I didn't know there were only three candidates.
I thought that Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Kucinich represented the best of all three traditions. In that order. At least that's the way it looks here in Iowa if one takes the time to go out and hear them several times, and read their resumes and policy papers, if they have them. Biden's is most complete. But then, reporters are reporters, not researchers.
So much the pity for voting Americans.