A Modus Vivendi for the Democratic Civil War

The Democratic party finds itself engaged in a protracted civil war at time when it had expected to be in a position to concentrate its attacks on the Republicans and their nominee. In a year in which a Republican victory seems almost impossible -- a year in which simply asking voters, "Had enough?" should produce a Democratic landslide -- the Democrats appear, as is their wont, to have found a way to weaken themselves, perhaps to the level where their opponents have a chance to defeat them in November. There is a clear and present danger that, in turning their rhetorical artillery on each other, Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton will leave the party divided, the bloodied and perhaps partially disabled winner in need of assistance from an underfunded Veterans Administration hospital, and the followers of the loser so bitter that they will not vote for the nominee.

Indeed, a new Gallup Poll indicates that 19 percent of Obama backers would vote for Republican John McCain if Clinton is nominated and 28 percent of Clinton supporters would vote for McCain if Obama is nominated. Surely many of those Democrats who say they will defect if their candidate loses will come home in November, but the numbers have to be troubling to those seeking an end to the disastrous Republican era.

While the two Democrats continue to launch missiles behind their own lines, McCain can go about his business in a demilitarized zone far from the battle in which his ultimate opponent is being wounded on a daily basis.

As the media focus on the Democratic boomerangs, McCain's enormous errors -- such as his repeated inability to recognize the difference between Shi'ite Iran and Sunni al-Qaeda -- go virtually unnoticed.

Under such circumstances, the Democratic candidates desperately need to reach a modus vivendi -- an agreement to disagree, to find a mutually advantageous way to live with their differences. Here is the basis for such an agreement:

1. It had been expected that there would be a Democratic nominee by this time and that she or he would be in a position to devote much effort and money to defining Mr. McCain and making voters aware of his shortcomings.

Why not do this anyway? Each campaign continues to raise huge amounts of money; they should make an agreement to turn over either a set amount or an agreed percentage (perhaps 20%) of what they raise to a joint Democratic campaign group with people from both campaigns that will produce commercials and other efforts to educate the public about Mr. McCain while the struggle for the Democratic nomination continues.

2. Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama should agree that at the end of each commercial against the other that their campaigns produce for the rest of the nominating contest, after they have attacked the other Democrat, they will expand the closing tagline to say: "I'm [Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama] and I approve this message -- and I also approve of [Barack Obama/Hillary Clinton] much more than John McCain."

3. The Democratic candidates should agree that during the remaining battles in their continuing civil war they will spend at least as much time in speeches contrasting themselves with Mr. McCain as they do contrasting themselves with each other. (Indeed, the Democratic candidate who focuses his or her fire almost exclusively on the "Bush-McCain" policies would very likely win more Democratic and independent support than the one who spends her or his time attacking the other Democrat.)

4. A final point in a Clinton-Obama modus vivendi would be much more difficult to achieve and may not be necessary if the first three points are agreed to: Each candidate could agree that when the nominee is chosen, he or she will pick the other as her or his running-mate and that the latter will accept.

Civil wars are not noted for their civility. In order to assure that they do not squander their overwhelming advantages in this election year, the two Democratic candidates must move quickly to assure that their party's civil war is relatively civil. A modus vivendi along the lines outlined here would go a long way toward achieving that result and averting a self-inflicted disaster for Democrats in the fall.

Robert S. McElvaine teaches history at Millsaps College. His latest book, Grand Theft Jesus: The Hijacking of Religion in America

Comments

[parisblues]

Some great ideas here that will serve each of our candidates well! I agree with everything except the vice-presidential thing. First, neither candidate is interested in the job -- nor should they be, necessarily. Secondly, the candidate and his/her advisors should be free to choose the vice presidential candidate whose strengths and weaknesses best complement those of the head of the ticket.

[busybeez]

Those ideas are great, but in the open elections from this point on the Republicans are going to vote in the election just to mess with it. As a Texan, I can tell you that is a reality. And I resent the Republicans not only keeping this race going as they have, but possibly selecting our candidate by making Hillary look stronger than she really is. The opportunity for a fair election at this point does not exist, and Hillary knows this and is counting on it to win.

[jhNY]

Neither democratic candidate is elegible for VA care, so that's one headache out of the way...

And the democratic candidates don't 'desperately need' to do anything but keep campaigning, despite all your worrying. McSame, the republican nominee, has only raised one dolar for every five that candidate Obama has raised in the last little while, and has raised one dollar for every three dollars that candidate Clinton has raised over the same period. And the democrats are still in the primary process!
The more the campaign drags on, the more bumbly and cantakerous and explosive McSame will appear, and nobody much will like it. "Hey you kids! Get outta my yard!" is probably not a winning foreign policy statement, even for republicans. Relax. The democrats are going to win. Either one nominated. Let them fight it out, and let everybody in all the remaining primaries vote for their favorite.

[FirstShirt]

You make good points on McCain. However, his strengths are a good record of moderation as a republican. Your candidates, either Hillary or Obama, have alot of baggage [or no baggage, if baggage is experience] and haven't been engaged by the real republican machine yet. McCain doesn't need any money right now. The independents make an election, and neither Hillary or Obama have the mainstream strength to succeed.

[Herrington]

In case you hadn't noticed, Clinton is broke and has been stiffing vendors nation wide. She would not devote coin to help the party if would not help her to get the nomination. Sorry, pie in the sky.

[BillZBubb]

The Obama campaign played the race card in South Carolina after he lost in New Hampshire. By accusing the Clintons of racism based on lies and taking a Bill Clinton quote out of context, the Obama camp ensured a nasty campaign. The Clinton's, in my opinion, have been remarkably restrained in attacking Obama. Had they wished, they could have made the Rev. Wright issue "The Issue", but instead merely commented on it in passing and let it die after the press couldn't get any more mileage out of it.

The Cliintons also could have gone after Obama's hypocrisy on the war. He claims to be against the war, but, like Hillary Clinton he has voted for every funding bill Bush has asked for. Obama has had it both ways on this issue because the Clintons have let him.

The Obama supporters have been dredging up every right wing, anti-Clinton point from the 1990's and recycling them. Hillary Clinton's supporters for the most part have been treating Obama with kid gloves. But, having seen the way the Obamists attack the Clintons, I think they have lost a good chunk of the Democratic base in the November elections. If they try to play the race card again on McCain, Obama will lose the general election.

[grendl]

Are you suggesting that he should vote against keeping our men and women in uniform funded over there, putting them in further jeopardy than they already are? Thats specious reasoning.

You and McCains contingent would have a political field day with such an ill-advised move. And it is ill advised. They're over there, they need protection, and food. It shows Barack is a realist, that although he didn't want to go to war, he accepts the fact that we're there, and doesn't want to punish our men for the mistake HILLARY CLINTON MADE in voting to go to war.

Thats a leader. Thats someone who can think on their feet.

And Jesse Jackson and Barack are two different people. Jesse Jacksons never served as a Senator, whats the mix up exactly? Not a racial gaffe?


Your candidate sold the party out when she endorsed Senator John McCain. You can't erase it, its on You Tube for chrissake, and will forever be burned in the party's collective consciousness. To witness it again...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-P8TF8J-4w

[BillZBubb]

Poppycock. Hillary Clinton didn't vote "to go to war", that is baloney and you know it. She voted to give Bush authority to use war as a last resort. He used it as a first resort. For that she is guilty of a serious error in judgment, but not the grotesque attacks she is getting from Obama supporters.

Your weak support of Obama's continued funding of the war is as laughable as it is hypocritical. There was a very good plan put in place by Senator Feingold that would have FULLY FUNDED a withdrawal of our troops. Where was your supposed "anti-war leader" during that effort? Wake up and see the truth.

Your candidate sold out the party when he claimed "the Republicans were the party of ideas" and praised Reagan. And although he went on to say many of them were not good ideas, he still by implication said the Democrats didn't have any ideas of their own--reinforcing a Republican lie.

As for endorsing McCain, that is another lie. She will endorse whoever the Democratic nominee turns out to be. Obama will do the same. AND YOU KNOW IT.

[zip47]

Excellent recommendations. Your last is fleshed out by Shaun Jacob Halper in a post from several weeks ago on Huffpost too.

[talexis]

A considerate and reasoned article - a rarity on Huffington Post lately.

Thanks Robert - but don't expect the Obama camp to jump on board as their hope/smear Chicago Politics only work if they demonize the Clintons.
Hillary - give Axelrod/Obam the hell they deserve and allow DEMOCRACY to work.
Our Progressive friends and the MSM may need to be reminded that THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE!

[grendl]

Hillary and her contingent have a lot of nerve. A lot.

They smear Mr. Obama's record, they cast aspersions upon his religious affiliations, and try to insinuate he'll let America's children perish at 3:00 a.m. , while she's the one who voted for a resolution to go to a war with no real point. Those soldiers over there are someone's children too, Hillary, all 4000 of them. Not to mention the tens of thousands of Iraqi's who have perished as a result of Congress's panicked decision. Her decision.

And now they want to talk reconciliation? Now that her cause is all but lost. How convenient.

No, its too late for that. Her faithful can keep their votes. If they haven't been disgusted by her Machiavellian tactics, the kitchen sink bullshit that James Carville dismisses with his patented devilish grin as simply a part of politics, as well as Bill, then this party isn't ready for change yet.

She endorsed John McCain. Carville can paint that any way he likes, she sold out the party. It was a profound betrayal. She needs to apologize for it, and own up to her ravenous appetite for power. Maybe join a twelve step program.

Demonize the Clintons? The bridges to hell should be burned.

[CTA]

I think the real reason is the Clintons want money...why else would she invest $5M of her own money - and refuse to release her tax returns, his presidential library donors list and earmarks? She made $169k a year as a senator; he made $200k a year as president - and you know that $5M is only a fraction of their net worth.

So, where did all this money come from?

[primalscream]

The real issue here is that Hillary wants McCain to win if she is not the Democratic nominee. Neither she nor her husband has ever cared about the party or the country, which is why he Reaganized the Democratic Party in the 1990s. She calculates that if Obama is president, she cannot run in 2012 and probably not in 2016 (since his vice president will then be in a strong position). But if McCain beats Obama in 2008, she can reposition herself for 2012. That is why there is no way Hillary will get out, no matter how delusional her chances of winning the nomination.

[Rockville]

Everything sounds fine except for the last suggestion! Hamstringing the Democratic nominee with a forced choice for Vice President is just plain stupid. The nominee must have a person he/she can work with and can trust. Frankly I don't think a combined ticket would do as well as one with a "new" nominee for vice-president.

[midwesthousewife]

and after all the acrimony, I don't think the voters will buy it either.

[PuritanDescendant]

Having this primary go to the end is AWESOME for the Democrats. Hillary and Obama have very similar positions and proposals, so right now they're both promoting the issues and positions that the other will be addressing in the general election - that's good. They're challenging and toughening up the other. That's good. The risk of defections is ridiculously overstated.

This 19/28 poll predicting significant defections in the general election is meaningless.

A typical poll will be:
1 - do you support Obama or Clinton?
2 - if Obama is nominated will you vote for Clinton?
3 - if Clinton is nominated will you vote for Obama?

There's an implicit reminder to a respondent: "my candidate is still in this race". When asking a supporter of Clinton (or Obama) whether they would vote for Obama (or Clinton), it implies a fact that contradicts reality. People don't want to say they would make a vote (i.e., vote for O if they support H) if that choice necessarily contradicts their current and still-viable preference.

Passions are high while the election is open. When the nomination process is over, that passion will subside quickly (as long the nomation concludes with fair process).

Finally, the predictive power of this kind of poll is weak because Dems have only been considering Democratic candidates; they don't know much about McCain. It's easy to cast a _hypothetical_ vote against your own party. It's a lot harder when the consequence is real.

[oldpotsmuggler]

With ten states left, the two Dems have received more than ten million more votes than all dems in 2004 (about 27.5 million to about 16 million), and have each nearly doubled the total to date for McCain. In a hotly contested primary, McCain has received fewer votes than did John Kerry in 2004.

It's possible that the planet could completely fall of of its axis in time to save The Republic Party from a wipeout defeat in November but it's not clear what else could happen so save them between now and then.