Monday, February 11, 2008
Historical Analogies
Let's turn first to 1968. This was an extraordinarily turbulent year for the nation and for the Democratic Party. Among other things, you had 2 assassinations of prominent political and social leaders within 90 days of one another - and RFK's assassination took place during the California primary. You had a widening and difficult war in Vietnam which was being ineffectively led and managed by a leader, General Westmoreland, who would soon be relieved of his command. And you had the nation's President, LBJ, its wartime leader, lacking the political will to seek reelection.
In that context, you had an anti-war contingent in the Democratic Party, led by Eugene McCarthy, which was topped at the infamous Chicago convention by the sitting Vice President, Hubert Humphrey, who had not actually competed in the primaries. Humphrey embraced LBJ's war policy - don't reduce troops unless you get North Vietnamese concessions in peace talks. And you had riots at the convention. I mean, it was pretty unusual.
McCarthy eventually left the Party in order to stage a run as an Independent, and as we all know, Nixon eventually defeated Humphrey in November 1968. However, it was a tight race.
By 1972, the antiwar faction of the Democratic Party was completely ascendant and offered McGovern as its candidate. With McCarthy no longer active in the DP, McGovern inherited the mantle of party leadership. And again, as we all know, Nixon defeated McGovern in an unprecedented landslide.
Today, I submit to you that the Democratic Party is, much like 1968, split along lines associated with war. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are notably different only along a single policy - she voted in favor of the war and has never disavowed that vote; he voted against it proudly from the start. And their competition for delegates and Democratic voters suggests that the party divides pretty equally along those same lines. There is not a single other significant policy issue which divides them. There's superficial things along race and gender lines - but in the end, I don't think these are meaningful. They differ in how they would handle the Middle East and Al Qaeda - Iraq, Iran and very likely the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. In a word, they differ on War.
What does this analogy suggest? Well, let me offer the following. If Hillary survives the competition with Obama, she will compete pretty effectively against McCain. I think it will be close - something like the contest between Nixon and Humphrey. The war won't serve to distinguish between the candidates too starkly. Social liberals who are relatively more hawkish on foreign policy will comfort themselves (even if they opposed Iraq, by the way) that Hillary will responsibly construct its foreign policy in a fashion consistent with the 1990s (Yugoslavia, Desert Fox, etc). If it's Obama and McCain, I am inclined to conclude that McCain could win in a landslide. While Obama would have enthusiastic support from pacifists, McCain would attract anybody who worries about force projection under any circumstance. And moderates would comfort themselves with some of the more liberal positions McCain has embraced (immigration, judges, campaign finance). Today, that seems a little out of step with punditry and the press. But when Obama's statements about the war, and his commentary about Iran and other foreign policy observations are used against him; and that is further juxtaposed with the far left position he has staked out on pretty much every available topic and vote; I suspect that voters will conclude he is too liberal, too pacifist and too inexperienced for the job.
Now, since I don't think of myself as uniquely observant on these topics, I think the famed superdelegates may get in on the act and try to nominate Hillary in a process which some might deem to be unseemly. That might trigger some convention fireworks. We will have to see. I think the Democrats would be better off electorally with Hillary than Obama. But it looks like it might be messy.
22 Comments:
By 
, at
Mon Feb 11, 03:05:00 PM:
CP,
I think you may underestiamte the great antipathy of many of the voters in the country toward the Iraq War and the "War on Terror" in general.
Hardly a day goes by without reading or hearing about agitation against the war. Obama can certainly win on his present platform, provided our adversaries in Iran and elsewhere do not do somthing provacative and violent to remind the voters of the real world.
I lived through the McGovern candidacy and campaign, and who can forget his support of Thomas Eagleton "1000%" just before he dumped him as his running mate. It just reminded voters of his simple-minded cupidity as a candidate and politician.
If the media can maintain the aura of the "holiday from history" for just 10 more months, Obama can certainly be elected. Just 36 months from being a state legislator in the Illinois government. Hooray.
And as a friend and I discussed last night, the smell of death surrounds Hillary. I don't think she's gonna make it.
-David
By 
D.E. Cloutier, at
Mon Feb 11, 03:27:00 PM:
CP: "I think the famed superdelegates may get in on the act and try to nominate Hillary..."
William Kristol in today's NY Times: "Many of these superdelegates are elected officials. They tend to care about winning in November. The polls suggest Obama matches up better with John McCain. And the polls are merely echoing the judgment of almost every Democratic elected official from a competitive district or a swing state with whom I’ve spoken. They would virtually all prefer Obama at the top of the ticket."
David: "I don't think she's gonna make it."
Except for the old-lady feminists, all my Democratic friends are for Obama. And more than a few of my Republican friends are for Obama.
By , at
Mon Feb 11, 06:10:00 PM:
I think Obama wins the nomination, goes down like McGovern.
If Iraq were so unpopular, why haven't Dems forced a withdrawal? Because surrender and losing and defeat are hard sells in America. Even if the War is unpopular. Now that the War is almost won, seen by how it's disappeared off the front pages of the newspapers and newscasts, snatching defeat from victory is an even tougher sell.
Flashpoints that will hurt Obama:
1. Code Pink and Berkeley vs. US Marines.
2. Trying KSM and others for 9/11, death penalty.
3. Iran's racing towards nukes.
4. Continued turmoil in Pakistan, nuclear power, home of Osama.
5. Continued assertion of Muslim demands for Sharia in the West, suspicion that Obama is either a closet Muslim or too sympathetic to them.
These are all huge cultural touchpoints that give voters information about a candidate in easily digestible form. They know that a candidate who advocates no death penalty for KSM and wants a criminal trial with no evidence not obtained through civil procedures is not serious about protecting America. Backing Code Pink and Berkeley over the US Marine Corps is political suicide.
Obama is a poor candidate because unlike Bill Clinton he's never run against tough Republican opposition. He's incapable of offering a Sistah Soljah moment.
By , at
Mon Feb 11, 06:36:00 PM:
"There's superficial things along race and gender lines" should be "There're".
By Ray, at
Mon Feb 11, 06:42:00 PM:
There's one difference between now and the 1960s: back then, you had an America that had not been inundated and indoctrinated to believe that counterinsurgencies are "unwinnable wars," and that America was an evil country.
It's been 30 years since then, and though I have no personal basis for comparison (having been born in the Reagan era), I'd judge from the archives that the damage to America's self-confidence has been immense. I mean, we took 50k casualties in Vietnam, and would have come close to pulling a Koreaesque draw out of it had the public not soured of it after 10 long years.
We were in Iraq for less than 3 years in 2006, and already you had a major political party that couldn't wait to surrender, with fewer than 3k casualties in a country that's, populationwise, twice the size.
I want my country to win this war. I'm not sure my country wants to win it enough, though.
By , at
Mon Feb 11, 07:31:00 PM:
More flashpoints:
Geraghty at NRO's Campaign Spot notes that Obama's TX HQ has a flag but it's the Cuban flag, with Che on it, in their offices.
Obama won't wear the lapel pin flag or say the pledge of allegiance, saying he has "issues" with the flag.
Obama wants to ban all handguns.
These are the marks of a not-ready player. Avoidable mistakes that are going to show up more and more.
By , at
Mon Feb 11, 08:10:00 PM:
Be sure and thank Al Gore for inventing the internet.
The Internet is why we are still in Iraq - without the internet the MSM we have forced our surrender in Iraq.
With the Internet, we are fighting and winning in Iraq - We are defending liberty.
But even with the internet, I don't think Obama will be easy to defeat in November. Too many voters don't use the internet and the young - just like the good looking young candidate and they don't care what he stands for.
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Mon Feb 11, 08:21:00 PM:
I do wonder if you assume too great a rationality from many of our undecided voters.
I will add in only that turnout could be different. Hillary's people will mostly show up for Obama. With a bad grace, perhaps, but they don't hate him so much as find him inadequate. Obama's voters may not show up for Hillary. Many of them do hate her.
By Jim in Virginia, at
Mon Feb 11, 08:49:00 PM:
Theodore Olson suggests in today's WSJ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120269002843257513.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries that the Democrat delegate contest will go the same way as Florida 200. Smoke filled rooms and convention floor fights are so 20th century.
David, the media can't maintain the "holiday from history" for 10 more months. What are the chances that Pakistan, Egypt, Gaza, Lebanon, or Irsn will flare up, badly, before November? Better than 50 50, I'd bet.
By , at
Mon Feb 11, 09:42:00 PM:
1968?
I'll give you all another name from 1968; Pierre Elliott Trudeau.
I'm old enough to remember clearly how "Trudeaumania" swept Canada in '68. Although, at the Liberal Convention (which was telecast country wide), things evolved to a point where a palpable "Anyone but Trudeau" movement became manifest, Trudeau won it on the 4TH ballot anyway. Please bear in mind that up to 1968, the Liberal Party of Canada still closely reflected the party which led Canada full-bore through WWII, with many old-line party faithful still firmly entrenched throughout it's ranks, and which actually came reasonably close to the classical definition of "liberalism". Trudeau's nomination to lead the party changed all that, in a fairly short period of time.
Two months after his... ahem... 'coronation', the Liberals called a general election, June 28TH, 1968. The public was presented with a young, energetic, dynamic voice for change (sound familiar?), as opposed to a rather stodgy, dowdy gentleman with long years of experience running both a business and a Canadian province (Robert Stanfield, only 54, but soooo last generation... he looked 25 years older than Trudeau). Result; Liberals won in a walk. It wasn't even close.
I personally haven't seen anything to compare to Trudeaumania. Until now. Barack Obama has, well, something (charm? charisma?)which is starting to pull people towards him at an ever accelerating rate. It may well be that the real fight will be over who leads the Democrats; the old guard, or the nepphyte. Pay attention to this unstoppable juggernaut entitled "The Obama Campaign"; if Obama beats Clinton, the Presidential campaign will be anti-climactic in the sense that Obama will simply sweep into the White House as easily as Trudeau swept into the P.M.'s office in 1968.
A lot of people firmly believe that Canada is still paying for the mistake of electing Trudeau.
Government everywhere, although it's slowly, slowly loosening up... thank goodness. Should Obama be elected President, would he leave America in as bad a state as Trudeau left Canada when he left office in 1984? Maybe yes, maybe no. But one thing is certain; it takes more than a rock star to run a country, especially if that country is the greatest, most wealthy, most powerful country ever to be seen on this earth.
Signed, Fred Thompson fan.
By , at
Mon Feb 11, 09:46:00 PM:
By , at
Mon Feb 11, 10:02:00 PM:
There are significant systemic differences between the American and Canadian political systems that prevent any single executive from doing too much damage; we in the US don't have a Prime Minister. That is, we can have a President who is significantly different ideologically from the Legislature. Not so in parliamentary systems, where the executive is chosen *by* the Legislature from among their own ranks.
Especially in representative democracies (which Canada is not, I believe) where there are myriad parties who choose their own representatives and party discipline is very high.
By , at
Mon Feb 11, 10:54:00 PM:
dawnfire82... point taken.
My aim was to draw a parallel between what Canada experienced in 1968, and what the U.S.A. seems to be experiencing in 2008. The Democratic campaign looks to be evolving thusly; yesterday's dull-as-dishwater braintrust versus tomorrow's forceful dynamism. But, to frame the campaign in this way, campaigners simply have got to push the right person out in front; Barack Obama is filling that role exceedingly well.
People might just be surprised at how much support Obama could generate in a Presidential campaign if this wave he's presently riding continues to swell. I've heard it said that he's no longer dwelling on policy; the tenor of his speeches lately seems to bear that out. Obama's talking 'hope' and 'change' and 'tomorrow' and... one gets the picture. The Democratic campaign is turning into one about image; Obama has the appeal, Clinton doesn't.
By jj mollo, at
Tue Feb 12, 01:48:00 AM:
Laura Ingraham was praying for a brokered convention ... you know riots outside and Hubert Humphrey struggling to get the microphone.
By , at
Tue Feb 12, 02:17:00 AM:
Except "image" and "audacity of change you can hope in" gets old real fast.
If you subscribe to Kaus's Feiler Faster thesis, people process information faster and faster. People know Obama as a guy who's peddling hope and that TV is nuts for. Like Britney before her crazy. But that process -- build up / tear down / tired of hype goes FASTER now if you believe Kaus.
People are overwhelmed by information daily: commercials, the net (at work), radio on their commute, TV -- and they tend not to trust it since many know things personally that deviate from the media received wisdom.
Obama has NOT established himself as anything other than the hype. His danger is that McCain can define him. With character revealing moments.
If character counted, Nixon would not have won over sunny Hubert Humphrey or sunny George McGovern. NIXON WON TWICE.
People just don't like defeat in War.
By davod, at
Tue Feb 12, 06:44:00 AM:
Obamma is not the angel everyone makes out. Look to how he got elected to the State legislature. Then look at what had to happen for him to get into a good position to get elected to the senate.
The guy may well be much smarter than anyone gives him credit. He keeps the sleazier side of his politics below the horizon.
By Georg Felis, at
Tue Feb 12, 11:03:00 AM:
It will be an interesting exercise to watch the press over the next few weeks and count adjectives. My guess is that old, tired, divisive, volatile, and confused will be the favorite McCain and Hillary adjectives, and young, diverse, energetic, dynamic and fresh will be used for Obama. Ideas are not relevant, perception is (at least in newsrooms).
By , at
Tue Feb 12, 03:23:00 PM:
"he voted against it proudly from the start"
He wasn't even senator yet!
By Christopher Chambers, at
Tue Feb 12, 09:36:00 PM:
TH--stop these idiotic posts. Mostly because the freakish John Burch comments being posted. Wake up y'all. Barack's coming. He's owned the Potomac Primaries--after all, this will be his new neighborhood...
By , at
Tue Feb 12, 10:09:00 PM:
I sincerely don't understand your take on Obama's proposed Iraq policy. Hillary has promised to withdraw troops in 60 days, Obama in 16 _months_, while leaving behind a strike force to take on terrorists. Why then, do you regard him as more pacifistic? In fact, this sounds quite in line with the pact Bush is negotiating with Mailiki now. Obama seems more hawkish than Hillary to me, and has left himself more room to maneuver than Clinton with all her promises of withdrawal.
Whereas Bush has talked mightily of going after states which allow terrorists to train in their borders, he has done little (and achieved less) in Pakistan. If Obama gets elected, prepare yourself for a war against the Pashtuns. He must not affront the the boomer peaceniks in the party, but read between the lines and I think you will be reassured (if what you want is a more forceful and continued assault against Islamic extremists). I also somehow doubt Clinton will be as effective as Barack in curbing the growth of terror elements in Africa in this war that will extend far into the future.
I would also like to point out, that for me at least, Hillary's "minute" policy differences on health care would cost me to the tune of approximately $11,000 per year in mandated premiums. Obama's plan, $0. Hmm, whodoya think I voted for?
By Cardinalpark, at
Wed Feb 13, 01:35:00 PM:
CC - I can be every bit as insulting and crass as you can be, but not such an idiot as you.
My post referred to the division -- which is an arithmetic fact -- amongst the Democratic voters. It analogized to the similar division which plagued Democrats in 1968 and 1972 over virtually the same issue; simply one's attitude toward war.
It may be that Obama will win the nomination and even the overall election. Though I really doubt at least the latter. But that's secondary to the point of the post, which your insult doesn't even address.
Now, I would suggest you move from Prozac to something called Cymbalta. Failing that, check into the padded ward.
By , at
Fri Mar 07, 09:03:00 AM:
"CC - I can be every bit as insulting and crass as you can be, but not such an idiot as you." - Cardinalpark
1. He was addressing TH, not you, so butt out.
2. He was referring to the comments, not the post, so, again, butt out.
So, let's see. Last week, Mindles didn't like something CC said in a comment and splattered his name across the home page. If Tiger had been half a man, he would have offered Christopher 50 lines of home page space for rebuttal.
Now Christopher leaves another comment which isn't 100% approved by one of Tiger's co-bloggers and he gets this:
"I would suggest you move from Prozac to something called Cymbalta. Failing that, check into the padded ward."
It's nice to see that Tiger's co-bloggers have upheld the decency, reservation and equanimity that Tiger brought to this blog in the first place.
