Learning from the Democrats

Watching Hillary move to the left, it is easy to forget the circumstances of the 2000 election. Republicans are currently presented with a choice similar to what the Democrats faced two elections ago.

Bill Clinton promised to be a moderate/liberal when he was elected in 1992. When Republicans took Congress in 1994 he moved to the right in a policy known as triangulation. This put him to the right of most Democrats and, theoretically, to the left of Republicans. In practice, he allowed the Republicans to pass much of their agenda then took credit for moderating it. Clinton's principal achievements in office - Welfare reform, balanced budget, etc., are all from the Republican playbook.

The liberal wing of the Democratic party hated this. In 2000 they wanted an openly liberal candidate. What they got was Al Gore who ran as a moderate continuation of the Clinton administration. He was opposed by a moderate Republican (most liberals would swallow broken glass rather than admit it but Gore and Bush were in general agreement on most issues).

A lot of liberals refused to vote for another moderate candidate. They either stayed home or cast their vote for Ralph Nader as a protest vote. Nader claimed that there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between Gore and Bush and his supporters agreed. Many of them were willing to suffer through four years of a Republican administration in order to move the party to the left.

Instead they got eight years and a president who they hate with a passion.

But their gambit worked. In 2004 Dean's big applause line was that he was from the liberal wing of the Democratic party. He didn't make the ballot but he gained control of the party.

Now, in 2008, both of the main candidates (plus Edwards) are all running as liberals. They don't use the word any longer, preferring "progressive", but they are far to the left of Clinton and they are openly to the left of Kerry's platform (Kerry may have been a liberal but he didn't advertise it).

So, are the Democrats happy? After all, their plan worked.

I don't think that they are happy. Many Democrats have spent the last seven years cursing Nader and wishing that Gore had won. Certainly Gore has moved to the left in recent years. They may have been quite happy with him.

What's more, they've spent the last seven years alternating between a deep funk and railing against every action Bush takes. It's hard to be happy when you've spent so much effort hating someone for so long.

The Republicans now have a similar choice. McCain is the clear front-runner with more than half the delegates. Its possible that the Democratic race will not be settled until the convention giving McCain a better-than-expected shot at the White House. The trouble is that he is an inconsistent conservative. James Dobson, for example, has vowed that he will never vote for McCain. The social conservatives hope to force future candidates to the right by sabotaging the 2008 election.

The question is will they have buyer's remorse? Will the prospect of a more acceptable candidate in 2012 or 2016 make up for 2-8 years of Hillary or Obama? Judging from the Democrats' example, it would be far preferable to have a moderate Republican in the White House than a progressive Democrat.

So Republicans need to suck it up and work for their candidate instead of marginalizing themselves.