Note: this item is cross-posted from The Democratic Strategist.

For those Democrats who were settling down with a bag of popcorn to watch an orgy of ideological strife among Republicans, it's beginning to become apparent that the war may be over before it began. Sure, there's plenty of finger-pointing and personal recriminations over tactics and strategy, some of it focused on the McCain-Palin campaign, and some looking back to the errors of the Bush administration. There's clearly no consensus on who might lead Republicans in 2010 or 2012. But on the ideological front, for all the talk about "movement conservatives" or "traditionalists" at odds with "reformers," it's a pretty one-sided fight. And one prominent "reformer," the columnist David Brooks, pretty much declared defeat yesterday:

The debate between the camps is heating up. Only one thing is for sure: In the near term, the Traditionalists are going to win the fight for supremacy in the G.O.P.

Read more »

Todd Gitlin is right, of course, in suggesting to progressives currently giddy about polling trends in the presidential campaign that overconfidence is a bad idea in politics, as in any other competitive endeavor. And every Democrat of a certain age remembers past elections where we managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

But though Todd doesn't come right out and say it, I suspect much of his fear is from the most immediate bad memory: Election Night 2004, when many of us were half-convinced we'd already won a week or so out, and then, on reading those first exit polls, threw caution to the win and declared victory.

Read more »

(Note: this item is cross-posted from The Democratic Strategist)

This issue isn't important in the larger scheme of things, but as a longtime Democratic convention worker, I did want to comment on the strange technical difficulties that seem to have bedevilled some of the biggest speeches at the Republican Convention.

Read more »

Eric has penned a complex book, precisely because it is so comprehensive an analysis of liberalism, its proud past and accomplishments, and its discontents. I agree with Joan that the most controversial of Eric's arguments is that we must rehabilitate and fight for liberalism, while "admitting our mistakes." She calls this a contradiction; I would call it a necessary tension.

Joan's right that some liberal "mistakes" (politically speaking) flow from liberalism's proudest accomplishments. There'd be no backlash without civil rights; no anti-abortion movement without Roe v. Wade; and for that matter, no vast undertow of hostility to government and taxes without liberal policies that helped lift many millions of Americans into the middle (and increasingly upper-middle) class. Some of the recent political weakness of liberalism is largely cyclical, just as the political power of conservatism may not survive an extended period of conservative misgovernment.

Read more »

At the risk of developing a reputation for using The Coffee House as a means for commenting on intramural discussions at The New Republic, I do think there's a lot of value in today's exchange between John Judis and Jon Chait on the former's use of George McGovern's campaign as an appropriate metaphor for fears about Barack Obama's electoral strengths and weaknesses, if only because it nicely crystallizes a lot of issues that have been floating around for many months.

I agree with Chait's two main objections to Judis' use of the McGovern analogy: (1) the "McGovern coalition" of younger voters, minorities, and upscale professionals is arguably a whole lot bigger than it was in 1972; and (2) Obama's voter base in primaries isn't necessarily going to be his voter base in a general election campaign. But I'd add a few other objections of my own.

Read more »

I'm doing this post in no small part because I've never been a Lieberman-hater, a New Republic-hater, a Marty Peretz-hater, or a Jamie Kirchick-hater. Indeed, I've defended Lieberman against some of the sillier attacks on his past (if not his recent past), such as the idea that he lost Florida for his own ticket in 2000. And I continue to read and appreciate The New Republic, despite the occasional expression of views with which I don't agree.

But Kirchick's current argument at The Plank, in an exchange with Jonathan Chait and with (most recently) Isaac Chotiner, defending the proposition that Joe Lieberman can be a "loyal Democrat" and also endorse John McCain for president, is just bizarre.

Read more »

George Stephanopoulos has addressed criticism of his and Charles Gibson's conduct as moderators in last night's ABC-sponsored Democratic candidate debate, in the form of an interview with TalkingPointsMemo's Greg Sargent. And George went straight to the "electability" defense:

Stephanopoulos strongly defended his handling of the debate. He dismissed criticism that it had focused too heavily on "gotcha" questions, arguing that they had gone to the heart of the "electability" that, he said, is forefront in the minds of voters evaluating the two Dems.

Ah yes, "electability," which makes discussion of any criticism of a candidate, frivolous or serious, instantly relevant, on the theory that the opposition will hit the nominee with all this crap, so we might as well see how they handle its endless repetition today.

Read more »

In dealing with the firestorm of criticism over the views of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama had a choice of approaches. He was probably smart to focus on race; the subject has hung over his campaign in positive and negative ways from the beginning, and he's now made it clear that the legacy of racism--not just Democratic and Republican gridlock or the narcissistic baby boomer conflicts of the 1990s--is part and parcel of the "past" he is promising to help transcend through acts of reconciliation.

But the Wright controversy also touches on religion, and in a few brief references in his speech, Obama hinted at an alternative approach he probably considered, and might even return to in the future.

Read more »

Now that an extended Democratic nomination contest appears almost certain, there's been an explosion of renewed interest in the "brokered convention" scenario, which really just means a nomination that's in doubt after the primaries and caucuses are over. The big topics (explored especially well at OpenLeft.com) have been the battle over the 796 superdelegates, who are not bound by election results, and the possibility of a pre-convention or convention credentials fight over the Michigan and Florida delegations, who currently have no seats (or even hotel rooms) in Denver.

There's a more mundane but still significant problem with the situation: who will plan and execute the convention itself in the absence of a putative nominee?

Read more »

With another Democratic candidate debate on tap in Nevada later today, you can bet Barack Obama is going to get questions about his proposal for modifying the cap on income subject to Social Security payroll taxes. But it's important to understand why this is such a big deal for a lot of progressive Democrats. His proposal isn't the controversial thing (though it certainly would be in a general election campaign, where it would be hammered by Republicans as a tax increase); it's his decision to raise the subject at all, and particularly his use of the word "crisis" to describe the status of the Social Security system.

The immediate reason for this reaction is obvious enough; by the well-earned end of Bush's 2005 drive to divert payroll tax funds to create private retirement accounts, Democratic critics of his plan were devoting just as much time denying there was a Social Security solvency problem as they were attacking the plan's baleful consequences. So ironically, a proposal by Obama that's "Left" in terms of its specifics (avoiding any benefit changes while making the payroll tax burden more progressive) is drawing fire from the Left itself as a heretical concession to the rationale for Bush's proposal, and to those much-derided "Centrist" media types who like to talk about entitlement reform. And for that reason, the reaction among left-bent Democrats to Obama's Social Security rap provides a microcosm of the exquisite ambivalence they are experiencing over the Obama candidacy in its entirety.

Read more »

One of the most infuriating habits of latter-day conservative "analysts" of national security issues is the "emboldening our enemies" theme. You know: Anyone who disagrees with a policy of Maximum Violence in dealing with Iraq, Iran, Terrorism, Islamic radicalism, or presumably, Original Sin, is "emboldening our enemies" and is objectively a traitor.

Numbed as we all are by this sort of rhetoric, it takes a lot to stir fresh outrage. But like an electric cattle prod plunged into my morning bathwater, Deroy Murdock's syndicated column today did the trick. It was entitled "Terrorists Prefer Hillary," and subtitled "And They'd Rather See Rudy Dead Than President." And it led me to wonder: Why don't we just hold a referendum of Islamic terrorists, and let them choose our next president?

Read more »

With the partial exception of Joan McCarter's excellent post, it appears the discussion over Matt Bai's book has drifted away from the internal party "argument" I first posted about, and towards the external "argument" Matt urges Democrats to take more seriously. I will probably have my Centrist Wonk credentials revoked for saying this, but I pretty much agree with Mark and Garance that Democrats have a perfectly adequate "take on the world" (give or take some important foreign policy details) to offer in 2008 unless Republicans begin to offer something different. But I'd also suggest that it makes a lot of sense to defer some parts of the internal argument over the external argument until we've run Republicans out of power.

Read more »

The Ted Nordhaus/Michael Schellenberger post casts a different, and interesting light on Matt Bai's excellent book, and his exposition on the various elements of the Democratic insurgency that's gained steam over the last few years.

The Reapers (as they are affectionately known in environmental circles) seize on Matt's concerns about the inability of insurgents to develop a coherent external "argument" for Democrats, and implicitly characterize said insurgents as reflecting the let's-all-link-arms-and-protect-our-programs interest-group liberalism that has dominated the party in the past.

I don't really agree with that characterization if we're talking about the netroots, but it does raise some important questions about the netroots' own characterization of the "D.C. Democratic Establishment."

Read more »

There’s another important reason for Democrats to maintain a “big tent” party beyond those already discussed in this conversation about Todd’s book: if we want to prevent conservative “bulldozers” in the future, we need to embrace traditions and institutions that empower diverse points of view, sometimes at the expense of quick or thorough progressive policy achievements.

It was no accident that Bush-era conservatives steadily descended into thuggish, scofflaw behavior at home and abroad. Building their “ bulldozer” required them to brush aside a vast array of traditional limitations on the exercise of raw power, ranging from international agreements and alliances to the U.S. Constitution itself, along with basic respect for facts and reasoned debate.

Reviving these barriers to “bulldozing” is a task for progressives as urgent as the pursuit of any specific policy goal, however worthy. But we can’t limit the other side without in some respects limiting ourselves

Read more »

Citing the Clinton precedent, M.J. Rosenberg writes:

"[I]mpeachment is no longer the political nuclear bomb it once was, especially if one knows in advance that conviction and removal from office is unlikely to occur. Accordingly, impeachment proceedings are essentially the best means of getting information to the public which is otherwise unavailable."

I'm glad M.J. is beginning with the premise that actual impeachment and removal of Bush ain't happening, at least based on the current dynamics. I do not share his optimism about impeachment proceedings serving as a "lever" to bring Bush to heel, given everything we know about the man. Nor do I really understand Josh's suggestion that initiating a pre-doomed impeachment effort will somehow serve as a legal precedent reducing the impact of Bush's scofflaw behavior.

So the fundamental question remains whether Democrats want to take up the "I-word" as a political exercise. And other questions quickly follow.

Read more »