By Ian Tuttle
Wednesday, February 03, 2016
If Hillary Clinton were in an actual horse race, she’d be
at the glue factory today.
Consider: In an effectively two-way race for the
Democratic nomination, the former first lady, U.S. senator, and secretary of
state — vanquisher of the patriarchy, shatterer of glass ceilings, modeler of
pants suits — earned less than half the vote against a 74-year-old, Marxist
incarnation of Waldorf from The Muppets,
who, when he’s not wondering where penguins buy their tuxedos, is pitching a
package of free stuff so outlandish that it would cost
every American taxpayer at least 11 percent of his income. Joe Biden is
ripping out his hair plugs.
The Democrats could learn a lesson from all this.
Iowa was supposed to be about the Republicans, of course.
Hormonal conservatives were supposed to go head-over-heels for Donald Trump’s
perpetual pucker, proving once and for all that they are paranoid racists who
believe that we should round up and deport anyone who eats an empanada. That
didn’t happen. Instead, Iowa conservatives turned out in record numbers to vote
against Trump, putting Ted Cruz in
first place and Marco Rubio in a very close third. Trump is now, as he himself
would say, a loser, sandwiched between the two wings of tea-party conservatism.
His candidacy is far from over (assuming he doesn’t drop out), but Tuesday
night’s results revise the Republican-primary plotline and restore to the
spectacle a patina of sanity.
Meanwhile, the Democratic primary is evenly split between
Lady Macbeth of Chappaqua and Larry David.
How did this happen? It’s simple: On the right, there was
a contest; on the left, there was a coronation. Republicans gave their voters
options; Democrats gave their voters an order.
For the last three years, the entire work of the
Democratic party has been to ensure the smooth, graceful ascension of Hillary
Clinton to the presidency. It’s “her turn.” Toward this end, the party machine
has trudged, unenthusiastically but inexorably, grinding down every obstacle in
its path by force of sheer inertia. Those obstacles included viable primary
challengers: Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, Andrew Cuomo.
Yet, over that same period, the Democratic coalition has
fractured and the center of gravity has moved decidedly leftward, thanks
largely to a younger generation of liberals animated by the impulses of the
Occupy movement rather than the Vietnam protest movement. The Clinton-style
rapprochement with free markets is noxious to young Democrats. They want to
skin some fat cats. Bernie Sanders might not be the most compelling candidate,
but he’s been hating the rich since Hillary was a Goldwater Girl.
Still, the Democratic party has made clear throughout the
primary season that it is not interested in giving this wing of its own
electorate a hearing (see: the DNC debate schedule, if you can find it). In the
short term, this may not be a problem. It’s unlikely that Sanders will secure
the nomination, even if he handily wins next week’s contest in New Hampshire,
and many of his voters are sure to fall in line for Hillary. But in the long
term, much of the party’s base will seethe with resentment.
Republicans might deal better with their intra-party
insurgency. Assuming that Trump does not win the nomination, his candidacy will
have diminished the intensity of his constituency by giving them an outlet for
their frustrations. And the party, not eager to see another Trump-style
candidate take hold, will probably take seriously the several legitimate
grievances that his rise has highlighted. Tuesday night’s caucus suggests that
conservatives could absorb the best of this populist uprising and temper its
worst excesses.
For Democrats, though, the tensions in the party have
never been more obvious or more alarming. The most dedicated primary voters are
rebellious and will support Hillary in the general election only begrudgingly,
if at all.
Hillary Clinton won last night. Technically.
No comments:
Post a Comment