By Charles C. W. Cooke
Thursday, March 5, 2015
I’ll say it, happily: Democrats should be worried about
Hillary Clinton, and moderately panicked about the immediate future of both
their party and their cause.
This is not, of course, because Hillary’s latest scandale
du jour is in any practical way going to “disqualify” her; and nor is it
because leftward-leaning voters are likely to recall anything more from this
rather awkward period in time than that the Clintons are as perennially sleazy
as they ever were. Rather, it is because the last few days have underscored
just how tenuous the Left’s grip on power and influence truly is in the waning
days of the once-buoyant Obama era. At present, Republicans control the House
of Representatives, they lead the Senate, and they enjoy pole position within a
vast majority of the states. The Democratic party, by contrast, has been all
but wiped out, its great historical hope having relegated himself by his
obstinacy to the role of MVP on a team of just a few. For the next couple of
years, Obama will dig in where he can, blocking here, usurping there, and
seeking to provide for the Left a source of energy and of authority. But then .
. . what?
After last year’s midterm elections, New York magazine’s
Jonathan Chait contended grimly that the sheer scale of the Republican wave had
rendered Hillary Clinton “the only thing standing between a Republican Party
even more radical than George W. Bush’s version and unfettered control of
American government.” The customary rhetorical hysterics to one side, this
estimation appears to be sound. On the surface, the knowledge that Clinton is
ready to consolidate the gains of the Obama project should be a matter of
considerable comfort to progressivism and its champions. Indeed, as it stands
today, I’d still bet that Hillary will eventually make a somewhat formidable
candidate, and that, despite her many, many flaws, she retains a better than 50
percent chance of winning the presidency in 2016. In part, this is because she
is a woman, yes, and because she will play ad nauseam upon this fact between
now and November of next year; in part this is because she has been
distressingly effective at selling herself as a moderate, and because her
husband is remembered as a solid caretaker and remains popular across partisan
lines; in part this is because the Democratic party is currently benefitting
from a number of structural advantages that Republicans will struggle to
overcome, whomever they choose to be their standard bearer; and in part this is
because the economy will almost certainly be doing well enough by next year
that the “Obama saved us all” narratives will seem plausible to a good number
of voters.
But — and this is a big but: Once we take Hillary out of
the equation, the game looks rather different. As potent as it might be on
paper, the Democratic party’s present edge within the Electoral College is by
no means infinite, and it does not obtain in a personality vacuum. Such as they
are, the current predictive models tend to presume less that the Democrats are
bulletproof per se, and more that the party will field a strong and popular
candidate in the mold of a Barack Obama or a John F. Kennedy or a William
Jefferson Clinton and that this good candidate will start from a position of
structural strength. Does the party have such a figure, other than Hillary? I
cannot see that it does, no. Certainly, it is amusing for us to sing “Run, Liz,
Run,” to tease Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden, and even to pretend that Andrew
Cuomo or Martin O’Malley could ever be elected president of the United States.
But, idle levity to one side, there is ultimately no hiding from the
recognition that Clinton is the only viable game in town. Historically, running
for a third term is extraordinarily tough. Are Americans expected to return a
nobody to the highest office in the land purely because the on-paper estimates
favor his party?
In the last few days, we have seen a host of progressive
commentators begin to call for an alternative. And yet for all the thrilling
“Challenge!” headlines that this dissent has inevitably provoked, it remains
the case that pretty much every single person who has called for a contested
Democratic primary has chosen to rest his argument on the presumption that a
nomination fight would help Hillary to improve, not that it would help her
party to select a more appropriate candidate. A quote, from radio host Deborah
Arnie Arnesen, sums up the pattern well:
“The Democratic base that isn’t wedded to her is nervous about it,” said Deborah Arnie Arnesen, a progressive radio host in Concord, New Hampshire. “It makes her more vulnerable. What is this anointed candidate getting us? A much more flawed candidate than we thought. And Republicans now have material they never thought they would have.”“We need to litigate this in a primary so that she will be better at it, or it will be the Republicans who will be doing it for her,” she added.
This fear is well placed. Indeed, were I a progressive
Democrat, I daresay I’d be saying the same thing. Suppose, arguendo, that I
thought, as does Jonathan Chait, that there was quite literally one human being
standing between my agenda and a sweeping set of market and political reforms
that would destroy my dreams for a generation. Suppose I believed, as does ThinkProgress,
that if a Republican president is given the opportunity to nominate two or
three more Supreme Court justices, the dream of a progressive judiciary will be
dead for a generation or more. Suppose that I considered Obamacare to be a
great and historic political victory, and that I was desperate for an executive
who would protect it against Republican — or popular — repeal. Wouldn’t I be
rather worried that Clinton might . . . die? Wouldn’t I find myself lying awake
at night, fretting that Hillary might become too sick to run? Would I not
entertain with horror the possibility that this latest scandal might be the tip
of the iceberg, and that Hillary might have one too many crimes in her
well-stocked closet? Wouldn’t it occur to me that she might begin to stumble
and fall on the campaign trail, the better to be shown up by a young and
fresh-faced alternative from the right?
The old adage holds that only a fool elects to put all
his eggs in one basket, and, for all our technological progress and social ingenuity,
this remains as true now as it ever was. In the New York Times yesterday, Frank
Bruni inquired of Hillary: “Does she have a political death wish?” He might
well ask that of her party as well. The lights are going out across Blue
America. The amplifying fear that there will be nobody viable to light them
back aflame is grounded in reality. Time for a little sweating, perhaps.
No comments:
Post a Comment