By Dan McLaughlin
Monday, January 23, 2017
There has been, as Jim Geraghty notes, a fair amount of
talk on the Democratic side — especially after Saturday’s rallies — about
imitating the grassroots-driven protest energy that the Tea Party brought to
the Republican party in 2009–10. Democrats should think long and hard about
whether they are prepared for the implications of that.
To start with, it’s worth remembering what Democrats
thought, or at any rate said, until this week. First, they spent the past eight
years calling the Tea Party a bunch of racist, unpatriotic terrorists — and now
they want in on that! Second, they also spent the past eight years chortling
about how self-defeating the Tea Party was for Republicans — and even if the
outcomes in the House, the Senate and all the other states had been exactly the
same, they’d still be saying the same thing today (even louder) if Hillary
Clinton had won Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan.
But set aside the hypocrisy, which is not that much
different from that of Trump supporters who spent eight years calling Obama the
devil and simultaneously brag about Trump imitating his tactics. Are Democrats
really ready for the level of disruption that a true Tea Party of the Left
would bring? This is, after all, the same political party that gloried in using
its superdelegates to cut off Bernie Sanders’ path to the nomination, and that
takes great pride in its top-down organizing structure. (Indeed, a major reason
House Republicans are wary of holding health-care town-halls this year is
knowing that Democrats can easily bus in out-of-district rent-a-crowds from
their professional activist cadre.) The Democrats’ 2006 comeback, after all,
was a classic D.C.-run operation, as Rahm Emanuel carefully cultivated
Democratic candidates who were more in tune with swing voters in their
districts than with the DailyKos Left, which wanted more Ned Lamonts. When the
progressives finally captured the party’s leadership, they did so behind a man
— Barack Obama — who owed much of his career to the favor of the Chicago
machine and who was equally at ease raising a billion dollars from the party’s
established donor class.
The Tea Party’s vitriol in 2009–10 was directed just as
much at the D.C. and professional leadership of its own party, and that exacted
a heavy cost on veteran politicians like Charlie Crist, Robert Bennett, Dick
Lugar, Mike Castle, Eric Cantor, and David Dewhurst in a series of bloody
primary battles in 2010, 2012 and (to a lesser extent) 2014. Tea Party
challengers forcibly retired GOP veterans in the safest of deep-red states and
districts, and they cost the party winnable elections in swing races (the
Castle–O’Donnell primary being the most obvious example). Even if you think the
movement has been on balance a boon to Republicans, the costs have been
undeniable, and they fell disproportionately on the party’s efforts to control
its own strategy.
This is especially true in the Senate. The dynamics of
off-year elections hurting the party in power should be expected to favor
Democrats by 2018, but the 2018 Senate map is absurdly loaded against them:
Republicans are defending just eight seats (nine if a special election is held
in Alabama to replace Jeff Sessions), and only four of those are in states
where Trump got less than 57 percent of the vote and one of those is Texas, and
another is Utah, where Mike Lee won his Senate race by 41 points. Democrats, by
contrast, are defending ten Senate seats in states Trump won, some of them
very-deep-red territory.
A good national environment can help alleviate a lot of
those vulnerabilities, but only if Democrats are running candidates appropriate
to their states. The Democrats who ran the best in 2016 in red states — Jason
Kander and Evan Bayh, who ran far ahead of Hillary Clinton in Missouri and
Indiana, and Roy Cooper and Jim Justice, who won the governor’s races in North
Carolina and West Virginia — didn’t run as wild-eyed leftists (Kander’s
campaign took off after an ad bragging about how he “supported Second Amendment
rights” as a state legislator while assembling an AR-15 blindfolded). Primary
challenges that replaced people like Manchin and Tester with urban-style
progressives would likely be as suicidal as running Christine O’Donnell in
Delaware, and just as likely to elevate some amateurs who were not ready for
prime time.
A true Tea Party of the Left would also target
safe-district elected officials who are corrupt and out of touch with their
constituents, as is true of — but look how ugly that got when Charlie Rangel’s
district had an open primary in June.
Be careful what you wish for, Democrats. You just might
get it.
No comments:
Post a Comment