Democratic hopefuls misread California
__________________________________
By Thomas Oliphant
Columnist
The Boston Globe
10/12/2003
LOS ANGELES - INSTEAD OF learning from the Arnold Schwarzenegger victory, three of the veteran Democratic politicians running for president are competing to mimic Tom McClintock, of all people. Surely a few people remember the "real" Republican in last week's fascinating recall election -- the longtime state legislator who took the no-tax-increase pledge in writing, made sure everyone knew he opposed abortion rights, and backed the idea of stopping all racial data collection.
Well, this straight-shooting, super-conservative, well-liked politician received about 13 percent of the vote to replace recall target Gray Davis. The exit polls show Schwarzenegger crushed him among fellow conservatives and held him to his statewide percentage in Republican strongholds. So much for partisan purity.
But just 48 hours after the earthquake here, the big-name Democrats decided to pounce on retired General Wesley Clark for the views he expressed before and during the invasion of Iraq.
These attacks at last week's debate in Arizona came on the heels of attacks last month when it became clear Clark was going to run -- for having been a registered independent, for having previously voted for Republican presidents, and for having addressed a GOP fund-raiser shortly after the current President Bush took office.
The fact that Clark has yet to express an opinion about a single issue as a candidate, including Iraq, that puts him outside the party's mainstream did not impress Howard Dean, John Kerry, or Joe Lieberman. The message they sought to convey is that the guy is not legit.
This is nuts. That attitude narrows the appeal of the party instead of broadening it. It amounts to rejecting a convert as well as a recruit. It's as if the big-name candidates want to win voters who are taking the precise journey Clark has taken, but insist on their own superiority because they supposedly have been right all along.
Think about it. A great many Americans thought Congress was correct in bringing Iraq's roguish behavior to a head a year ago, wise in nudging Bush to the United Nations for a resolution, but worried about the decision to invade with only Britain as a real ally and increasingly angry as the post-invasion chaos and costs have escalated.
A great many Americans also thought deep tax cuts were a good idea in the face of a massive budget surplus and a recession two years ago, but grew disillusioned, then angry when the gamble failed to produce economic results.
And a great many Americans, Clark not among them by the way, voted for Bush three years ago and now are willing to consider a switch.
Presumably the Democratic presidential nominee would like all of these wobbly one-time Bush supporters to vote for him next year. He also presumably wouldn't mind having Clark's excellent military credentials as well as the former general himself as a running mate. So how can they wish for all that and disparage Clark's legitimacy?
They can't, just as McClintock couldn't appeal to a change-insistent California electorate by attempting to narrow its options. I suspect Schwarzenegger's campaign may have been a fraud, disguising a big business wolf in populist hero's clothing and masking a deeply flawed character.
In the campaign, however, and so far in his inclusive efforts in transition to governance, he has been disciplined in his focus on Davis's failings, on the state's injured economy, and on urging voters of all persuasions to "join" him. The fledgling Clark campaign may not be so fortunate. There have been costly stumbles out of the box, including on Iraq. He may end up laying a huge egg, but that's not the point for now. The point is that Clark is testing the other candidates, and they are responding poorly.
Dean started it last week, complaining that he urged a New Hampshire congressional candidate (Katrina Swett, now a Lieberman backer) to support last year's congressional resolution. Kerry cited his alleged apostasy at the GOP fund-raiser, and Lieberman complained about the supposed sin of ambivalence. Of the major candidates, only John Edwards had the sense to steer clear of direct attacks on the new guy. Dick Gephardt, meanwhile, continues to direct his fire and ire at Dean.
All of this is faintly reminiscent of a Democratic sin from the Vietnam era. Americans eventually came to oppose escalation of the war, but Democrats constantly attacked each other based on how "late" they came to oppose the conflict. It was a narrow, sectarian squabble that many Americans found to be a metaphor for a narrow, sectarian party.
It is possible that Americans, like Californians last week, may want change next year. They are certain to be repelled, however, if Democrats embrace change but reject people who have themselves changed.
Change, Democrats should remember, is about the future. Partisan purity is about the past.
© Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company.
boston.com |
