|
 he
race for the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee showed
the two faces of the contemporary Democratic party. On the one hand,
Terry McAuliffe, the
winner, running as one of Bill Clinton's sleazier moneymen (but
one committed to "campaign-finance reform"). On the other, Maynard
Jackson, the loser, running as a black man. It was a choice between
yuppie hypocrisy or p.c. zealotry; between the banal corruption
of venality and the insidious corruption of identity politics. In
his first speech as DNC chairman, McAuliffe made it clear that the
party would be a home for both tendencies.
"George Bush says he's for election reform," McAuliffe said. "Reform
this! I say, park the state police cars, take down the roadblocks,
stop asking people of color for multiple forms of ID, print readable
ballots, open the polling places, count all the votes, and start
practicing democracy in America again."
In its article on McAuliffe's victory, the Washington Post
commented on these remarks: "With that litany, McAuliffe endorsed
complaints — many of them sharply disputed or…unsubstantiated
— about alleged voter intimidation in Florida and elsewhere."
McAuliffe, on our reading, insinuated that Bush (or his aides) had
orchestrated a campaign of such intimidation. If so, it was a remarkably
unsuccessful campaign: Black turnout jumped dramatically in Florida.
A lot of Democrats, obviously, feel angry both about Bush's victory
and the way it was achieved. Even the most partisan Republican must
admit that their anger is understandable (even if it is not justified).
Democratic politicians can't be expected to ignore that anger. But
they can reasonably be asked not to stoke it, and not to make deliberate
appeals to paranoia.
Other Democratic pols have to be worried that they will lose support
among swing voters by tending to their base. Many of them were initially
inclined to back John Ashcroft before realizing how revved up Democratic
activists were. Democrats won't, in most cases, have hurt themselves
by opposing him, even in conservative states. As they quickly calculated,
the activists were more likely to remember the vote in two years
than ordinary voters. But they can't keep putting Ted Kennedy, Barbara
Boxer, and Maxine Waters on stage without damaging their image.
It seems safe to predict that waving the bloody shirt over Florida
will work about as well for Democrats in 2002 as
| “It
was a choice between yuppie hypocrisy or p.c. zealotry…” |
|
impeachment did for Republicans in 1998. But the question of the
party's direction goes beyond the Florida dispute, of course. Its
left wing has been emboldened by the fact that a majority of voters
went for either Al Gore or Ralph Nader. The party's intellectual
energy increasingly comes from places like The American Prospect,
which is to the left of The New Republic (though to the right
of the Nation). And it seems fair to say that The New
Republic itself has moved left over the last few years.
Conservatives may be tempted to cheer if the Democrats move left,
because it is likely to help Republicans. But that would be shortsighted.
Clinton's move to the right on crime, welfare, and trade may have
made life difficult for Republicans, but it was good for the country.
If the Democrats now move left, there could be trouble ahead —
for them, and maybe for us.
Defending DiIulio
Vincent Schiraldi, head of the liberal Justice Policy Institute,
performs the op-ed version of a drive-by on John DiIulio in today's
Washington Post. A few years ago DiIulio came under attack
for not being in the mainstream of criminology. His sin was to argue
that putting criminals in jail was an effective crime-fighting strategy.
In his op-ed, Schiraldi rehashes all the old, baseless charges that
DiIulio is a political hack, fudges the numbers, etc.
Then he adds a new charge: "After the backlash against his gloom-and-doom
proclamations [about rising teen crime], DiIulio wrote several pieces
toning down his rhetoric. He began working with churches in inner-city
communities, claimed that he never intended for young people to
be incarcerated with adults, and urged a stop to prison growth.
These were startling turnarounds from a man who provided the intellectual
backing for the largest prison expansion in our history, most of
it at the expense of the inner-city blacks he was coming to embrace."
The new charge is no stronger than the old ones. What's so inconsistent
about thinking that prisons can help reduce crime — which,
incidentally, disproportionately saves the lives of inner-city blacks
— but that building prisons can reach a point of diminishing
returns? And DiIulio's "soft" rhetoric is hardly new. The spate
of attacks on him appeared in the spring of 1996. In June 1995,
he wrote a book review for National Review — which Schiraldi
quotes misleadingly — takes up the theme of inner-city churches
reclaiming neighborhoods. He opposed welfare reform in 1995 and
1996. When the Wall Street Journal ran the headline "Let
'Em Rot" over one of DiIulio's pro-prison articles in January 1994,
he wrote an outraged letter to the editor about it.
Anyway, what harm does Schiraldi think DiIulio is going to do running
the administration's office on faith-based charities? Lock up the
kids being ministered to?
|
