Bush Is Gone -- Now What?

02 February, 2004

Electability has been the big story of the Democratic primary. Wesley Clark entered the race at the head of the class because his military background was said to give him a better shot at beating George W. Bush. Howard Dean became the frontrunner late last year because people thought that the grassroots machine built around him would be electorally potent. Last month voters flocked to John Kerry on the basis of his presumed ability in November.

The question is often presented as a choice between principles and electability, between a Dennis Kucinich who we agree with or a John Edwards who will appeal to more voters. In the early days of the campaign there might have been something to that, as the establishment candidates followed the 2002 midterm strategy of cozying up to Bush so as not to alienate centrist voters. The rise of Dean changed that. By demonstrating that a full-on assault on the president could generate strong support, Dean forced his rivals to come down hard on the administration's failures in Iraq, the influence of corporate "special interest" money, and other liberal themes. All of the candidates with a shot at actually winning (Kerry, Edwards, Clark, and Dean) now offer a package that includes both electability and principles.

The question of electability versus principles is not primarily a matter of which box we check at our primary. It's a matter of what we can hold our candidate to, whoever he may turn out to be. Beating Bush is a vital first step, and if it's all we accomplish in November it will be worth it. The big question is whether we will be satisfied with that. The candidates will all stake out principled stands now, because they know that's what voters want to see. But as of December, the winner won't need our votes for another three years. How can we keep up the pressure on President Kerry or President Dean to make good on their promises?

The fate of conservatives under Bush should stand as a cautionary tale for how wrong things might go if all we care about is holding power. Certainly Bush has pursued an agenda more conservative than that of Bill Clinton or Al Gore. But much of his work has been directed at ends that are neither conservative nor liberal, a mish-mash of wasteful (and hopefully ineffective) pandering to the center and giveaways to the crony capitalist class. High hopes premised on Republican control of the White House and Congress have gone unfulfilled.

Liberals read the stories about conservative discontent with glee. We hope that they will be alienated enough to stay home on election day, or even to vote for the Democrat. In their darkest moments, some conservatives wonder if electoral defeat might not be necessary to shock the party back into caring about its principles.

I think, however, that the effects of that discontent will be small. Most conservatives will hold their noses and vote for Bush, especially if the Democrat runs an uninspiring campaign that allows Bush to control the terms of the debate. Notice that there has been no important primary challenge to Bush, and no third party conservative -- no Ross Perot of 2004 or Ralph Nader of the right. Such a figure could catalyze conservative unhappiness with the president, at once drawing on it and reinforcing it. That this hasn't happened suggests that Bush might have struck just the right balance between enough principled actions to keep his base on his side, and doing as many as possible of the unprincipled actions that he really wants to do.

I wish I had a good answer to how we can keep Kerry or Edwards or Clark or Dean from becoming the Democratic George W. Bush. We could simply rely on their personal integrity, which must be greater than Bush's, but I wonder how much optimism on that count is warranted, given that we're dealing with ambitious politicians. The conservatives haven't provided a very strong model for holding a leader accountable. Perhaps a Republican Congress will rein in the president's shenanigans, since they favor different shenanigans (the divided government strategy). Perhaps the blogosphere can help, if lefty bloggers are willing to be forthrightly critical of the president when he deserves it. Perhaps the liberal organizations (dare I call them, "interest groups") that have risen to prominence in response to Bush can extend their influence beyond election day, even in the face of a less pressing threat.

The Dean campaign put the question of changing politics as usual on the table in a way more concrete than the usual empty platitudes about shaking things up. It will be a big disappointment if nothing comes of it, regardless of who our nominee is.

Stentor Danielson