We are now witnessing yet another chapter in the long-term struggle for the heart and soul of the Democratic party. Many leftist Democrats, the "progressive" wing of the party, want to vote for candidates who promise radical change.
"Wait just a minute," reply more moderate Democrats. "We share many of your goals, but we are also willing to face up to some unpleasant facts. All the passion in the world is not going to accomplish anything if we can't get elected. Many of the people whose votes we desperately need get queasy when our candidates promise sometimes frightening changes, higher taxes, and more government regulation. Such promises turn these moderate voters off, leaving our nation with even more conservative Republicans happily claiming victory on election night. You progressives are destroying our party's chances for victory."
"You moderates have it all wrong," insist the progressives. "If we choose candidates without passion, who are vague about what they would try to do if elected, who back away from programs that promise real change, we will not pick up all that many votes from the uncommitted middle. Instead, those leftist voters who might be inspired by us, who are potentially our most passionate supporters, will be disgusted with our timidity. They will stay home on election day, as they have so many times in the past. It's you moderates, not us progressives, who are destroying our party's chances for victory."
So who is right? Is it the progressives or the moderates who leave the Democrats without enough voters to win elections? Let's turn to the presidential elections of the past half-century or so to see what has been likely to happen when the moderates are strong enough to name the Democratic candidate, and what ensues when the progressives prevail.
In 1972 the party's moderate establishment types favored running Edmund Muskie or Hubert Humphrey, even though the latter had lost to Nixon in 1968. The passion of young deeply anti-war activists, though, left South Dakota senator George McGovern as the nominee. His insistence on a guaranteed minimum income for all let the Republicans blast him as an irresponsible radical. He won only Massachusetts, gaining 17 electoral votes to Nixon's 520. The hordes of passionate liberal voters who were supposed to flock to the polls in support of an unashamedly leftist candidate apparently stayed home, as they would continue to do.
In 1976 the Democrats rejected liberal leaders such as Morris Udall and Jerry Brown, as well as the more conservative Scoop Jackson. The nomination went to a moderate centrist, Gov. Jimmy Carter of Georgia. Carter won the White House with some 297 electoral votes to Jerry Ford's 240.
Carter lost his bid for a second term in 1980 to Ronald Reagan. Reagan also won a second term in 1984, when the Democrats ran Walter Mondale, a very progressive Minnesota senator (and VP under Carter). His strong pledge to raise taxes doomed him. Mondale, like McGovern, won only one state; he was defeated in the Electoral College by 525 votes to 13.
In 1988 the Democrats had lots of candidates, but none (they were known as the seven dwarves) really stood out. The nomination finally went to Michael Dukakis, the strongly progressive governor of Massachusetts. George Bush easily carried the Electoral College by 426 to 111.
I would argue that, following these electoral disasters of the 1970s and '80s, the Democrats have moved away from idealistic passion. Their more recent candidates have been (despite conservative yowls about "socialism") pragmatic centrists like the Clintons, Al Gore, and Barack Obama. Their moderation infuriated progressives, but it did give the Democrats resounding victories in 1992, 1996, 2008, and 2112.
In 2000 and 2016, moderates Al Gore and Hillary Clinton failed to win, it is true, but came within a whisker of victory. Both actually won the popular vote, only to be frustrated in the Electoral College.
It would be simplistic to imagine that this brief survey shows that the Democrats should never, ever go to the left, when so many other factors have been in play: war, abortion, race, and personality, to name a few. But it is suggestive, I think. The Democrats are now being urged by many of their most passionately liberal supporters to commit themselves to free college educations, to a single-payer medical system offering coverage for all, to a guaranteed income, and more. Many of these are great ideas, but how likely are they to sweep Donald Trump and his minions from power?
------------v------------
Dr. Garrett McAinsh is emeritus Harold and Lucy Cabe distinguished professor of history at Hendrix College.
Editorial on 03/23/2019