Democrats must unite if they want to win
The lesson of the half-century battle for the soul of the Democratic Party
Thanks to Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., the Democratic Party may feel more divided than at any time in recent memory. But neither Mr. Sanders’ sizable cadre of young leftists nor the moderates who have coalesced around former Vice President Joe Biden, producing his strong Super Tuesday showing, realize that they’re actually engaging in the latest chapter in a very long fight over the purpose and structure of the Democratic Party.
The party began to fracture with a narrow defeat in the 1968 election, which was the first in a string of losses that has embroiled party leaders and activists in a half-century-plus debate about how to win over the broadest possible slice of the electorate, one that hasn’t abated even as the party has won the popular vote in six of the past seven presidential elections. Because the party has not regained the dominance it enjoyed in the 35 years after Franklin Roosevelt moved into the White House, the fractious fight continues over the best way to convince voters that Democrats share their convictions and are doing their best to serve voters’ needs.
The discord between the wings of the Democratic Party burst into the open during the party’s disastrous 1968 national convention. On those fateful days in Chicago, young foes of the Vietnam War, which President Lyndon B. Johnson had massively escalated, battled with thousands of police mobilized to silence them.
Over the next decade, moderates argued that the party had to chart a middle path between conservatives who hated “big government” and liberals who wanted to expand the welfare state in the interests of Americans of all races. They touted the potential for high tech to create economic growth and thought the poor should take some responsibility for their own plight.
Despite blowout losses by George McGovern and Walter Mondale, liberals didn’t see it that way. They countered that the corporate rich were gaming the system for their own benefit and accused their intraparty rivals of blaming the victims of policies that weakened labor unions and cut back social programs. In their view, only federal intervention could restore the egalitarian promise that had made the New Deal so popular.
These battles have been waged repeatedly in primary campaigns during the past halfcentury. Because neither liberals nor centrists have been able to score a decisive win — or, sometimes, even agree upon which candidates fall into either camp — the argument rages on.
“As long as people could vote for him as sending a message to Democrats ... they were anxious to vote for him. But as soon as he got close to actually winning the nomination ... people just said: ‘Whoa, We’re never going to do this.”
It was the 1988 election and the insurgent candidacy of the Rev. Jesse Jackson that provides insights into the current fight and why Mr. Sanders’ campaign has captured such passionate support, particularly among young people who want to transform the political and economic system.
Unlike the more liberal contender in other primary fights — figures such as Ted Kennedy in 1980, Mr. Mondale in 1984 or Bill Bradley in 2000 — who mostly wanted to extend the liberal reforms of the Great Society, Rev. Jackson, the minister and civil rights leader, dreamed of something much bigger. He proposed a sweeping egalitarian overhaul of American society. He set forth, in stirring cadences, a program that included single-payer health care, free community college, equal pay for women, LGBTQ rights, some form of reparations for black people and a vast plan to build affordable housing and mass transportation that resembles Mr. Sanders’ program now.
Like the Vermont insurgent, Rev. Jackson proposed reversing tax cuts for the richest Americans that the incumbent Republican president had signed into law and advocated sizable cuts in the defense budget, moving away from a foreign policy dependent on force to one that advanced disarmament.
Both candidates share another similarity: They transformed themselves from protest candidates into serious contenders for the nomination by building a multiracial coalition of the working class and the young. Rev. Jackson’s “rainbow coalition” posed the most direct and far-reaching alternative to the party “establishment” before Mr. Sanders battled Hillary Clinton nearly three decades later. And unlike their moderate rivals, each man inspired a mass of ardent followers who dedicated themselves to the cause.
Rev. Jackson exceeded expectations in 1988 and won over 1,200 delegates. At the convention, he delivered a bravura oration that easily overshadowed the technocratic Michael Dukakis’ rather tedious acceptance speech. When it seemed he might actually win enough delegates to take the nomination, most white Democrats — officeholders and ordinary voters alike — got cold feet. One of Rev.
Jackson’s closest advisers reflected, “As long as people could vote for him as sending a message to Democrats [that] we support this kind of economic populism and moral voice, they were anxious to vote for him. But as soon as he got close to actually winning the nomination ... people just said: ‘Whoa, We’re never going to do this.”
Mr. Sanders is closer to winning the Democratic nomination than his leftist predecessor — who never held any political office — ever was. He has more money and a stronger organization, and even rank-and-file Democrats who support other candidates have warmed to his vision of “Medicare for All” and a Green New Deal. Yet as the establishment has coalesced around Mr. Biden, producing at least nine wins on Super Tuesday, the race is now at least even — as Mr. Sanders vowed to fight on and drew explicit contrasts with Mr. Biden in his Vermont victory speech.
But one thing is clear: Whether Mr. Sanders or Mr. Biden is the nominee, a contested convention would be disastrous. Dating to 1860, when the conflict over slavery split Democrats into two hostile factions, a party that does not smooth over its divisions by the time it holds its convention never goes on to win the White House.