It feels like 1973-74 all over again:
The members of the Class of 1974 were young, relatively new to public office and remarkably certain they could remake Washington in their own image. They viewed Congress as ossified, beholden to powerful interests, unresponsive to the people and ripe for the taking.
The Class of 1974 had 75 Democrats to just 17 Republicans (the “Contract” Class of 1994 would have 73 Republicans and just 13 Democrats). This huge influx of Democrats was known as the “Watergate babies.” The label derived from the scandal that, less than three months earlier, had caused President Richard M. Nixon to resign under threat of impeachment.
So strong was the tide running that fall — especially after Nixon was pardoned by successor President Gerald R. Ford — that Democrats were elected in districts all over the Northeast, the Midwest and the West that had voted Republican for generations.
The two most senior members of the then-minority Republicans were defeated. In Massachusetts, Paul E. Tsongas became the first Democrat elected to the House from his district in the 20th century. The bookish Andrew Maguire in New Jersey and the street-savvy organizer Toby Moffett in Connecticut captured suburban Republican districts.
In the West, Timothy E. Wirth won the Colorado district based in Boulder, Les AuCoin became the first Democrat from Oregon’s northwest corner since the 1800s and California elected a crop of young legislators that included George Miller, Henry A. Waxman and Norman Y. Mineta.
The new victors were a Kiddie Corps, half of them under 40. Tom Downey of New York, just 25, was the youngest member of Congress since the early 1800s. “We were young, we looked weird. I can’t even believe we got elected,” Moffett would say two decades later.
:::flip:::
On the surface, the election of 1972 and the election of 2004 seem different. By way of example, Kerry polled 40% in Mississippi, while McGovern got 19%. McGovern won Massachusetts and the District of Columbia. Kerry won 19 states and the District of Columbia. McGovern got 17 electoral votes and Kerry got 251.
But there are still striking similarities. On June 17th 1972, the Watergate offices of the DNC were burglarized and the culprits arrested. Yet, the burglary had little effect on the election because the really incriminating revelations did not begin to come out until the following year.
On July 14 2003, Robert Novak exposed an undercover CIA officer, using two high level administrative members as his sources. The scandal had little effect of the election because the really incriminating revelations did not come out until the year after the election.
And when Watergate began to unravel it exposed a much larger pattern of abuse of power and corruption that led the populace to reject the Republican Party in droves. Just so now, the majority leaders of both the House and Senate are mired in scandal, and Plamegate threatens to expose a pattern of deceit and abuse of power that will shock the nation.
In 1972 Kissinger announced that ‘peace was at hand’ in Vietnam, but by 1974 it was increasingly clear that ‘defeat was at hand’. Likewise, in 2004 Bush assured us that the Iraqis were on their way to a stable democratic government. By November 2006, it will be clear just how false that hope was.
There is a real hope, even with all the gerrymandered seats, that the Democrats can pull off a sweeping victory in 2006, and drive many long-time Republicans out of their seats. But, could that have an effect on the Democratic Party as a whole?
All but a handful of the freshmen lent their votes to the pre-existing reform movement within the House Democratic Caucus. This forced the committee barons to kowtow, seeking rank-and-file votes to stay in power. This irked F. Edward Hebert of Louisiana, the Armed Services Committee chairman. When he addressed the gathering of freshmen, he called them “boys and girls.” He later lost his chair by 19 votes, with all but a few freshman votes going against him. In all, only three sitting committee chairmen were deposed, but others got the message.
The answer is ‘yes’. We need young, idealistic, candidates to run for Congress in many of the seats that are going relatively uncontested. Right now it would be foolish to think any Republican is safe. Do you have what it takes? Do you know anyone that does?
Ah, BooMan, since Election Day last year I’ve been repeating to myself, “Remember that Nixon was reelected, too…remember that Nixon was reelected too…even reelection is no guarantee that he will serve out his term…”
For any real end to this “long national nightmare,” 2006 will have to be 1974 all over again.
Opponent: First-term incumbent Dave Reichert (Mr. Green River), in Washington state’s 8th Congressional district — mostly EAST King County (Bellevue, Redmond/Microsoft, etc.)
Site: DarcyBurner.com + how she compares with Reichert
HER BIO:
Here’s a photo of Darcy Burner, her husband and baby Henry.
From her blog on WHY PEOPLE OUTSIDE her district should help her:
I may be going back on contract to Microsoft. I wonder if I can change my voting address to whatever windowless office they stick me in . . .
(At least I think south Redmond is in the 8th district. I know where I am now isn’t — it’s in Jim McDermott’s district, and a fine place to be it is.)
How does she compare in terms of Randy Gordon’s run? This post may seem horrible to ask, but inquiring minds want to know
a) What the word on the street is, if people think one has a better chance than another
b) Are the campaigns communicating at all?
c) Are these the only two Dems with hats in ring?
http://www.randygordonforcongress.com/
Kirsten Gillibrand is taking on an incumbent Republican in the most republican friendly district in the state.
And she is going to win.
Don’t be afraid to step up and take that chance.
We need young, idealistic, candidates to run for Congress. . .
I think this one will be different than ’74 because being a “D”emocrat won’t necessarily get a candidate elected. Idealistic and truthful are more important than any political affiliation.
And so what, older folk are not eligible?. <grin>
I want a fresh-faced freshman class. But obviously any victories are most welcome. Bring out the grizzled veterans.
watch it there, my friend….:o)…I an idealistic older person and I have no party afilliation..I am an independent…I think I should run…:o) could you find it in your heart to vote for me???? :o)….
Where are you running? Go for it!
I could not run for dog catcher here in my territory. They are all red here…they would have a coranary if I ran for anything….:o)
Sounds like you could get campaign funds from the coronary physicians.
If you’re running in California. 🙂
Thanks for your vote! Hugs…:o)
Much of what you describe is true, but there is at least one major difference. Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson the authors of “Why is American Politics Off Center?” are writing about it over on Kevin Drum. [And the comments are a graduate seminar in political science.)
Let me summarize a point that jumped out at me. The conservatives do not have any overwhelming support in the electorate, but they have had an unusual degree of success in getting their agenda approved through our (intentionally) rather fragmented political process. While there are a number of individual factors that they use to get advantage, the single long-term advantage is their ability to act in a unified manner within a political system specifically designed to fragment political power and prevent exactly that kind of unified action.
It seems to me that this advantage hits exactly at the most significant weakness of Democrats and Progressives. They cannot act in a unified manner. The left is essentially an alliance of interests going up against a unified and trained army. It is roughly the comparable to the mercenary armies of the 30 Years War when they went up against long-term trained government armies. The mercenaries usually lost. The end result was long term national armies (and stronger financial bases for the larger governments that had to pay for those armies.)
The point, however, is that the conservatives now have this powerful nation-wide political machine which they did not have in 1974. The power of gerrymandering has also become a force for political stability in the House which it was not in 1974.
I don’t see any comparable elements of strength for Democrats which have increased since the 1970’s. So the Republicans are making the same mistakes that cost them heavily in 1974, but they have more ability to avoid paying the price than they did then. That would seem to me to make the Democratic wins in 1974 an upper limit, not likely to be achieved in 2006.
The counter to the conservative advantage in unified action has to be either to unify the anti-conservatives politically into a long term political structure similar to the conservative political machine, or to change the structure of American politics so that the unification the conservatives have accomplished becomes impossible.
Otherwise we are simply hoping that the Republicans will self-destruct. We are currently in no position to take advantage of their hubris, and not likely to be anytime soon.
I call analysis like that ‘stinking thinking’.
It is first of all defeatist, or nearly so, since the left will never be united by anything other than rabid opposition. But, secondly, it is analyzing backwards, when what I am predicting has not happened in 11 years.
It is highly likely that Bill Frist will now give up his presidential ambitions and re-run for Senate. He will be defeated. DeLay will be defeated. That mirrors the defeat of leadership in both 1974 and 1994. It is unlikely that any Democratic Senator will lose reelection (unless Dayton does). But it is increasingly likely that the following GOP Senators will lose: Santorum, Frist, DeWine, Talent, Burns, Chafee, and Kyl. We will see if any threat can be mounted against Ensign, Allen and Snowe.
It is true that the districts are gerrymandered. It does put an upper limit on what can happen in the House. It is unlikely to be as devastating as 1974 and 1994, for that reason. But there still could be many surprises.
Be optimistic. The message is the same as 74 and 94. Wsahington is corrupt.
We obviously disagree on the relative importance of issues and institutional structure. I think the institutions surrounding elections have changed greatly since 1974, and you are suggesting that all we have to do is take advantage of the errors of the Republicans by making them issues as was done 32 years ago.
Talk about fighting the last war! Generals have nothing on you here!
There needs to be some new thinking on the left about how to win, not just depend on the Republicans to be so bad they will ultimately lose and default to the Democrats. The damage they do while in office take decades to repair.
The net as a new source of money is one new Democratic advantage – possibly. Assuming it does not work equally well for Republicans in the long run. But it is just one potential Democratic advantage. Organization is going to be critical. I posted a way the Progressives could take over the Texas Democratic Party over at MyLeftWing. It is the same way the social conservatives took control of the Texas Republican Party two decades ago, and I think they did the same in Kansas and Missouri. But it will require a level of organization and unity among Democrats and Progressives that they have not previously demonstrated. Essentially about 5% of Texas Democrats could control the entire party.
I am not disagreeing with your analysis. I am simply concerned that the Democrats will take the gift of 2006 that the Republicans have been offering and assume they are back in the saddle, no changes required.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Without serious changes to both Democratic unity and to the political environment, Rove is correct in looking at a two-generation Republican domination of this nation.
There are no issues that will change that. Their unified machine must be confronted and broken up for the Democrats to win long term, and if Democrats don’t win long term, America loses.
the Democratic Party is badly split and there will be no unity by 2006. The only hope for success is that the progressive wing launch an insurgency and the Dems sweep into power on the wings of both the DLC strategy and the netroots strategy. That means open warfare from now until 2006. And the only way the party can wage war on itself and still sweep the GOP out, is to focus on corruption. Once the young turks are in office, we will settle scores within the party.
Any hope for party unity is doomed on the issues. It won’t happen no matter how fervently you hope for it.
I agree that the strategies of the DLC and the Progressives are in sharp conflict.
I also agree that it is beginning to look good for Democrats in 2006 in the House, maybe the Senate. In Christmas 2006 we need to send thank you cards to significant Republicans. Tom DeLay, Rick Santorum and Michael Brown are on my list.
My problem is the longer term. The institutional advantages are with the Republican machine. So maybe the 2006 elections will provide enough cases of win – loss to determine which of the two Democratic wings offer the better strategy. In effect, 2006 could be a laboratory to use to resolve the conflict.
Frankly, I rather hope Dean has a unifying effect on the party. If he does, it will only be apparent after the fact. We won’t see it now. But hope is not a plan, and I plan to work for unity and to see some ways to stop the Republican corruption.
Unless Brenda has news from the west end of the state that hasn’t made it to Knoxville, Frist won’t be running again for the senate. I believe he promised not to run for another term (of course, we know what that’s worth…). 😉
Nor will his party necessarily want him to run again, if he’s damaged goods. Having a stinker at the top of the state ballot just raises questions about the rest of the republicans on the ballot.
I recommend listening to Charlie Cook, Cspan 2 right now but will be repeated I am sure:
“Political outlook for 2006”
Early on he deals with sheer numbers of where Dems are emerging to run (at all) for House races… althougth there are two months to filing.. that has to be born in mind, but people should be emerging. Too few are. And he ticks off numbers for Ohio where R are VERY vulnerable and too few Dems are emerging.
I don’t buy Charlie Cook hook line and sinker… but LOL I caught one of his “reports” early on in the GE and damn if the playing field he laid out for Kerry (the oppo trail that the R would lead the nation down) was not on target. Sadly the Dems were not listening.
You must have been Reading my mind.
2006 could be a Turning Point for Both so called Major Parties, though I would like to see a Number Of Indies jump into the fold, needed!!!!!
This country Also Needs another Jimmy Carter, he was Needed back than and is Most Definantly Needed Now, only with a Tad Bit more of the Not Such A Nice Guy Attitude!!!
thanks brother for your serivce. welcome back home, in case you have not been told that in many years….
Not Jimmy Carter. Please. As much as I liked and like him, he is a rotten politician. He was too much of an engineer and a problem solver, and not enough of a political institution builder.
He did little or nothing for the Democratic Party while in office. In my opinion, Carter gave the Presidency to Reagan. The Reagan people wanted in, and he didn’t.
Not the man necessarily, but the idea that a relative underdog with a decent message overcame the “machine”. Between a “sanctioned” party candidate and an “outsider”, I’ll take the outsider every time.
In my opinion, Carter gave the Presidency to Reagan.
Carter was a strange politician. In 1980, he decided that getting the hostages released from Iran was more important that even winning the election. And there is persistent evidence that the Reagan campaign team in violation of the Logan Act negotiated with the Iranians to delay the release of the hostages until after a Reagan victory. Does the name Poppy Bush, vice president, bring any recognition.
Carter was the first president sandbagged by the Bush crime family, followed by Clinton, Gore, and Kerry. Being the first, folks blamed the victim. But the idea that Democrats need to become a crime family to fight this bunch does nothing to advance democracy and Constitutional government. It is very difficult to win against dishonest tactics without becoming the enemy.
Carter has been faulted for loving his country and its people too much.
I found all of the elements of Carter you listed to be quite laudable. He was an engineer and a problem solver, one who preferred to solve the problem rather than create political organizations to deal with the problem. He simply did not think much of the Democratic Party itself, or the Republicans for that matter.
But the job of the President is to deal with things too large for any individual to deal with successfully. When problems get that large, they are automatically close to insolvable and thus political problems.
As President Carter did very little for the party, and we still suffer for it. Nixon, Reagan and Bush-squared have not made that error. Clinton left us with the current split between the DLC and the progressives, though I am not sure he could have seen it coming since the progressive side is so net-dependent.
But my objection to Carter is his unwillingness to work to build the Democratic Party and his almost equal unwillingness to find political solutions to the problems he faced. Every good engineer needs to work for a good politician. The skill sets are very different, but both very necessary.
Carter did very little for the party because:
We too often forget that the post-Watergate period was a time of stagflation, energy crisis, declining real wages, emerging global competition, emergence of petrodollars and Tom Friedman’s “electronic herd” mentality, increased tension in the Cold War, Palestinian terrorism, and extensive negotiations in the Israeli-Arab conflict. In other words, exactly the sort of world that any Democratic victor will inherit in 2009.
As a party, we have the nasty habit of savaging our own. Carter, Mondale, Clinton, Gore, Kerry have all been victims of this attitude.
I’m not sure what a “political solution to the problems he faced” means. Carter was a skilled negotiator; his performance in the Camp David Peace Process demonstrates that.
I think we too often look for personal character excuses for our own reluctance and give the Democratic candidate unqualified support during a presidential campaign. The Republicans, up until now, are not hindered with such baggage; they know what it is to be a base. We should not forget this in our exuberance over Bush’s apparent meltdown.
What sort of magic is going to bring together the Democrats in 2006? If anything, the party is more likely to split into a DLC-controlled centrist part and a blog-driven populist part, and split its existing vote into even smaller fragments.
Without some sort of single issue or flag that we can all rally around, I’d say that the prospects are pretty bleak. And this needs to be resolved RIGHT NOW, as the election is now only a year away.
For example: We should have Democratic candidates already defined for all open Senate and House seats (and local seats), and we should agree right now to adopt the DNC platform and drop discussion of off-platform topics. The time for platform definition is over, it’s time now for campaigning.
But realistically we’re looking at about another 11 months of arguing about the platform, and then a panic at the last minute when we relize that the election is upon us and we still don’t agree on hardly anything.
Erk.
I love having dreams of such an encore performance. My question is more practical–how are we going to insure elections in which
in short, fair and clean elections?
It’s nice to talk about trends, but there are still many, many Congressional Districts that Democrats are writing off. There are egos engaged in division that could snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
I am tired of hearing “But that’s a Republican district. We can’t win there.” or “That’s a gerrymandered district. A Democrat will never win.” I want to metaphorically walk over to such people, slap them, and say “Wake up! It’s 2005 going on 2006 and you are still stuck in 2004!”
There is a mightly wind blowing through the electoral orchard. There are a bunch of voters that are going to be shaken loose, and we are not going to have the candiates there to catch them. Or the labor to haul them to the polls.
There is no excuse for letting any Republican be unopposed in any Congressional District in the country. There are 177 Republican House members so close to Tom Delay, they are effectively his rubber stamps. There are Tom Delay fingerprints on every Repulican district in the country. How is Delay’s indictment going to go down in those Republican districts? That means that every Republican district, every single one is now competitive.
We need candidates for every Congressional District, every elected board of elections, every state Secretary of State, every state Attorney General, and every elected state judge.
For Democrats, 2006 must have turnout that exceeds the turnout last year. We must have 200,000 voters in each Congressional District turn out for Democrats. If they turn out and also vote for the US Senator, we will win big. If they vote for Democrats down the ticket, we will build the future of the party.
The year 2006 does not need to be like 1974; it needs to be like 1932. We need a political earthquake that destroys the conservative argument that they are the majority. So let’s get to work.
…already there are three candidates running in the Democratic primary in FL-13, and the top two, Jan Schneider and Christine Jennings, are both good candidates. I’d give the edge to Jennings at this point.
So far the R’s front-runner to take over Katherine Harris’s seat has had a scathing front-page article published on his business dealings in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune.
Good luck to the other D’s running. I’ll help with treasure, as we see who emerges.
Andy
Sarasota