The Democrats' Civil War
Does Peggy Noonan read Ricochet?
That was the first thought that crossed my mind when I read her excellent column in today's Wall Street Journal. It echoes many of the points our own Peter Robinson made on the site last week in his post, "What GOP Civil War."
Last week, Peter cast aside the mainstream media's narrative about a civil war within the GOP between tea partiers and establishment folk. The real civil war, he explained, is happening among the Democrats:
The “civil war” within the Republican Party, in other words, concerned just one race—exactly one [the Delaware Senate race]—and lasted for all of 48 hours. Contrast that with dissension among Democrats. Over the last two weeks, more than 30 Democrats defied the President and Speaker, refusing—flatly refusing—to vote on the Obama-Pelosi tax hike. That’s civil war.
And here's Noonan:
Everyone talks about the tensions between the Republican establishment, such as it is, and the tea-party-leaning parts of its base. But are you looking at what's happening with the Democrats? Tensions between President Obama and his supporters tore into the open this week as never before, signifying a real and developing fracturing of his party.
....
There is a war beginning in the Democratic Party, and the president has lost control of his base.
By way of example, she quotes Obama's reaction to weary Democrats like Velma Hart and Shepard Fairey.
Mr. Obama, in an interview in Rolling Stone, aimed fire at those abandoning him: "It is inexcusable for any Democrat or progressive right now to stand on the sidelines in this midterm election." The Democratic base "sitting on their hands complaining" is "just irresponsible. . . . We have to get folks off the sidelines. People need to shake off this lethargy, people need to buck up. Bringing about change is hard—that's what I said during the campaign. . . . But if people now want to take their ball and go home, that tells me folks weren't serious in the first place."
Obama has also told these "griping and groaning Democrats," as I wrote here, to "wake up. This is not some academic exercise. As Joe Biden put it, Don’t compare us to the Almighty, compare us to the alternative."
How did these "griping and groaning Democrats"--these "irresponsible" Democrats who are "sitting on their hands complaining"--react? Noonan clues us in:
The response from the left was fierce, unapologetic—and accusatory. Mr. Obama had let them down, he'd taken half measures. "Stop living in that bubble," shot back an activist on cable. But Jane Hamsher of the leftist blog Firedoglake saw method, not madness. She described the president's remarks as "hippie punching" and laid them to cynical strategy: "It's about setting up a narrative for who will take the blame for a disastrous election." She said Mr. Obama's comments themselves could "depress turnout."
Take the blame? Disastrous? Setting up a narrative?
This isn't the language of disagreement, the classic to-and-fro between a restive base and politicians who make compromises. This is the language of estrangement. It is the language of alienation.
She concludes, as Peter does, that a civil war is beginning in the Democratic Party. Obama is increasingly fracturing his base, and not at a worst time. While this benefits the GOP, I can't help but wonder, what kind of leader, weeks before a very important election, would use such damning language against his erstwhile supporters? While those disgruntled Democrats won't be voting for a Republican candidate anytime soon, Obama still needs them to show up at the polls this November. I can't imagine calling them names will encourage that.
- Comment (18)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: The Democrats' Civil War
The most telling Noonan line:
"I will never forget the visionary real-world entrepreneur who sighed, when I once urged him to enter politics, 'I've lived an imperfect life. They'd kill me.'"
Here's another good one:
"If Democrats are 'the worst, the most malevolent' in their campaigning, 'don't match 'em, let 'em.' Be better. Be serious about the issues at a serious time."
They're malevolent in their governance as well. This Mitch Daniels approach won't work once in office.
Edited on Oct 1, 2010 at 6:19amMay '10
Re: The Democrats' Civil War
In my own little corner of the universe the Democrats have begun pushing back on some of the regulatory changes being proposed by the Obama administration placing de facto price controls on for-profit colleges. This is not so much from the Progressive flank (though it does include members of the Congressional Black Caucus and Jesse Jackson,) but from the Hillary wing, (cheerleading supplied by Lanny Davis,) who have started to identify regulatory over-reaching and anti-business rhetoric. When Hillary comes, she's going to come hard at Obama's anti-business stance. The Clintons were never anti-business.
Re: The Democrats' Civil War
That's interesting because it suggests that the divide within the Dems is between the progressive, statist Democrats (Obama and his ilk) and the moderate pro-business ones (the Clintons). It sounds like the divide that Peggy Noonan sees, however, is between the Obama crowd and those even further to the left of him--those who think that change is not coming fast enough. I think both divisions exist, but the one most germane in the political long-run is the one you cite, Trace.
Re: The Democrats' Civil War
Michael Tee:
They're malevolent in their governance as well. This Mitch Daniels approach won't work once in office. · Oct 1 at 6:11am
Edited on Oct 01 at 06:19 am
Michael, I think the governance approach the GOP should be after is the one we find in Chris Christie--tough. Trace put it well in his comment yesterday about Meg Whitman:
Sep '10
Re: The Democrats' Civil War
The mainstream media cooks up wishful analysis and serves their audience delicious morsels of schadenfreude stew.
It is quite obvious that the Democrats are beginning to split to those of us who follow politics. I'm loving this era when the MSM is just strong enough to fool their core audience of Democrats but unable to fool skeptical Republicans and independents who get their news from wider sources.
Go to sleep Democrats, sleeeeep, the GOP is in disarray...there is nothing to worry about.... sleep...
May '10
Re: The Democrats' Civil War
"The Republican establishment, such as it is...". Dame Peggy gets it. Kind of difficult to put on a good civil war when there's only one credible side.
And shouldn't you know if she reads Ricochet? I mean, heck, you are an editrix. One of the Three Furies.
Edited on Oct 1, 2010 at 7:29amRe: The Democrats' Civil War
The Three Furies -- I like it!
And you're right, I should know. I'll see if I can find out!
Kennedy Smith: "The Republican establishment, such as it is...". Dame Peggy gets it. Kind of difficult to put on a good civil war when there's only one credible side.
And shouldn't you know if she reads Ricochet? I mean, heck, you are an editrix. One of the Three Furies. · Oct 1 at 7:28am
Edited on Oct 01 at 07:29 am
Re: The Democrats' Civil War
Not to be picky but Peter is wrong if he thinks Delaware was the only place where an establishment Republican was picked off by a Tea Partier this year.
May '10
Re: The Democrats' Civil War
True, but it was only instance when it created much of a brouhaha, outside the immediate circle of the huffy, flouncy losers.
Re: The Democrats' Civil War
I think Alaska was a pretty big brouhaha.
May '10
Re: The Democrats' Civil War
Weeellll, yes. But that was sort of inside baseball, wasn't it? Basically a personal blood feud. Didn't seem to have repercussions with the electorate as a whole, who are just going to vote for the R. Whereas the War of Delware was a big deal that people took to heart and there were wounded feelings littering the battlefield.
Re: The Democrats' Civil War
Marco Rubio?
Re: The Democrats' Civil War
Marco Rubio is a different beast than O'Donnell and the others, I think. He's a bit more moderate and has maintained a distance from the tea party, hasn't he?
Re: The Democrats' Civil War
Sharron Angle?
May '10
Re: The Democrats' Civil War
The Rubio thing is a recurring red herring strawman. I still can't find where anyone stated that he couldn't beat the Democrat, and were thus plumping for Crist. Score one for the good judgment of the Tea Party (and those Chablis spritzer sniffing elitists at National Review). OK, OK, so the NRSC went with Crist, but who gets worked over them?
The Angle thing took place before most people were paying attention, and I think she'll probably win, cause it's Harry Reid. True, I would've preferred the former Miss New Jersey who used to own the Sands casino, cause that's my kind of people. But Angle probably wins.
Re: The Democrats' Civil War
Well back to my point: As much as I respect Peter, his assertion that only the Delaware race points to a split between the Republican establishment and the Tea Partiers is not his most supported observation.
May '10
Re: The Democrats' Civil War
Right, but a split opinion does not a civil war make. That requires a level of intense feeling that hasn't been seen anywhere than Delaware, in a rank-and-file sense.
Re: The Democrats' Civil War
It's been seen elsewhere, just not so heavily reported.