Same as it Ever Was
The story goes that there was this long-time Pennsylvania heavyweight politician at the 1992 Democratic Convention who due to his pro-life views was snubbed from a speaking role. The Democratic Party hierarchy (that’d be Clinton’s people) disputes this, saying that (a) there was no reason for Bob Casey — at the end of his career — to have earned the right and (b) He did not endorse Bill Clinton for president and wasn’t much of a team-player in the Democratic Party. Bob Casey rebuts with a “But Jerry Brown has a speaking role, and he didn’t endorse Clinton” — rebutted with a “Jerry Brown won delegates, so we’re stuck with him.” (And “stuck with him” is the opportune phrase, as the Democratic Party was always kind of embarrassed by Jerry Brown.)
Fast forward to 2004. The Democratic Party is said to have lost a presidential election to such a thing as “Values voters”. Some bean counters somewhere believe that the party needs to … blur lines (?) and be less rigid(?) on various social issues. Step to the plate Bob Casey’s son… Bob Casey… who beyond being against Abortion…
and… for state muddling into the Terri Schiavo affair, a position which public response against sort of turned the whole post-mortem “The Public is voting JEESUS by way of Pat Robertson” election analysis its head.
and… against Embryonic cloning beyond what Bush proffered in 2001… which, again, politically and policy wise is annoying…
It’s a curious gambit, and the man is the candidate de jour based on name recognition. He’s running against the much reviled Rick Santorum, he of “dog on man” fame. In a state which went for Kerry and went for Gore. In a state whose other Republican Senator is considered “moderate” in the realm of social issues (which, in terms of our narrow political discourse we’re stuck with in this country, really only means he’s “pro-choice”.)
There is a basic problem here in that this continues the trouble with the Democratic Party in that nobody knows where it stands. I’ve come to the conclusion that the Democratic Party should boldly take a political stand, thematically, for Science — and if it seems bizarre that a “I support Science” platform be injected as a stand in a political debate, it’s an indication of how depressing the political climate is right now. As per a package, what you have at the upstart is: Stem Cell Research, the search for Alternative Energy, um… Evolution… utmost seriousness when scientific explanations come in of how levees might break if a category 5 Hurricane hits New Orleans… that sort of thing.
The storyline goes that the Democratic Party gave up on much of Rurality by abonding economic concerns, advancing NAFTA and GATT — and then took on a rock solid stand for social issues such as Abortion for to gain Suburbia (thus becoming a party of Moderate Republicanism, in a sense.) I’m curious to know what would happen if a party gives up both.
In the realm of this weird kinder, gentler Rick Santorum that the Democratic Party is asking Pennsylvania to vote for… I ask that you vote for the opponent in the primary.
More of the problem in this “same as it ever was” motif concerning Hillary Clinton, presumptive nominee for president in 2008, and Harold Ford — automatic candidate for Tennessee, later.