Ambrose Bierce wrote of “truth”—that it is an ingenious compound of desirability and appearance. With that in mind, let’s make a comparison.
In the 2004 Democratic presidential primary, former Vermont governor Howard Dean ran his presidential campaign primarily on his opposition to the Iraq War. He also ran on his record as a fiscal conservative, repeatedly balancing his state’s budget, and, as a Second Amendment supporter, was endorsed eight times by the National Rifle Association.
All the same, he was painted as a liberal extremist by his political opponents. The most infamous ad against the candidate was one paid for by the conservative Club for Growth, attacking Dean as “a tax-hiking, government-expanding … left-wing freak show.”
Montana Senator-elect Jon Tester ran his 2006 campaign on the issues of investigating alternative energy sources, repealing the Patriot Act, ending corruption in Washington, and creating a plan to leave Iraq. Like Dean, he also ran on his record of balancing the budget and gun rights. Tester’s Republican opponent attacked him for being “too liberal” for the state of Montana. In The Washington Post, Robert Novak cites a late campaign cash infusion specifically geared towards this purpose, accusing Tester of intending to raise taxes on Montanans.
These candidates ran for office on similar platforms with similar records and faced similar attacks. Even our campus’s own Emily Schultz, who last week wrote that Tester was more conservative than most Democrats because of his position on the budget and gun rights, would have to admit by her own standards that Dean ranks similarly, at least if she is to be logically consistent.
How can one label Dean as liberal and Tester as conservative simultaneously? The answer is simple: Dean is considered liberal because he lost. Tester is considered conservative because he won.
Such labels are intentional political spin intended to deny that liberal values can resonate with the American public. If a Democrat loses a close election, it is explained that the candidate was too liberal. If a Democrat wins, it is explained that candidate was more conservative. If the Republican Party loses, as it did this year, it is explained that the party betrayed conservatism. If the Republican Party wins, as it did in 2004, it is explained that the party embraced conservative values.
Because many want these dishonest dichotomies to be true, they become oft-repeated conventional wisdom. Bierce would be amused.
In reality, the Democratic Party is not strictly liberal or conservative. Its members are incredibly ideologically diverse, ranging from “liberal” Senator Russ Feingold who voted to confirm Chief Justice John Roberts, to “moderate” Senate Majority Leader-elect Harry Reid, who is pro-life and opposes NAFTA, to “conservative” Senator-elect Bob Casey Jr., who opposes social security privatization and school voucher programs. As there are no ideological litmus tests for party membership, to attempt to define any Democrat on the issues relative to some imagined standard would be folly.
Then how can Democrats be defined at all? By these common sensibilities: multiformity, pragmatism, moderation, and a dedication to social responsibility.
