HOME | BIO | MUSIC | JOURNEYS BY DJ | STUDIO BLOG | POLITICAL BLOG | BOOKING INFO | CONTACT

Digby makes a point that I think is far, FAR too often overlooked:

It's true the Democrats split back in the day. It's also true that there were many factors including race and the counter-culture. But when it came to the war there is one blindingly obvious fact that nobody seems to think is significant: the Vietnam War split the Democrats because it was run by Democrats. The Pentagon papers didn't indict a bunch of Republicans, after all. It was lieberman-Lamont writ very, very large and with much bigger consequences.

The fact is that most Democrats, not being natural authoritarians, don't put up with this crap from their leaders, of either party. They hold them accountable. Now I realize that for some twisted illogical reason that means they are seen as unserious and irresponsible in American politics, but it doesn't change the fact that it's the right thing to do. When your country is engaged in dangerous wars based on lies and obscure reasoning, it is immoral to say nothing simply because you are afraid it will make you look bad. I'm proud of the history of Democrats standing up and opposing these two wars.

Why this is so difficult for journalists to remember is beyond me. The Democratic Party's problems with Vietnam came from the fact that they started and ran the war. Everything flows from that one simple historical fact, including the McGovern candidacy. True, the coalition that FDR built had been fraying for years, but it was the war that finally tore it to shreds.

Here in 2006, the parallel is not with the Democratic Party; it is with the Republican Party. Their coalition - Reagan's coalition - has been held together for over a quarter of a century with tacks and glue. (Ours, for the record, is in the process of being rebuilt). It is their party, not ours, that started this unnecessary war. It is their party, not ours, that has undermined our nation's security through their mistakes and missteps. And it is their party, not ours, that will be torn to shreds as a result.

Lamont's victory isn't a sign of the end of the Democratic Party. Its a sign of its new beginning. For gods sake, if you're going to attempt to draw historical parallels, shouldn't you first make sure you've got the history right?

And one last thought.... As for this whole "defeatocrats" thing... If we're the ones arguing that the war in Iraq has made us LESS safe, how does that make us defeatist? We're demanding change so that we can stop losing and start winning. So no, black is not white, up is not down, and defeat is not victory.

UPDATE: Lookie here! Anonymous Liberal had the same thought, but in much, MUCH more detail.

UPDATE II: Looks like they're swarming on this. Mark Schmitt has another excellent take. 2006 is 1974, not 1972. And although eh doesn't say it, I will... 2008 will be 1980 all over again. Bring it on....