Forty years ago, in 1968, the Democratic convention in Chicago saw the radicals of the New Left violently challenge the nomination of Hubert Humphrey. The divisions and chaos that were shown to Americans all over the country on their televisions showed a party in turmoil, a turmoil that carried over into the general election that saw Richard Nixon take the White House. Can we be seeing a repeat this year?
It's not exactly right to compare Barak Obama to Eugene McCarthy, or Hillary Clinton to Hubert Humphrey. Both are to the left of the Humphrey. But we do have an old guard vs new guard showdown. In the GOP divisions are ideological. Conservatives against moderates. Economic conservatives against evangelicals and the like. In the Democratic Party the divisions are racial and demographic. They all think alike, even if they look different.
Senator Obama represents the new guard. They are younger, wealthier, more educated, and to the left of your average Democrat(which leads me to ask: how far to the left can you get?) Hillary represents the older, blue collar, Democrats. I wouldn't say conservative, or even moderate as anyone who won't tow the liberal line was kicked out of the Democratic party a long time ago.
The question remains: Who's party is it? The party of the college professor and student? Or the party of the factory worker? The party of peace at any price, negotiations with any dictator, or a more pragmatic foreign policy? That's the battle that's being fought.
Now, none of this is news. It's been reported on before, but it is interesting. Conventions have become, over the last thirty years, little more than infomercials for the political parties. Three days of free advertising and a symbolic vote to declare a nominee who already had the nomination locked up long before the convention. Now, it's almost certain that neither Obama or Clinton will go into the convention with enough delegates to secure the nomination. The battle for the "superdelegates" will begin. It might be over on the first ballot, or it might go on for days. Either way it's good for Republicans.
A divided party is a party that is easily defeated. Remember the GOP in 1992 and in 1996? In 1992 President Bush had a strong primary challenger to his right, and many Republican voters defected to Ross Perot. In 1996 Perot was once again a factor, drawing votes away from Senator Dole. These divisions allowed Bill Clinton to be elected and reelected.
No matter who gets the nomination there is likely to be divisions in the Democratic Party. If Obama is denied the nomination, his enthusiastic, youthful supporters aren't likely to be so enthusiastic for Hillary Clinton. No matter who loses in Denver the losing party is going to feel that they were the victim of some back room deal. If Senator Clinton is defeated her supporters aren't likely to warm to Obama. Obama has never done well with Hispanics, and Senator McCain could have an easier time bring them to his side if Senator Obama is the nominee.
Let them fight all the way to Denver. It's better for us to take on a divided, rather than unified, party. I think conservatives could actually enjoy the Democratic primaries. It's better to face a divided party and have President McCain than to have a unified party and have a socialist in the White House.
