Advertisement

The Democrats: Who's Asleep in the Doghouse Now?

Only in a few Eastern states like Rhode Island and Massachusetts did Humphrey victories bring even larger Democratic majorities in the state legislatures.

The anti-Administration movement suffered in 1968 because it had few leaders who were either recognized by the press or who had much political experience. Both of these deficiencies have been met to a limited extent. Names like Allard Lowenstein, Julian Bond, John Gilligan, and Don Peterson are now both well-known and respected in the Washington press corps.

Lowenstein's plan to try to dump President Johnson was received as the mad plan of a New York professor-lawyer during the fall of 1967; he is now a Congressman from Long Island whom most "humanist liberals" and experienced political observers like David Halberstam regard as a responsible national leader.

In retrospect, the McCarthy campaign's greatest success might have been to give many liberals the political experience necessary to fight successful later battles. These are no longer the innocent amateurs who tried to take control of the state delegations to the national convention, screaming foul when they were defeated.

The McCarthyites have stayed in politics, instead of leaving, as most regular Democartic Party officials claimed they would. Like any segment of a political party, in an off-year their numbers aren't as great as during a Presidential camapign. But with a corps of a new thousand active supporters in each state who come from a wide base, many New Democratic Coalition organizations are waging the most vigorous fight in history to take over their state parties.

Advertisement

In Rhode Island the NDC called a meeting earlier this fall to which it invited about 200 of the most active Kennedy and McCarthy supporters. More than 1000 people showed up. Similar scenes have been repeated in Arizona and Washington. Many of these people are going to work at the precinct level to win control of party organizations.

The campaigns have already brought substantial gains. In Kentucky, for instance, the liberal coalition now controls about one-fourth of the Louisville party organization. The party in Minneapolis and St. Paul was taken over by student activists and suburbanites in the McCarthy drive--they have not let go, despite Hubert Humphrey's recent pledge to oust the "kooks" from the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party.

In Washington four philosophy professors from West Washington State College were elected to the Democratic City Committee in Bellingham late last month.

In several states, including New Hampshire, Michigan, Iowa, and California, the "humanist" liberals already control either a substantial minority (more than 40 per cent) or a majority of the state Democratic parites. This power is partially a result of the McCarthy movement.

Nonetheless, serious problems remain:

* It is extremely difficult to keep such a diverse coalition together without an ogre-in-residence. On the national level Hubert Humphrey's recent stirrings about the 1972 Presidential race together with Richard Nixon's Presidency might be able to fill the bill of the "clear and present danger" which the alliance needs in the near future if differences are to be buried.

* Power may be hard to get, but for liberals (witness New York City's reform movement, for example) it is often harder to keep. And once in power the coalition is obligated to the policies of all members of the alliance. It is very easy for "outs" to unite compared with serving the interests of the many deprived groups which this coalition represents. A white middle class suburbanite state administrator might quickly drive even black moderates into the opposition. This problem will be faced by Rhode Island with Governor Licht in the immediate future and probably by many states following the 1970 elections, if the "humanists" are successful.

* Though the NDC espouses the philosophy of participatory politics, it is hardly operating at the present time on the widespread base that it claims. All organizations tend to become elitist once leaders arise, as they did in 1968 in the left-liberal community. It is almost inevitable that these leaders who work continuously on day-to-day implementation of the programs will impose, either inadverently or not, their own views of future policy. Thus participatory politics can easily become a euphemism for the old decision-making process.

Already some of the leaders of the "New Politics" like Gerry Hill, chairman of the California Democratic Council (CDC--the NDC chapter in California), has adopted much of the rheteric and style of the politicians whom he seeks to replace.

* Liberals--like their radical and rightist counterparts--also have a tendency to factionalize along ideological lines. It is hard to avoid.

The "humanist" liberals, of course, have many things going in their favor which the McCarthy movement didn't have this year. The key factor is time and commitment born in the anger of the past year's outrages by the regular Democrats. If they can set up an effective national organization, which they appear to be doing, then the money and political expertise which the different state organizations need can be readily provided. With intelligent leaders like Lowenstein, Bond, Michtel Harrington, Adam Walensky, and the Rev. Channing Phillips, the NDC appears to have a wealth of talent unequaled in past American political insurgencies.

What these left liberal Democrats are trying to do, in essence, is to redefine the Democratic "liberal": his policies, programs and comrades-in-arms This political realignment is taking place in the context of a movement for political power. As 1968 proved, it can be a brutal battle.

The regular party organization appears relatively dormant now, but the New Democratic Coalition has 44 months in which to do the work necessary to put the regulars where, as one NDC organizer feels, they should lie forever--"in the doghouse of history.

Advertisement