Once Upon a Time Clark Liked Some Republicans
*************UPDATE: Today the Weekly Standard reports that the White House says Clark never made any phone calls to Rove at the White House. The Standard take this as an admission that Clark made it up but in reality it only suggests that Clark was being truthful when he said he made the comments in jest. Spin, spin, spin...**************
Some democrats are questioning whether Clark is democrat enough to be on the democratic ticket. They cite his admission that he "probably voted for Nixon" and definitely voted for Reagan as indications that he may be a closet republican. Even conservatives have jumped on the horse in an attempt to get the impressive Clark knocked out in the first round. Conservatives complain that on May 11, 2001, Clark was keynote speaker for the Pulaski County Republican Committee’s annual Lincoln Day dinner, where he allegedly praised Ronald Reagan's actions involving the Cold War. Today, Newsweek reports that in January 2003 Clark told Colorado Gov. Bill Owens and Marc Holtzman, current president of the University of Denver, that "I would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls." Clark says the comment was made in jest, but long-time Republicans Owens and Holtzman insist otherwise, although one questions whether they might not have one or two reasons for misrepresenting Clark's comments that day, especially when one considers how Newsweek became aware of a private discussion between the three.
Is Clark's BC (before Clinton) record of voting republican and his previous associations with republicans a handicap in his race for the democratic nomination? This depends on how good he is at breaching the partisan divide. According to a January 29, 2003, Harris Poll, 34% of Americans identify themselves as democrat, 31% as republican, 24% as independent, 6% unsure and 5% as "other." The poll states that 40% of the population self-identified as moderate—holding steady from previous years—35% said they were conservative, and 17% labeled themselves liberal. Harris said this was the first year in decades of polling on this question that respondents classified themselves conservative over liberal by more than two to one.
What does this mean for Clark? Consider that when Reagan was elected in 1980, 41% of the population identified themselves as Democrats compared to 24% republican, and 29% independent. Yet Reagan captured 51% of the popular vote, which according to John Dilulio Jr. of the Weekly Standard included 26% of democrats who voted.
Exit polling in 1988 indicated that Bush Sr. won 17% of democrats' votes and 55% of independents'. These percentages dropped in 1992 to 10% and 32% respectively, while his support among republicans remained steady. He lost because Clinton reclaimed votes from crossover democrats and siphoned off 23% of the independent voters.
This illustrates that neither party has a sufficiently sized base to win an election without capturing independent votes. With a larger percentage of the population identifying themselves as conservative than liberal, a candidate who appears extremely liberal risks alienating that constituency and losing more than he gains by shoring up support among his significantly smaller liberal base. To win, a presidential candidate must be able to draw votes from the other side or woo voters in the middle.
That is why the right's loudest voices—the O'Reillys and Limbaughs—with help from the eager-to-prove-we're-not-liberal media did a bang-up job convincing the public that Howard Dean is an unabashed liberal. Dean didn't help matters by portraying himself as coming from "the democratic wing of the Democratic Party." To conservatives, those are code words for "leftwing nut." Yet Dean's positions show him to be one of the more moderate democratic contenders.
Clark shares Dean's liberal positions on homosexual unions and abortion rights as well as Dean's conservative positions on the second amendment and fiscal responsibility. However, Clark’s BC voting record, history of never having run for elected office, and one-time speaking engagement at a republican event make it hard for conservative blowhards to brand him a liberal partisan hack, ala Dean. Until a few weeks ago, Clark had never even publicly identified himself as a democrat, although he was registered as one in 2000, supported Clinton, and campaigned in 2002 for the democratic senator and Vietnam veteran Max Cleland, who lost to Saxby Chambliss after Chambliss maligned Cleland as unpatriotic for opposing the Homeland Security bill.
Prior to Clark announcing his party affiliation there were those from the conservative wing who criticized him for "posturing" as an independent when he was clearly a democrat. From an op-ed in the Washington Times:
Mr. Clark has been posturing as an independent who doesn't know whether to run as a Democrat or a Republican. In August, he told CNN's Aaron Brown that "for me, it's not about partisan politics." Yet Mr. Clark's track record is plainly partisan. In Georgia's Senate race last year, he endorsed the Democratic incumbent over Republican challenger Saxby Chambliss. Mr. Clark votes as a Democrat in primaries in his home state of Arkansas. The "Draft Clark" Web site lauds him for having "progressive social principles in line with our Democratic ideals." Time magazine reported last year that Mr. Clark's presidential prospecting included meetings with top Democratic donors and fundraisers. Mr. Clark's evasiveness regarding his Democratic Party affiliations is troubling.
Of course now that Clark threatens Bush as a democrat not a republican, conservatives have changed tune and are brazenly attempting to brand Clark as something other than a true democrat for the purpose of persuading the democratic base not to support him. One wonders why they care? Doesn’t it make more sense for conservatives to be prefer a moderate democratic nominee instead of a liberal one? No, because they're afraid a moderate candidate would have greater appeal to the 40% of the American population who identify themselves as more moderate than an archconservative like Bush. A moderate democrat on the ticket maximizes the possibility of attracting crossover votes from republican moderates while minimizing the loss of votes from moderate democrats who might otherwise be disenchanted with a candidate perceived as excessively liberal.
Despite the Washington Times op-ed piece attacking Clark for being a partisan democrat, his record suggests that before declaring himself a democrat he probably considered himself independent, someone who votes for whomever he believes to be the best man. This insulates him from the cynicism many have that party candidates always put party before people. It may also help Clark appeal to moderates who fear lifetime appointments for judges as ideologically left (ala Stephens, Ginsburg) as the Bush nominations have been ideologically right (ala Scalia, Thomas). Clark has already suggested that he'd appoint judges like Souter and Bryer.
While this could alienate those in the party base who want a firm commitment to a far left platform, those individuals are unlikely to vote for Bush regardless of who gets the democratic nomination. There is some risk those on the farthest left of the base will splinter off as they did in 2000 and support someone like Nader, which was significant in a close election. But Nader garner a miniscule percentage of votes, and some former Naderites regret voting for him now that Bush has illustrated the huge difference between himself and Gore. A small splintering of the base may not be problematic in 2004 because the appeal Bush had in the 2000 election for moderate voters has eroded. He has exposed himself as a true conservative and anything but a uniter, and many moderate republicans are disenchanted with Bush's staunch support for the conservative arm of the Republican Party. Jennifer Stockman of the Republican Pro-Choice Coalition predicts that "As long as centrist Republican voters are confronted with an image of their party as painted by the right - intolerant, vindictive and mean-spirited - Republican candidates will do worse at each election."
The voting records of republican moderates in congress on some of Bush's more conservative proposals--eliminating capital gains taxes, drilling in the Alaskan Wildlife preserve, appointing ideologically conservative judges--suggest that Bush is no longer assured support among moderate congressional republicans who might resent accusations from a conservative group that they were "being like the French" (a conservative euphemism for traitor) when they opposed the extent of the Bush taxcut plan, via a television ad campaign that Bush never rebuked.
In the long run it is in Clark's best interest not to convince people that he is more liberal than moderate. The problem will be the primaries, where being perceived as moderate could impact his survival since it is often the party's committed adherents who are most energized to vote and not the crossover republicans and independent voters needed to win an election.
However he may have voted and whomever he may have spoken to, Clark's positions on the issues seem to have remained steady: socially liberal, fiscally conservative, supporter of the second amendment. He claims to have voted democrat since Clinton ran for office in 1992. There is a saying: If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it is probably a duck. Or in this case a democrat, but one who swims mostly in the middle of the pond.
