1968

This past weekend's edition of the Wall Street Journal featured an illuminating political editorial by Ted Van Dyk, former aide to the hapless Democratic party's Presidential candidate Hubert Humphrey, entitled "How The Election of 1968 Reshaped the Democratic Party."

Van Dyk provides a very entertaining and detailed account of the dynamics of 1968, wherein the Democratic party's lasting penchant for catering to fringe lunacy was born. He hilariously, but accurately, refers to the 1972 Democratic party platform as "acid, amnesty and abortion."

As Van Dyk explains, 1968 resulted in a splintered party,

"Since 1968, independent and on-the-fence voters have come to perceive that there are, in fact, two Democratic Parties represented by two kinds of candidates. There is the middle-income, middle-minded, socially more conservative, bread-and-butter Democratic Party. Then, there is the better-educated, higher-income, socially liberal Democratic Party. The candidates of these wings do not have their feet wholly in one camp or another. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton campaigned successfully as undefined populists, and benefited from weak Republican opposition. But as a rule, Democratic presidential candidates have not since 1968 been able to restore the party that was broken that year. Lyndon Johnson, in 1964, was the last Democratic presidential candidate to gain a national majority of white voters."

With that prologue, Van Dyk continues,

"Will Mr. Obama, at the upcoming Democratic convention in Denver, be able to bring Reagan Democrats finally home? I am not counting on it. His Republican opponent, John McCain, has a maverick reputation and an appeal to Reagan Democrats that Mr. Obama will find difficult to match. The Democratic Party platform is still filled with the single-issue, single-interest and social-issue planks that have plagued it since 1972.

The classic winning coalition for Democrats is the 1960 John F. Kennedy coalition which included Catholics, Jews and Protestants, whites, African-Americans and Latinos, both better- and less-educated voters, labor-union members and academics. The 1960 Kennedy platform -- built around a strong national defense, assertive foreign policy, economic growth and social justice at home -- is still the platform most likely to attract Democratic voters of all outlooks, as well as independents. JFK's promise to "get America moving again" is what Americans are looking for in 2008.

Will Mr. Obama grasp that platform, broaden his appeal, and capitalize on Republican weakness to win a broad mandate to govern? Or will he allow himself to be typed as a black Adlai Stevenson or Eugene McCarthy, articulate but snooty, and out of touch with ordinary folk? The Denver convention offers him the chance to break out, show himself as relating to all his party's factions, and restore what has been damaged since 40 years ago in Chicago."

Van Dyk's analysis is incredibly lucid, insightful, and compelling. I believe it 100%.

The one thing about which I disagree with Van Dyk is that the Illnois rookie Senator can "grasp that platform, broaden his appeal and capitalize on Republican weakness."

He can't, and he won't, because it's not him, and it's not in him. Similarly, he won't just "allow himself to be typed as a black Adlai Stevenson or Eugene McCarthy, articulate but snooty, and out of touch with ordinary folk."

That IS the junior Illinois Senator! Obama is articulate and snooty. No typifying necessary by Republicans. He's already there!

To be honest, I had ironically forgotten all about the parallel with Adlai. But it's more than apt. A snooty, egg-headed Illinois Senator. And the Black Adder doesn't have any of the experience Stevenson actually possessed, including a stint as Governor of his state.

With the Stevenson comparison, I'm even more confident McCain will win in November.