2000 Presidential race: Progressive doomed already? by Brendan Nyhan

Although it seems like the presidential election just ended, Democratic candidates are revving up their campaigns for the nomination in 2000. Unfortunately, the outlook for liberals is already grim. Al Gore is clearly the front runner. Considered by many to be the most visible vice president ever, he is in a strong position to take over for Clinton. Because he is seen as an environmentalist, people assume he's a liberal. Not true - Gore is even more conservative than the staunchly centrist Clinton, as demonstrated by his voting record in the Senate , his failed 1988 presidential candidacy, and his tearful speech about his sister's death from lung cancer, which came after years of accepting massive tobacco lobby donations. Where else can the Left turn? The other leading candidates for the nomination are House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt and former senator Bill Bradley. Gephardt is politically to the left of Gore, but he is even more corrupt and opportunistic than Gore. As a DC insider, moreover, he is unlikely to gain on the more visible and popular Gore. Bradley wisely distancd himself from the Washington elite through his recent resignation from the Senate and now projects a bipartisan, Colin Powell-like sense of thoughtfulness and integrity that other candidates lack. His record , however, reveals him as a moderate to conservative Democrat. Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska is another moderate Democrat relatively untouched by scandal and contreversy. Although Kerrey has voted the right way on key issues such as welfare reform, most of his ideology belongs pretty much in the center. More generally, Kerry's lack of strong liberal or centrist convictions and low visibility will outweigh his access to significant campaign funds and cause his early defeat. The liberal sacrificial lamb this time around appears to be Senator Paul Wellstone. As Matt Van Itallie describes (p. 1), Wellstone won his Senate race despite his liberalism, not because of it. His quixotic liberal candidacy may force the other candidates to address progressive concerns , but his lack of funding and visibility will consign him to a typically pathetic liberal protest candidate role. Since Wellstone's candidacy is clearly doomed, who will be the Democratic candidate? In terms of those challenging Gore, Gephardt and Kerrey may have financial backing, but will ultimately fail, due to both their lack of new ideas and their connection to the Washington establishment. Bradley will be more successful since he can take an outsider tack against Gore, running at least partly on a platform of campaign finance reform. In the end, then, it should come down to Gore and Bradley. Either way, liberals lose, but then again we always do. And, unfortunately, a progressive candidate is not yet plausible on the national level. Changing that in the long term is what should occupy the bulk of liberal activism, not futile campaigns against powerful centrists.

Back to The L-Word