The American fringe and its unintended consequences
We Americans — and particularly our governing class in Albany and Washington — like to think of ourselves as centrists and middle-of-the-roaders
Which is why it’s so startling to realize that fringe activists and groups have shaped so much of our politics in the post-War era.
And the really interesting thing is that these “wing” voters and organizations tend to do as much harm as good to their cherished causes.
In last month’s elections, the rise of the conservative tea party movement probably cost Republicans control of the US Senate.
If President Barack Obama’s healthcare reform law survives, he may have Sarah Palin and Jim DeMint to thank.
But this trend goes well beyond this one election cycle.
In 1964, a fierce cadre of conservative Republicans seized the presidential nomination for Barry Goldwater, shouldering aside centrist New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller.
Goldwater went on to lose the election by nearly 20 million votes to Lyndon Johnson, one of the biggest electoral defeats in our history.
That gave Johnson time to built support for his landmark Civil Rights Act and to lay the groundwork for his Great Society social programs.
But in 1968, Johnson’s own fringe rose up against him, with liberals backing Eugene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy against a popular, sitting president.
A chip-shot win for the Democrats turned into a debacle, as Johnson withdrew and Richard Nixon went on to win 32 states and the presidency.
If ultra-liberal rebels own a part of the credit for the blighted Nixon era, they also own a big piece of the Reagan years.
In 1980, Jimmy Carter had a legitimate shot at capturing a second term until progressive icon Ted Kennedy pursued a nasty and divisive primary challenge all the way to the Democratic convention.
(We forget these days that Carter was viewed by his liberal wing as a stuffy southern conservative. Just as Johnson, the architect of the Civil Rights Act and the Great Society, was viewed as a right-wing war-monger.)
Reagan went on to win 44 states and set in motion policies that would erode many of the liberal movement’s most cherished New Deal programs.
But if liberals helped to usher in the Nixon and Reagan eras, conservatives certainly played midwife to Bill Clinton’s presidency.
In 1992, Texas billionaire Ross Perot launched his self-funded libertarian campaign, peeling away nearly 20 million votes.
That support, if it had stayed with the GOP, would have given the first President George Bush another term by a handy margin.
But in 2000, the left was back at it again, with liberal icon Ralph Nader stripping nearly 3 million votes away from the Democrats — including key votes in Florida that would have almost certainly tipped the election to Al Gore.
It is an unavoidable fact that their quixotic activism had the unintended consequence of giving rise to the Bush-Cheney era.
Indeed, when you tot up the number of times that these outside-the-mainstream groups have tipped elections — and in every case, tipped it to the “enemy” camp — it’s hard not to daydream about what a truly centrist America might have looked like.
What if Nelson Rockefeller had been elected president and set a different course for the modern Republican Party, one more urban, cosmopolitan and multi-racial in tone?
What if Lyndon Johnson had captured a second term, thereby removing Richard Nixon’s stain from American history?
What if Jimmy Carter had muddled to a second term, erasing Ronald Reagan’s towering figure from the political landscape?
What if Bill Clinton had never been elected? And what if Al Gore had been at the helm in 2000 when Al Quaeda attacked America?
It’s astonishing when seen in this light to think how these very small groups have managed to alter the trajectory of our political lives.
Liberals have once again started talking about this sort of self-immolating rebellion.
In an interview on NPR, Robert Kuttner — co-founder of the American Prospect — raised the specter of a primary challenge against President Obama in 2012.
This from NPR political editor Ken Rudin’s blog post about their conversation:
I told him after today’s program that it still seems far fetched to me to envision a real challenge to Obama’s nomination in 2012.
He said perhaps, but who would have thought that mild-mannered Eugene McCarthy would have taken on LBJ in ’67-68?
Right. And who would have imagined that the few thousand college students who went “clean for Gene” in New Hampshire in 1968 would change the course of American history.
Not by ushering in a new progressive politics, but by opening the door to Nixon, Watergate, and much of the ugliness that followed.
Tags: politics
No, you never know, especially when it comes to presidential politics. Some on the far right and far left are perfectly willing to cut off their nose to spite their face.
What if? What if FDR had gotten his additional Justices and packed the Supreme Court with his people had gotten even more power? What if he hadn’t died and had stood for 3 or 4 more terms? What if? What if Wilson hadn’t imprisoned people and caused the birth of the ACLU? What if Coolidge had stood for a 2nd term? What if Teddy R, had stayed out of the coal strike, not pushed the Spanish American War as Sec Navy, had pursed another term?
I find “what if?” a poor way to think. I also find the idea that all those “fringe lunatics” on both sides cost us such a great deal. It was fringe lunatics that gave us this country to start with. We aren’t perfect, but this is still the best system there is.
The other side of the coin is that throughout our history “fringe” groups have changed the inertia of the main parties moving them to do “fringe” things like give women the right to vote.
Sorry, but Johnson was a war monger he deserved to be replaced. Just because you disagree with someone doesn’t make them “fringe”.
Ultimately, those on the ‘fringe’ are Americans too, even the Tea Party types whose politics I loathe. People vote for ‘fringe’ candidates because they feel mainstream candidates are ignoring them. I was one of those 3 million who voted for Nader in 2000. My vote was not “stripped away” from Gore. It was earned by Nader and not earned by Gore. Had Nader not been on the ballot, I would’ve explored other smaller party candidates. Those on the left abandoned LBJ because of their fundamental opposition to Vietnam. They wanted something different and tried to get it.
This is a great example of the importance of the ‘fringe.’ Opposition to Vietnam was considered radical at the time. Now, the war is seen as an absolute disaster. This ‘fringe’ was ahead of its time. Just like the ‘fringe’ who fought for women’s rights in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Just like those who fought against slavery in the early 19th century and in favor of black civil rights in the mid-20th century. Just like those gays who fought as Stonewall. Each of them were seen as the ‘fringe.’ In retrospect, they are seen as vanguards.
This is why we should be wary of insisting everything be mainstream, mush and flavorless. You can’t have too much spice in a dish, but none at all makes it bland. As Frank Zappa said, “Without deviation from the norm, no progress is possible.”
I agree with Bret’s point that despite all the wackiness and self-defeating fringe groups causing us to lurch senselessly right and left our system seems to function pretty well in the long run. That is reassuring. But it is ironic that the groups trying hard to move things in one direction end up moving them in the opposite direction.
The people on the ‘fringe’ live in a world of ideological abstractions. Those position make for fine, high-minded editorial pieces, but the vast majority of American life is day-to-day and at street level. It’s fine to talk about the, “… enabling policy of extended unemployment benefits’, but quite another matter when that rhetoric runs up against the question of, “”OK, what should these people do today, tomorrow and next week?” This same script runs through the narrative of every major governance issue that comes along. The old aphorism describes it pretty well:, “candidates run to their base, but govern from the center”. It will be interesting to see how ‘ideologically pure’, the new conservative congress members are a year from now after they get hammered with deal-making, lobbyists, constituent self-interest. etc. This happens on both ends of the political spectrum as witnessed by the near-suicide of the Democratic left in recent weeks.
“In last month’s elections, the rise of the conservative tea party movement probably cost Republicans control of the US Senate.”
Yes, kind of.
The rise of the tea party lifted the tide that allowed the sweeping changes to take place. On the whole, I think more Republicans came into the House and Senate than would have otherwise.
You can point to a couple of specific races where the “moderate” Republican lost in the primary, and lost in the general election. I call that losing the battle and yet, winning the war.
The war was won. 63 House pick ups and however many Senators. Big win, that would have been much, much smaller without the tea party.
And, the Republican brand would be more diluted without the tea party influence. Hopefully, after the next election cycle, “Republican” means “conservative”!
What if Superman and Jesus had to fight in the octagon? That would be awesome.
Interesting to cite Nelson Rockefeller. If anything, he- based on his record as governor- was a big government liberal, meaning if he got the nomination there would have been no reason for conservatives to vote for him besides him having an R next to his name.
And by the way, the Nixon administration was awful in many ways. The corruption and cynicism of him and his cronies changed the American body politic forever. The race baiting “southern strategy.” The escalation, a “surge” on might call it, in Vietnam (though there’s no reason to think LBJ or Humpherey wouldn’t have done the same). But in other ways, he was America’s last liberal president. He created the EPA. He signed the Clean Air Act which, other than perhaps the ADA (also signed by a GOP president), there hasn’t been a more influential piece of legislation since. He transformed the government’s relationship with Native Americans. He ushered in a thaw in US-China relations. He created Amtrak. Not incidentally, all of those causes were initially advocated by ‘fringes.’
I’m sure Brian can speak for himself but it seems clear that he was focused on unintended consequences (what happened) and not ‘what if’ history (what might have been).
Bill: Are you talking about me (Brian) or Brian M? Because Brian M’s piece has fully four paragraphs that begin “What if…”
Politics would be pretty boring without the fringes on the Left and the Right, and the special interest politics in between. I think it is more Democratic because it allows for a wider variety of preferences.
Slightly different topic but if Brian Mann’s idea to enlarge the House happened you would see a pretty large increase in the power and influence of the fringe ideologies.
You could easily see guys who are un regenerated Confederates getting in the House out of one loony little district for example. You could also get communists and socialists, (real ones not the Democrats that right wingers name call as communists). I know we had Socialist mayor of Ithaca when we lived there certainly a guy like that could get in if he only had to appeal to his little bunch in Tompkins County or Berkly for example.
Mervel, on the socialist end: Bernie Sanders. Thank god we’ve got him.
Yeah I agree it spices things up you need that sometimes.
Brian, in answer to your question I was referring to Brian M. I think his ‘what ifs’ are meant to be rhetorical and that he intended to make the point that these movements had an effect contrary to their intent. Again, I’m reading between the proverbial lines and he is better able to clarify. I was responding to the comments about the fultility of ‘what if history’, a domain I agree is best left to novelists.
It seems to me there is a thread that runs through a lot of commentaries that promotes the political center as being somehow better, more moral or ethical or sensible. But maybe the opposite is true.
Life is about change and the future is always uncertain. The people at the “fringe” are the out-riders, the people confronting change, thinking and working to make the future better. Many times they are wrong because it is impossible to predict all the consequences of their actions, but then they regroup, reassess the new situation and make their best effort to move forward.
The people at the center are the beneficiaries of the work that is being done on the fringe but they are by definition almost always slightly wrong. They are always slightly behind the times. Maybe they are just too busy, or they are too lazy, or maybe they just don’t care. They are the cattle or the sheep and the out-riders of the fringe are making the decisions on where to move the herd.
It is the “fringe” who are the heroes of society, and the villains, and it is unclear until time has passed which they are but at least they try. That’s more than can be said about most people.
I agree with Knuck but from a different angle. The fringe is also the group that see’s something harmful or bad or illegal in new legislation and tries to prevent it. Sometimes it takes decades to get a wrong recognized and even then it’s repaired only in small steps. Look at the Heller decision in Washington DC, it’s started the reversal of a wrong on DC’s citizens. It was those fringe kook gun nuts that worked for decades to get an unconstitutional law overturned. It’s another step in the civil rights battle actually, but political perspective bars many people from realizing that.
The middle? That’s beige, white bread, a grey 4 door sedan, vanilla ice cream, McDonalds, Walmart. It has it’s place, but it get’s a little old after a while. It’s also a safe place where you don’t have to think too much or take a risk. It can also be a hiding spot for those that do think but don’t have the backbone to take the risk of actually expressing themselves.