Feuding Democrats : It’s the “Me Too” Wing vs the “We Told You So” Faction

“Boy, is the Democratic Party in bad shape!”

“How bad is it?”

“It’s so bad, the party has more factions than it has candidates!” (Rim shot)

Indeed. The Democratic Party has two organized factions but only one candidate running for President.

The Democrats are at their wit’s end because they have tried everything they can think of. They elected a Southern moderate in 1976. He proved to be a disaster in 1980. They nominated an old-fashioned New Deal liberal in 1984. Another disaster. They tried a newfangled technocrat in 1988. Ditto. The Democratic Party has exhausted all the options.

Everybody knows who’s to blame--Michael S. Dukakis, the party’s hapless 1988 nominee. The issue is what Dukakis is to blame for. Moderates say he lost because he was too liberal. The Bush campaign succeeded in exposing Dukakis’ liberal values on such issues as the death penalty and the Pledge of Allegiance.

Liberals say Dukakis lost because he tried to run away from his liberal values. It all started when he told the Democratic National Convention, “This election is not about ideology. It’s about competence.” It was all downhill from there--until the last week of the campaign, when Dukakis finally came out and proclaimed, “I am a liberal.” If only he had done that from the outset, liberals say.

Now the two factions of the party have gotten organized, and a full-scale civil war has broken out. Moderates belong to the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). Liberals have formed the Coalition for Democratic Values (CDV). Earlier this month, the two groups held competing conferences, the DLC in Cleveland and the CDV in Des Moines, Iowa.

The DLC endorsed the Bush Administration’s “well-conceived and superbly executed strategy” in the Persian Gulf. They approved of giving Bush “fast-track authority” to negotiate a new trade agreement with Mexico. And they went on record opposing “discrimination of any kind--including quotas,” thereby aligning themselves with the Administration’s position on civil rights.

If the DLC represents the “me too” wing of the Democrats, the CDV is the “we told you so” faction. Liberals are waiting, impatiently, for the country to realize that the Reagan Revolution was a fraud. The CDV demands big new government efforts, ‘60s-style, to deal with health care and poverty--paid for, of course, by taxing the rich. Speakers at the Des Moines meeting railed, ‘30s-style, against Wall Street and big business.

The DLC is an odd coalition of two groups: Tory Democrats--like Georgia’s Sen. Sam Nunn--who represent the pre-ideological tradition of the Democratic Party and young neo-liberals--like Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton--who represent the party’s post-ideological tradition.

Tories and neo-liberals don’t talk about “values.” They think of themselves as pragmatic managers, unencumbered by liberal or conservative orthodoxies. “Traditional answers on the right and left do not work any more,” Clinton told the DLC conference. “Government programs can never be a substitute for strong families.”

What does the DLC want? It wants the Democrats to nominate a young, pragmatic manager with executive experience and a grand old Southern gentleman from the Tory tradition. Then the Democrats could ignore values and run on competence.

Oh, no! That’s the Dukakis-Bentsen ticket!

In fact, the CDV was organized in 1990 to repudiate Dukakis and his effort to push the Democratic Party toward value-free politics. CDV Democrats are unreconstructed liberals who refuse to believe there is no market for ‘60s liberalism anymore. Their message is, “Give the country ‘a choice, not an echo,’ and then let’s see what happens.” To which the moderates reply, “We did that in 1984, when Walter F. Mondale promised to raise taxes. We saw what happened.”

If the party puts up a “me too” Democrat, it runs the risk of alienating its base. Critics will say, “The country doesn’t need two Republican parties. Voters will go for the real thing every time.” The critics will be right.

If the party puts up a “we told you so” Democrat, it will probably mobilize its base--and scare away everyone else. Critics will say, “The country is not ready to repudiate Reaganism and go back to the bad old days of taxing, spending, inflation and military weakness.” The critics will be right.

It’s a pointless debate. One side wants to nominate another Mondale, only better this time. The other side wants another Dukakis, only better this time. Meanwhile, the country looks for somebody with something new to say. Is there anybody out there?

Right now, the potential Democratic candidates for President can be classified into four categories: the problematical, the improbable, the implausible and the unthinkable.

Gov. Mario M. Cuomo of New York would be the easiest candidate to nominate. And the most problematical to elect. Cuomo knows how to run on values. He stirs Democratic souls with his evocative rhetoric about “sharing, family, mutuality and compassion.” His record, however, is another story. New York State is a fiscal mess. New York City is a catastrophe. Add to that the fact that Cuomo has no foreign-policy experience--and proves it every time he talks about the subject.

Why would he run for President next year? The answer: sheer perversity. Cuomo threatened to run for President in 1984 just to prove that his critics were wrong when they said an Italian-American can’t be elected. He may run this time just to prove that he can overcome even greater obstacles. If he does run, he will offer the ultimate test of the liberal hypothesis. Cuomo is definitely a choice, not an echo.

The leading lights of the DLC are Clinton and Sen. Albert Gore Jr. They are both problematical candidates. Clinton can run on education. But Bush claims to be “the education President.” Gore is an ardent environmentalist. He also voted to authorize the war in the Persian Gulf. But Bush also claims to be the “environmental President.” And he won the war.

The improbable candidates are Sen. Lloyd Bentsen of Texas, Sen. George Mitchell of Maine and Rep. Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri. They are the candidates of the congressional Establishment. They probably wouldn’t win. But they would not embarrass the party--an important consideration to congressional Democrats who are afraid of being swept away in a GOP tide next year.

Bentsen, Mitchell and Gephardt are regularly implored by their colleagues to run. But none seems ready to relinquish his considerable power in Congress.

The implausible Democratic candidates lack national stature and name recognition. But, hey, so did George S. McGovern, Jimmy Carter and Dukakis a year before they ran. Former Massachusetts Sen. Paul E. Tsongas hopes to make up for it with early media attention and an offbeat message--he’s a pro-business liberal. As the only candidate so far, Tsongas has a certain curiosity value. So does L. Douglas Wilder of Virginia, the nation’s only elected black governor; he’s pushing spending cuts and fiscal responsibility. So does Rep. Steven J. Solarz, a New York Jewish liberal who supported the Gulf War. And Rep. Dave McCurdy, an Oklahoma moderate with a strong pro-defense record. For any to succeed, they are going to have to figure out a way to expand participation in the Democratic primaries beyond the usual liberal suspects.

Sen. Tom Harkin, a self-styled populist, is from Iowa. He would have to count on winning the Iowa caucuses to give him credibility. More likely, however, a Harkin victory would lower the credibility of the Iowa caucuses.

West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller has an issue--health care. And a lot of money. But would Rockefeller’s wealth make him more plausible or less plausible as a Democratic candidate for President?

And finally, the unthinkable. What would happen if the party nominated Jesse Jackson? In all likelihood it would end up splitting in two. Thousands of Democratic officeholders would refuse to run on any ticket headed by Jackson, not because he is black--they would probably not bolt a ticket headed by Wilder or Gen. Colin L. Powell--but because he is too far to the left.

To make matters worse, the Democratic Party continues to be haunted by the political undead. McGovern says he may run again. And according to rumors, Carter and Dukakis would not be averse to making a comeback in 1992.

The Democrats’ problem isn’t finding candidates. It’s finding ideas--something new to say rather than refighting the old battles of the 1960s. Isn’t there anything else the Democrats can do?

Sure. Here’s a can’t-miss formula for electing a Democratic President: lose control of Congress in 1992. A net gain of six seats would give the Republicans a majority in the Senate. And with redistricting and retirements, the GOP could gain an operational majority of Republicans and conservative Democrats in the House of Representatives next year, just like they had in 1981.

Three things would happen.

The Democrats would finally understand that they are an opposition party, not a governing party, and they would begin to formulate some serious new ideas.

Bush would have to govern the way Reagan did during his first term--with Congress instead of against Congress. But there is a big difference. Reagan had a vision and a mandate for change. Bush is a status-quo President. He wouldn’t know what to do if he had a real governing majority.

But conservatives would. They would try to control the national agenda from Congress. Conservatives would be angry and frustrated because they never really got what they wanted from either Bush or Reagan. With Congress under effective GOP control, conservatives would tear the Bush Administration apart--and also the GOP.

In other words, what the Democrats should do is just let the Republicans run the country for a while. If that were to happen, you can be sure that the voters would be begging for a Democratic President by 1996.

DR, GEOFFRE MOSS / For The Times