The Real Deal on the Democratic Party

Though I'm registered in the Green Party, my fear of Republicans almost always forces me to vote for Democrats. I'm tempted to say, "As if there were a difference between the two major parties," but let's face it, there is.

Unfortunately, I have come to the conclusion that since the presidency of FDR, NO DEMOCRATIC HAS BEEN ELECTED BECAUSE THE PUBLIC AGREED WITH HIM ON THE ISSUES. Bear with me . . . I think I have a good argument.

Let's start with Truman and Johnson. Both took office following the death of the presidents under whom they served as vice-president, and, as we all know, incumbency gives any candidate a huge boost, so these two pretty much started off as shoe-ins.

Then there's Carter. (A good president? Who knows? But certainly the one president in my lifetime who truly qualifies as a mensch!) We all remember that Carter was elected in the wake of Nixon's post-Watergate resignation, meaning, of course, that the Dems could have run Mickey Mouse and won.

That leaves Kennedy and Clinton. Do any of us doubt that some major factors in their elections were their good-looks and charisma? Remember that polls taken after the Kennedy-Nixon debates showed that those who listened on the radio thought Nixon had won -- on the issues -- while those who watched on TV felt that Kennedy had won because he looked handsome while Nixon looked sweaty. Most pundits take for granted that appearance and charisma account for the discrepency.

So what does this mean? It means that in the post-FDR years, as I said earlier, Democrats have never won the presidency strictly on the issues. Sounds depressing, huh? No wonder they've worked so hard to look more and more like Republicans. I wish I had a solution to the problem, but it really comes down to the fact that we progressives have a long, long way to go before the majority of the people understand our point of view.

Which gives new resonance to that old song, "Am I Blue?"