Democrats are praying and hoping for another Watergate
Democrats' intense and continued focus on 'Signalgate' reveals that their hope is to resurrect Watergate.
Facing Republican control of the White House, Congress and the Supreme Court, plus their own internal divisions, their better chance lies in pulling down Republicans than in seeking to pull themselves up. And there is no more revered playbook for doing this than what they did to President Richard Nixon half a century ago.
The inadvertent inclusion of the Atlantic's editor in the discussion of military strikes on Yemen's Houthis was a blunder and an embarrassment. Still, the strikes were successful, and they continue.
Compared with the Biden administration's failures — its Afghanistan withdrawal, rapprochement with Iran, the opening of America's southern border to the world and an overall feckless foreign policy of which only 36 percent of Americans approved — 'Signalgate' pales in comparison. Yet Democrats uttered nary a peep about any of Biden's miscues. They never called for anyone's firing, for four full years.
So now, Democrats are reduced to praying for another Watergate, a scandal to match their party's greatest moment in modern political history. In the 1972 election, their party had imploded in a fiasco that makes the 2024 seem mild by comparison.
Their nominee, Sen. George McGovern (D-S.D.), had run on what was, up to then, the most leftist platform of any major American political party. When it was discovered that their vice presidential nominee, Sen. Thomas Eagleton (D-Mo.) had received electroshock therapy, McGovern pledged his support, only to pull it days later.
McGovern and the Democrats went on to lose in a historic landslide. They lost to Nixon by an astounding 18 million votes — the largest vote margin of all time — and a popular vote loss of 37.5 percent to 60.7 percent. In the Electoral College, they lost 17 to 520, winning only the state of Massachusetts.
But they retained congressional majorities and a sympathetic press. And those two institutions worked to connect the dots from an obscure incident at a local hotel to the disgraced resignation, less than two years later, of the president who had nationally humiliated them.
The parallels between the Democrats' fate half a century ago and their predicament now are telling. Although their loss in 1972 was bigger, their loss in 2024 was more unexpected and broader. In some ways, last November's defeat was also more ominous.
After 1972, Democrats still retained majorities in Congress. After 2024, Democrats are a minority in both the House and the Senate.
After 1972, the courts remained far more favorable to Democrats than they are now, after multiple Republican administrations have appointed judges. At that time, the liberal establishment media still had a virtual monopoly of what was news and how it was covered. Half a century later, the media are at their lowest levels of audience, credibility and influence in modern times.
Trump is far more aggressive in his use of executive authority than Nixon was. Plus, the executive branch's power has steadily increased over the last half century. And facing this more powerful president, Democrats are increasingly internally fractured. They have neither a discernable message nor a messenger to deliver it.
At the same, they are also moving farther left and increasingly out of step with the electorate. The Democrats' internal paradox is that they are becoming liberal, even as liberals are decreasing in political clout.
In January 2023, Gallup found that 54 percent of Democrats identify themselves as liberal, a new high. As recently as 2013, only 43 percent had; in 2003, only 32 percent had; and in 1994, only 25 percent had. So in roughly a generation, Democrats' share of liberal support has more than doubled.
Yet 2024 exit polling showed liberals comprised only 23 percent of voters, whereas moderates were 42 percent and conservatives 35 percent. In 2020, 24 percent of voters had identified as liberals. In 2016, 26 percent did.
Building a majority on America's smallest ideological minority is not a winning strategy. This is also the reason why Democrats have taken stands in support of issues that are strongly supported on the left but not by the rest of the electorate.
According to a recent New York Times-Ipsos poll, nearly 80 percent of Americans opposed allowing biological men to compete against women in sports; even 67 percent of Democrats did. Yet in a recent Senate legislation barring this practice, every Democratic senator voting opposed allowing the legislation to advance.
On illegal immigration, Democrats were out early against Trump's plans; yet in a RealClearPolitics average of national polling, Biden had only a 33.5 percent approval rating on immigration.
Unable to stop Trump, while uniting on legislation that repels voters, and without a clear leader for 2028, Democrats need a deus ex machina to deliver them. No wonder they look so fondly toward the miracle that did the job half a century ago.
Expect Democrats to try to exaggerate every administration misstep, to build every fault into a scandal. More than their best past, a Watergate redux is their best hope for the future.
J.T. Young is the author of the recent book, 'Unprecedented Assault: How Big Government Unleashed America's Socialist Left,' from RealClear Publishing and has over three decades' experience working in Congress, the Department of Treasury, the Office of Management and Budget, and representing a Fortune 20 company.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
40 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Supreme Court delivers another blow to California's imperiled emissions standards
The Supreme Court reinstated legal challenges by oil and gas companies Friday to California's strict emissions standards for motor vehicles, standards that the Trump administration is likely to halt on its own in the near future. Federal law allows California to set tighter limits on auto emissions than the national standard, and since 1990 has allowed other states to adopt California's rules, an option taken by 17 states and the District of Columbia. But fuel companies affected by the increasing use of electric vehicles contend the state's standards are too restrictive and have sued to overturn them. Lower federal courts ruled that companies had failed to show they were being harmed by the standards, and therefore lacked legal standing to sue, because electric car sales are increasing for other reasons. The Supreme Court disagreed in a 7-2 decision. 'The whole point of the regulations is to increase the number of electric vehicles in the new automobile market beyond what consumers would otherwise demand,' Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the majority opinion. 'The government generally may not target a business or industry through stringent and allegedly unlawful regulation, and then evade the resulting lawsuits by claiming that the targets of its regulation should be locked out of court.' But dissenting Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said lawyers in the case had told the court that the Environmental Protection Agency, under President Donald Trump, was about to withdraw its approval of California's waiver from nationwide standards, 'which will put an end to California's emissions program.' The EPA took that action during Trump's first administration, which was reversed under President Joe Biden. Meanwhile, legislation passed by the Republican-controlled Congress and signed by Trump would prevent California from banning sales of new gasoline-powered vehicles in 2035, a law the state has challenged in court. The Supreme Court 'is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests,' and Friday's ruling 'will no doubt aid future attempts by the fuel industry to attack the Clean Air Act,' said Jackson, a Biden appointee. In a separate dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the court should have returned the case to a lower court to await the EPA's action. Kavanaugh, however, said fuel companies affected by California's current standards could seek to prove in court that they were arbitrary and unlawful. His opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan. Liane Randolph, chair of the California Air Resources Board, said it was not a full-scale rejection of the state's emissions standards. 'This ruling does not change California's Advanced Clean Cars rulemaking, nor does it dispute what data has shown to be true: vehicle emissions are a huge source of pollution with grave health impacts, consumer adoption of zero emission vehicles continues to rise, and global auto manufacturers are committed to an electric future,' she said in a statement. But attorney Brett Skorup of the libertarian Cato Institute said the ruling was 'a welcome rebuke to judicial gatekeeping' and affirmed that 'predictable economic harms from government regulation' entitle 'injured parties (to) have their day in court.' The case is Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA, No. 24-7.
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Vance blames California Dems for violent immigration protests and calls Sen. Alex Padilla 'Jose'
LOS ANGELES (AP) — Vice President JD Vance on Friday accused California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass of encouraging violent immigration protests as he used his appearance in Los Angeles to rebut criticism from state and local officials that the Trump administration fueled the unrest by sending in federal officers. Vance also referred to U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla, the state's first Latino senator, as 'Jose Padilla,' a week after the Democrat was forcibly taken to the ground by officers and handcuffed after speaking out during a Los Angeles news conference by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on immigration raids. 'I was hoping Jose Padilla would be here to ask a question,' Vance said, in an apparent reference to the altercation at Noem's event. 'I guess he decided not to show up because there wasn't a theater. And that's all it is.' 'They want to be able to go back to their far-left groups and to say, 'Look, me, I stood up against border enforcement. I stood up against Donald Trump,'' Vance added. A spokesperson for Padilla, Tess Oswald, noted in a social media post that Padilla and Vance were formerly colleagues in the Senate and said that Vance should know better. 'He should be more focused on demilitarizing our city than taking cheap shots,' Oswald said. Vance's visit to Los Angeles to tour a multiagency Federal Joint Operations Center and a mobile command center came as demonstrations calmed down in the city and a curfew was lifted this week. That followed over a week of sometimes-violent clashes between protesters and police and outbreaks of vandalism and looting that followed immigration raids across Southern California. Trump's dispatching of his top emissary to Los Angeles at a time of turmoil surrounding the Israel-Iran war and the U.S.'s future role in it signals the political importance Trump places on his hard-line immigration policies. Vance echoed the president's harsh rhetoric toward California Democrats as he sought to blame them for the protests in the city. 'Gavin Newsom and Karen Bass, by treating the city as a sanctuary city, have basically said that this is open season on federal law enforcement,' Vance said after he toured federal immigration enforcement offices. 'What happened here was a tragedy,' Vance added. 'You had people who were doing the simple job of enforcing the law and they had rioters egged on by the governor and the mayor, making it harder for them to do their job. That is disgraceful. And it is why the president has responded so forcefully.' Newsom's spokesperson Izzy Gardon said in a statement, 'The Vice President's claim is categorically false. The governor has consistently condemned violence and has made his stance clear.' In a statement on X, Newsom responded to Vance's reference to 'Jose Padilla,' saying the comment was no accident. Jose Padilla also is the name of a convicted al-Qaida terrorism plotter during President George W. Bush's administration, who was sentenced to two decades in prison. Padilla was arrested in 2002 at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport during the tense months after the 9/11 attacks and accused of the 'dirty bomb' mission. It later emerged through U.S. interrogation of other al-Qaida suspects that the 'mission' was only a sketchy idea, and those claims never surfaced in the South Florida terrorism case. Responding to the outrage, Taylor Van Kirk, a spokesperson for Vance, said of the vice president: 'He must have mixed up two people who have broken the law.' Federal immigration authorities have been ramping up arrests across the country to fulfill Trump's promise of mass deportations. Todd Lyons, the head of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, has defended his tactics against criticism that authorities are being too heavy-handed. The friction in Los Angeles began June 6, when federal agents conducted a series of immigration sweeps in the region that have continued since. Amid the protests and over the objections of state and local officials, Trump ordered the deployment of roughly 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to the second-largest U.S. city, home to 3.8 million people. Trump has said that without the military's involvement, Los Angeles 'would be a crime scene like we haven't seen in years.' Newsom has depicted the military intervention as the onset of a much broader effort by Trump to overturn political and cultural norms at the heart of the nation's democracy. Earlier Friday, Newsom urged Vance to visit victims of the deadly January wildfires while in Southern California and talk with Trump, who earlier this week suggested his feud with the governor might influence his consideration of $40 billion in federal wildfire aid for California. 'I hope we get that back on track,' Newsom wrote on X. 'We are counting on you, Mr. Vice President.' ___ Associated Press writers Julie Watson and Jaimie Ding in Los Angeles and Tran Nguyen in Sacramento contributed to this report.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Mahmoud Khalil released from federal immigration detention
Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil was released from federal immigration detention on Friday following a judge's ruling, the Associated Press reported. Khalil, a lawful permanent resident and lead negotiator for the encampment at Columbia University while he was a student, was detained more than three months ago as the first case in a wave of crackdowns against foreign students involved in campus protests. 'My priority now is to get back to my wife and son,' Khalil told reporters after his release. 'Although justice prevailed, it is very long overdue.' As a condition of his release, Khalil must surrender his passport and cannot travel internationally. His movement within the United States will be restricted to New York and Michigan to visit family, Washington to lobby Congress, and New Jersey and Louisiana for court appearances. A judge ordered earlier Friday that Khalil should be released, calling it 'highly, highly unusual' that the government still sought to detain him. 'Together, they suggest that there is at least something to the underlying claim that there is an effort to use the immigration charge here to punish the petitioner — and, of course, that would be unconstitutional,' the judge, Michael Farbiarz, wrote in his ruling. The Trump administration had argued that Khalil could be deported under a rarely-used law that allows them to do so if they determined his presence in the country would have significant negative consequences for American foreign policy. Khalil has not been charged with a crime. Farbiarz had previously held that the government could not continue to hold Khalil under the determination by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. However, the judge allowed his detention to continue under a claim by the administration that Khalil had omitted some prior work experience from his green card application. Khalil's release follows the releases of several students apparently detained for pro-Palestine speech, including fellow Columbia alum Mohsen Mahdawi, who was arrested at his citizenship interview, and Tufts student Rumeysa Ozturk, who co-wrote an opinion in her campus newspaper calling for divestment from Israel. Khalil's arrest on March 8 was the first shot from the Trump administration in a dramatic salvo against international student visas. The administration has since declared it will ask student visa applicants to make their social media accounts available for inspection. Also on Friday, a judge indefinitely blocked the government's move to bar Harvard University from being able to enroll international students. The Associated Press contributed to this report. This is a developing story.
