Why the Democrats' Left Wing Is Muted

by ADAM NAGOURNEY
New York Times
www.nytimes.com/2004/05/29/politics/campaign/29dems.html

May 29, 2004


WASHINGTON, May 28 - Senator John Kerry found himself on familiar ground when he talked about Iraq in a speech on Wednesday: out of step with much of his own party. Once again, Republicans and even some Democrats said, Mr. Kerry appeared on the verge of squabbling with the antiwar base of his party.

But that has not happened, even in a week in which Mr. Kerry rejected calls from the antiwar Democrats to set a deadline for the withdrawal of United States troops from Iraq. If anything, Democrats have grown more enthusiastic in rallying around Mr. Kerry, dismissing as inconsequential their differences with him on this presumably central issue.

This turn of events is the latest and what some Democrats describe as the most compelling evidence that the fractious left wing of the Democratic Party is muting itself in this election. The Democratic Party of 2004 is beginning to look like the Republican Party of 2000 when, sensing victory in discretion, conservatives stayed quiet as Mr. Bush emphasized moderate language and positions, Democrats and Republicans said.

"Kerry has less of a problem on the left in the Democratic Party than any Democratic candidate in my memory, which goes back to Kennedy," said Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, referring to John F. Kennedy. "The proof of that is I am less busy this presidential campaign than other ones. I'm not being sent out to calm down the left."

Still, Mr. Kerry's situation is more complicated in one critical way: The candidacy of Ralph Nader, who is providing a liberal alternative to voters who might feel put off by Mr. Kerry. But even Mr. Nader said, with obvious irritation, that many antiwar Democrats seem willing to overlook Mr. Kerry's war views.

"There are antiwar Democrats who will fume and still vote for Kerry," Mr. Nader said, adding: "I don't think Democrats should give their candidate a pass on the war. If Democrats are so freaked out by Bush that they are, like, 'Do anything you want, John, we'll support you,' well, as I told him in our meeting, he's not going to be left with a mandate."

The muted criticism of Mr. Kerry on the war, which he voted for, is the most striking example of an unusual display of pragmatism by the Democratic left. Democrats said they were also holding back criticism or delaying demands until after Election Day on issues ranging from gay marriage to trade policy to Mr. Kerry's relatively modest health care proposal and support for a balanced budget amendment.

Taken together, this suggests that Mr. Kerry - at a time when the White House is seeking to portray him as a liberal by pointing to his voting record - will enjoy unusual freedom to maneuver through the general election campaign.

"People are so desperate to get rid of Bush that they are going to cut the Democratic candidate a lot of slack," said Representative Jerrold Nadler, the liberal Manhattan Democrat and a strong opponent of the war.

For all the focus by Democrats on Mr. Kerry's support of the war, there is little evidence that his stance ultimately hurt him in the Democratic primaries, when he was running against Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor.

In both New Hampshire and Iowa, Mr. Kerry defeated Dr. Dean among voters who opposed the war, according to surveys of voters in those states.

Joe Trippi, who was Dr. Dean's campaign manager, said he did not believe Mr. Kerry's position on the war would hurt him even among Dr. Dean's voters, and scoffed at the suggestion that some of them might go to Mr. Nader.

"On the war, I don't think there's a problem there at all," Mr. Trippi said, adding: "Even the Nader fanatics won't do it because of George Bush. They don't want another four years of this guy."

Former Representative Tom Andrews, a Democrat from Maine who now heads an umbrella group of antiwar organizations, Win Without War, said: "Everyone in the coalition I have talked to is supporting Kerry. There is no sentiment to support Nader."

The unity, in no small part, is being encouraged by polls showing the race tied, as well as the intense dislike for Mr. Bush among many Democrats, making it much less likely that any Democrat is going to cast a symbolic protest vote, party officials said.

Still, Mr. Nader remains a big unknown here. While some Kerry aides said they were hopeful that this same dynamic would significantly minimize Mr. Nader's showing in November, a number of polls have suggested that Mr. Nader will hurt Mr. Kerry. Mr. Trippi disputed that, but said that Mr. Nader might end up affecting the election if polls in the final days show Mr. Kerry with a comfortable advantage, leading some antiwar Democrats to feel they can cast protest votes with Mr. Nader.

Mr. Kerry broke with many Democrats in supporting the resolution authorizing Mr. Bush to go to war, and spent much of the primary season trying to explain that vote to anti-war Democrats in Iowa and New Hampshire. He is now calling for bringing in the United Nations and NATO to help calm the situation in Iraq; like Mr. Bush, he said he is open to sending more troops to Iraq, if necessary, and would oppose for now setting a deadline for withdrawal.

"I am fine with where he is," said Representative Rosa L. DeLauro, a Connecticut Democrat who opposed the war, adding: "There is a strength and unity of purpose that exists among Democrats that I don't think we've seen in years."

Mr. Nader said he could not understand why unions, antiwar groups and other traditional Democratic constituencies were signing on with Mr. Kerry without insisting they get something in return. And he criticized Mr. Kerry for not making real concessions to the antiwar crowd.

"He's listening to Shrum," said Mr. Nader, referring to Mr. Kerry's senior political adviser, Bob Shrum. "He's listening to all the cautious advisers. They are saying don't cater to these antiwar people, they have nowhere to go. They are going to vote for you. You know the old game."