`New Democrats' And Other Tall Tales

Poor Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky, arguably the unluckiest of the Democrats bullied into voting for the Clinton budget bill last month.

Down to the wire, the first-term representative swore she wouldn't support a package she knew her constituents loathed. The day before the bill hit the House floor, The Philadelphia Inquirer ran an article about this bold newcomer, who had voted against the pre-conference version a month earlier.

Margolies-Mezvinsky promised to ignore the pressures of the Democratic leadership and stand by her district. Late the next night, she changed her mind. Hers was the very last vote cast for the Clinton budget package.

Now, Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky's constituents are furious. The "favor" Clinton promised in exchange for her vote, a personal appearance at a local town meeting, is unlikely to appease them. They feel the Clinton plan will hurt them--and their own representative guaranteed its passage.

Republicans in the House knew this would happen. They gleefully waved goodbye as Margolies-Mezvinsky cast the final vote in favor of the bill. Her political career may well end next year.

Afew weeks ago, I drove through Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky's Pennsylvania district, a sprawling suburb of single homes and upscale shopping centers. This is the wealthiest district in the Philadelphia area, a region that reeks of the upper tax bracket. The kind of place where you would expect to find a lot of Republicans.

You'd be right. In fact, Pennsylvania's upper-middle-class 13th district is predominantly Republican. Margolies-Mezvinsky's Republican predecessor, House veteran Lawrence Coughlin, won with 60 percent of the vote in 1990, 67 percent in 1988. In '88, the district went solidly for Bush. It was, pundits agreed, Re-publican through and through.

Or was, until 1992, when Montgomery County, Pennsylvania elected its first Democratic representative in 24 years. In a not unrelated event, it also elected a Democratic president. Bill Clinton took 44 percent of the district's vote to George Bush's 39.

When you vote for a candidate--for any office--the bills he or she supports tend to come with the package. When the candidate is a Democrat, it's a safe bet that those programs will lean a bit to the left. Those are the rules. Voters look out for their self-interests, and for their pocketbooks. Those, too, are the rules.

The well-educated citizens of Pennsylvania-13 surely knew this. What could have possessed them to elect Democrats, even narrowly?

In 1992, the normal rules didn't seem to apply. This was the year of the moderate Democratic Leadership Council, the year the media scoffed at far-left liberals like Tom Harkin and Jerry Brown, the year Bill Clinton proudly proclaimed himself a New Democrat. It was also the year George Bush (an Old Republican) failed to convey a single idea, goal, or reason for running.

Montgomery County voters knew they didn't like George Bush. They wanted desperately to like this other candidate. They didn't know exactly what "New Democrat" meant, but for all they could tell, it might have meant "Republican."

And Bill Clinton wasn't about to tell the country otherwise. He had seen the fate of past liberal Presidential candidates, and realized that a "traditional" Democrat had little chance. And while conservative pundits spent their time denouncing the far-left positions of his wife, Clinton managed to present himself as a centrist leader, independent of the liberal party line. It was a brilliant campaign, deftly executed. It just wasn't true.

Surprise, surprise. Democratic president Bill Clinton turned out not to be a Republican. In fact, he turned out to be a lot more liberal than Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky's constituents had expected. Now, they realize their mistake. Of course, now it's too late.

Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky's district wasn't the only one to meet this fate. A number of traditionally Republican districts narrowly elected Democratic representatives, and many traditional Republicans now regret the votes they cast for Clinton.

Unfortunately for several new Members of Congress, the House Democratic leadership showed little interest in protecting its party's weaker links. Instead of letting the more entrenched incumbents absorb the budget backlash, House leaders put the onus on fledgling representatives who were already in trouble.

Some observers noted that, as the hour grew late on the night of the vote, first-term members were yanked into the cloakroom--and emerged white as sheets. Margolies-Mezvinsky was the last lamb to be sacrificed; that was merely bad luck. If there had been one more Republican representative to tip the scales, the final Democrat might have been someone else.

Poor Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky knew what she was doing when she cast her vote for the Clinton budget. Rather than suffer the immediate wrath of Tom Foley et. al., she chose to hope that the economy will be on surer footing in 1994, and that her voters will have short memories.

She can certainly hope. But unlike campaign promises and Gulf Wars, higher taxes leave a lasting inpression. Once her voters have realized the error of their ways, they aren't likely to make the same mistake twice.

Joanna M. Weiss '94 is editorial chair of The Crimson.