Amid all the speculation about next year's general election, it looks as if President George W. Bush's most significant supporter ultimately may be senator from Georgia and longtime Democrat Zell Miller.
Miller's book, "A National Party No More: The Conscience of a Conservative Democrat," explains how he has arrived at the conclusion many conservatives have been repeating for years: The once-noble Democratic Party has abandoned its legacy of honorable politicians like
Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson and presidents Roosevelt, Kennedy and Truman.
"The special-interest groups have come between the Democratic Party and the people," Miller wrote. "The Party is no longer a link to most Americans. Each advocacy group has become more important than the sum of the whole."
The good senator also has little in the way of kindness for the current Democratic candidates in the presidential election - particularly Howard Dean, whom he describes as being from the "whining wing of the Democratic Party."
Citing his overall disgust and disillusionment with his lifetime party, the aging Miller will retire at the end of his term next year but has, in fact, pledged to endorse and support Bush in any way he can.
In all fairness, the senator from Georgia has made a reputation for himself as quite the conservative Southern Democrat. On abortion, Miller has moved gradually from a pro-abortion position to pro-life, crediting his change of mind to the presence and development of his grandchildren and great-grandchildren.
And despite being a former employer of the Carville/ Begala team (for a 1990 governor race), Miller has racked up a list of conservative credentials. He was one of the eight Senate Democrats to support the nomination of liberal boogeyman John Ashcroft for attorney general, and he was the lone Democratic supporter in the tight vote (51-49) that confirmed Ted Olsen as solicitor general.
Miller certainly is not the late Paul Wellstone; to many, his party-crossing presidential endorsement is hardly shocking.
Miller's case is, in a way, a strange echo to that of Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont, who in 2001 switched his affiliation from Republican to Independent and, because he caucused with the Democrats for organizational purposes, temporarily lost the GOP its majority in the Senate.
Similar to Miller, Jeffords claimed that he felt himself "increasingly" in disagreement with his party, though Jeffords seemed the most consistently liberal GOP senator around. He voted against the judicial nominations of Thomas and Bork, against the impeachment of Bill Clinton and against just about every single tax cut to come down the pike.
But the similarities end there. Unlike Miller, Jeffords (ever the media darling for his "bravery") remains in politics. After serving one term, Miller will retire from the Senate, despite his belief that there's still plenty of fighting left to be done.
Miller's disagreement with the Democratic Party is one of conscience, and that's why his decision ultimately may carry more weight than the mere controversy and "crossover" votes it will trigger.
Everyone from college students to congressmen is looking at a party that last year spent so much hot air denouncing Bush for "politicizing the war" but now is politicizing the peace and wildly has disregarded the law of the land both in spirit (e.g. judicial filibustering) and in the letter (e.g. the Torricelli/Lautenberg switcheroo in New Jersey last year).
This is, of course, only speculation on one moment in time; ultimately, only history will bear out the future of U.S. politics. But for now, it's safe to say that Zell Miller's vote isn't all that the DNC lost.
Eric Spratling is a journalism senior. Reach him at eric.spratling@asu.edu.
