Why the Zell Miller transformation?

[hcallega]

Miller's record in the Senate was considerably more conservative than his fellow Southern Democrats. While much of this debate has been subjective, there are some fairly objective numbers that can be used to describe his ideology. The best two (in my opinion) are ACU (American Conservative Union) and ADA (Americans for Democratic Action) ratings. These basically paint a general picture on how members voted on the most important votes in any given year.

Here are Miller's ratings (ADA on the left, ACU on the right)
2001: 35/60
2002: 30 /54
2003: 10/75
2004: 15/96

Just from looking at that data, it's clear that Miller was one of the most conservative Democrats in the Senate (and one of the most conservative members of both parties in 2004). But let's compare his record to that of another Southern Democrat who retired in 2004, John Breaux. Once again, ADA is on the left, and ACU is on the right.

2001: 55/48
2002: 45/46
2003: 45/40
2004: 80/20

That appears to be pretty much the definition of moderate, minus 2004. Now let's compare Miller to his colleague's from Georgia: Max Cleland (2000-2002) and Saxby Chambliss (2003-2004)

Cleland
2001: 85/36
2002: 65/16

Chambliss
2003: 5/85
2004: 5/96

Comparing Miller to his colleagues, it's clear that he leans much more towards the Republicans than either a very moderate Democrat (Breaux) or a center-left Democrat (Miller). He is far closer to the Republicans on a variety of issues, not just social. But let's go deeper down the rabbit hole. The last three Democrats (besides Miller) to represent Georgia in the United States Senate were Sam Nunn, Max Cleland,  and Wyche Fowler. Let's look at their lifetime ratings to see if Miller was indeed simply a Democrat whose party left him.

Sam Nunn: 45% lifetime rating from the ACU
Max Cleland: 14% lifetime rating from the ACU
Wyche Fowler: 21% lifetime rating from the ACU
Zell Miller: 71% lifetime rating from the ACU

Once again, Miller is far to the right of the average Democrat from Georgia, even going back to the 1970s. Then again, one could argue that none of those three Senators were the sort of "Dixiecrats" whom Miller claimed to be a fan of.  But Herman Talmadge certainly was. He was Governor of Georgia in the 1940s and 1950s, and served the state in the Senate from 1957-1981. He's about as much of a Dixiecrat as you can find. But take a look at his lifetime ACU rating:

Herman Talmadge: 57% lifetime ACU rating

Talmadge is even more liberal than Miller! Based on this data, it's clear that Miller is not a Democrat whose party left him. He was a Democrat who became more conservative following his intense 1994 reelection battle. I would argue that he saw an opportunity to move to the political right as America became more conservative, and thus compromised some of his values. An example of this is how he was once pro-choice, but became pro-life later on in his career and even spoke at the Evangelical "Justice Sunday II." This is not to criticize those who hold socially and economically conservative views. It is simply to say that Miller is incorrect in stating that he did not leave the Democratic Party, but that they left him. One simply has to look at who the Democrat's nominated in 1972, 1984, and 1988 to see that they did not become a liberal party in the 2000s.

The ultimate irony here is that in 1980, then-Lt. Governor Miller ran against Herman Talmadge in the Democratic Primary for the Senate that year, attacking Talmadge from the left and polling his strongest in Atlanta.

[cope1989]

I remember that speech. My grandfather had been a Democrat his whole life, he knew Zell Miller, and he saw that speech at the GOP convention as the ultimate betrayal. Miller at one point was a moderate voice that Georgia could be proud of. After that speech he was an embarrassment.

Early in his term as Governor he tried to change the old state flag from the civil rights movement. He received enough criticism from both sides that he eventually just rolled over and scrapped the plan. Pretty weak if you ask me. Georgia Dems began to see the writing on the wall in the 1990's. Many of them made the politically savvy but morally bankrupt move of switching parties. Others stood by their views and were eventually voted out of office. I have much more respect for the latter group.

[Nym90]

He wanted to become the first person ever to make the keynote speech at  the conventions of both major parties?

There's also the fact that his attacks on his fellow Dems would have received far less publicity if he had been a Republican.

But yeah, Miller clearly moved well to the right, though he was always a pretty conservative Democrat. The term "DINO" is thrown around a bit too often for my tastes by some of my progressive brethren, but in this case it's well deserved.

[Darius_Addicus_Gaius]

Zell Miller delivered a ferocious, fire and brimstone speech against John Kerry at the Republican convention in 2004.  Yet only three years earlier, he gave a very warm speech on Kerry's behalf:

http://www.alternet.org/election04/19761/

What happened?  Why did Miller make such a dramatic transformation at the end of his career?

He represented the old southern democrats who were socially conservative and in the middle on economics. Really Miller belonged in the GOP after the Clinton administration if not earlier.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Zell Miller was/is the ultimate opportunist, and a bigger flip-flopper than Mitt Romney.  I have little doubt that his shift to a Democrat-hating Democrat is opportunistic and money oriented, generating sales for his books, TV appearances, etc.  I noted that Miller endorsed Bush for President even while Lieberman was still in the Democratic race; he turned his back on even a like-minded Democrat who was a viable Presidential candiate who may well have picked him as a running mate.  That right there tells me that Miller's shift was all about money.

Miller was chief of staff for LESTER MADDOX!!!  He then became Lt. Gov of Georgia and challenged Herman Talmadge in a Democratic primary, posing as the less conservative candidate.  He lost that race, but was elected Governor, and his 1992 keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention was one of the best keynotes ever; it unveiled Miller as a potential new Democratic star, and there was little reason to believe that Miller would be a possible contender for a spot on the national ticket in 2000.

In 2002 a funny thing happened.  Democratic Gov. Roy Barnes and Democratic Sen. Max Cleland lost re-election in what were not overly nationalized racea.  This event pretty much convinced Miller that he was not likely to be re-elected in 2004.  How he went about selling himself out is a question I'll allow others to answer, but Miller was always a pragmatist, and he saw (A) no way to be re-elected as a Democrat and (B) no way the Republicans would allow him to be their nominee for any office of note.  So he became a GOP star whose books and speaking engagements are in demand; he's probably made more money out of politics than in it. 

I don't begrudge him any of this, but this line that the Democratic Party left him is rubbish.  Miller knew what the Democratic Party was, and the Democratic Party knew what he was.  Miller was NEVER pressured to be more liberal by the national Democratic Party; they only wished for him to oppose them quietly on legislation when he believed he ought to, and support the national ticket if only by announcing he was voting for them.  Miller left because he didn't want to be voted out by the GOP tide in Georgia, and he did it in a way where there was something in it for him, even if it meant betraying folks who supported and voted for him over a period of decades.  Miller was a pure opportunist in 1970, in 1980, in 1992, and in 2004.  He's Mitt Romney's Southern-Fried Role Model.