|
|
|
|
December 17, 2003 DEMOCRATS AND LIBERALS....Amy Sullivan and Jake Rosenfeld, a couple of my favorite bloggers, have an op-ed in Newsday today in which they make the point that Republican claims of a New Deal-like realignment in favor of conservatives are way overblown. They're right, I think, but there's another sense in which Republicans are right, so I'd like to add something to their argument that I think frequently gets overlooked in discussions of political dominance: the difference between "Democrats" and "liberals."
It's true that Democrats enjoyed a margin of control during the 1930s that Republicans today can only dream of: the peak of Democratic power came after the 1936 election, when Democrats and third parties briefly held a whopping 80 Senate seats and 346 House seats. But there's a historical gotcha here: 22 of those Senate seats and 102 of the House seats were held by conservative Democrats from the South. So even using the generous assumption that the rest of the Democrats (and independents) were all liberals, which they weren't, the House and Senate broke down approximately like this:
And this was only for a brief 2-year period. In 1938 the Republicans gained back a substantial number of seats in both the House and Senate. The fact is that America has been a center-right country for practically its entire history, and by any reasonable measure of "liberal" and "conservative" there has never been more than a modest majority of liberals in Congress, a fact that was masked for many years by Southern loyalty to the Democratic party. FDR and LBJ managed to ramrod a fair amount of liberal legislation through during the two short periods of the 20th century in which liberals held small majorities, but even then it required help — FDR did it by taking advantage of the panic brought on by the Depression and LBJ did it by winning some votes from moderate Republicans. There are a few conclusions to draw from this:
There's no question that movement conservatism has been making steady gains for the past 20 years, but I suspect the actual size of the change has been less than it seems. After all, just recently popular sentiment forced a conservative congress to expand Medicare, gay rights continues to make strides, and universal healthcare is once again an allowable topic of polite conversation. So Amy and Jake are right: today's swing of the pendulum is one of the normal small shifts, not a conservative revolution. I suspect that with the right leader and a few subtle shifts in rhetoric and emphasis, Democrats — and liberals — will have another turn at the plate before long. Posted by Kevin Drum at December 17, 2003 04:14 PM | TrackBackComments
Excellent bit of de-conflating, Kevin, though it may well disorient some of your usual commenters. Are you and Matt collaborating today? Testing political stereotypes ... especially at the margins ... is such fun! Posted by: Tonto at December 17, 2003 04:31 PM | PERMALINKThis post reminded me of a reply to one of my comments at Scrappleface: Just look at your presidential hopefuls. The Republicans even gave you General Clark. One less for conservatives – I guess. The problem with your party is you are out of touch with the American People. We don't believe your bull anymore. You are a vanishing party. Poof. You are gone…Poof your irrelevant. People are leaving the Democratic Party in droves. What’s it like to be a vanishing tribe of politically vacant, whining malcontents? Democratic theme song for next election – Warren Zevons “Poor – Poor Pitiful Me” So, you know, you're clearly wrong. Posted by: scarshapedstar at December 17, 2003 04:35 PM | PERMALINK"There's no question that movement conservatism has been making steady gains for the past 20 years, but I suspect the actual size of the change has been less than it seems." The "Medicare reform" scam hardly expands Medicare! It pretty much gets rid of it after a few years! And much of the money in the bill doesn't go to seniors, it goes to drug companies and HMOs! In fact, I think that what happened with this Medicare reform bill -- the huge amounts of money being passed to HMOs and drug companies, the lies and deceit spread to the public, the network of media that was used to spread those lies, the intimidation of members of their own party to get the votes, and the stealth way it gets rid of Medicare -- all demonstrate just how great the changes in the Republican Party are! The New Deal, Great Society, Medicare, the EPA, national parks, minimum wage, progressive income tax, estate taxes, OSHA, etc. all came from that 50-50 centrist tradition you wrote about! But THIS crowd that has taken over the Republican Party wants to get rid of all of those things. This shows just how far to the right the Republican Party has been taken by the Scaife money, Heritage Foundation, religious right, libertarian wing think tank thing that is going on now. These are the "John Birchers" of the 50's who we used to call "kooks." (Anyone else old enough to remember that?) I mean, they REALLY are -- see http://www.commonwealinstitute.org/reports/tort/Section1.html#t2 Posted by: Dave Johnson at December 17, 2003 04:36 PM | PERMALINKPace arguments about the squishy nature of the labels "liberal" and "conservative," I think this is also evidence of the remarkable responsiveness of the US system, which I think in turn is reflected in, e.g., European comments that "there is really only one political party in the US." It's hard to imagine, say, Jean-Marie Le Pen recanting his racist ideology the way Wallace or Mitchell did, or Ken Livingstone advocating cuts in welfare programs a la Bill Clinton. The danger, of course, is that such a system is vulnerable to emotional overreaction and mob rule. But I don't think there's any doubt that, even in so-called "highly polarized" times, the US political system is very centrist by historical and world standards. The Democrats and Republicans would also rather not have us contemplate the fact that each of the two parties is supported by only about a third of the voting populace. Thus in order to retain their control of the US government, Republicans and Democrats have to work together in order to elbow out any party working to mobilize the 40% relative majority of independents. Let's not forget to be outraged at the fact that though this forty percent of the public feels that neither of the two parties adequately represents their interests, the US government is 99.9% filled with Republicans and Democrats. The alienation of the independent majority may just lead (let's hope) to the break down of the two-party system's status quo. Posted by: charles at December 17, 2003 04:43 PM | PERMALINK
Dave: I agree with you about the Medicare bill, and I agree about what the current Republican leadership would do if it could. But at the same time, they did add a new benefit to Medicare. This doesn't say anything about them, I think, it says something about the American public, which isn't nearly as conservative as the Republican leadership. They know this perfectly well, and that's why they have to hide their little time bombs so well. But it won't work. Conservatives may not like it, but Americans like Social Security and Medicare and won't let them be destroyed. The time bombs will likely be legislated away before they even take effect, although the giveaways and subsidies will likely be with us for a long time. Posted by: Kevin Drum at December 17, 2003 04:45 PM | PERMALINKAndrew: I agree that this is one of the biggest changes. Today, there are few conservative Democrats and few liberal Republicans, so the parties themselves are more ideological than in the past. For the first time, the party split these days is actually fairly close to the ideological split in the country. Posted by: Kevin Drum at December 17, 2003 04:48 PM | PERMALINKDJ- Hells bells, man. I'm old enough to remember Truman beating Dewey! (Though I was but 5.) And I think you're a tad off-base. The Birchers were, for the most part, paranoid and extreme. I grant you there are still many of those types around, but they don't dominate Heritage, nor are they all Republicans. Deaniacs seem a lot like Bircher's to this old free thinker. Posted by: Tonto at December 17, 2003 04:49 PM | PERMALINK I agree that America is solidly center-right, but I'd argue that the center-right party is the DP. On the functions of government, the DP has held the popular mainstream view for years. Only by repackaging and window dressing can the GOP pretend to represent the country on popular programs like public education, entitlements for retirees, the environment, higher education,.... Since these centrist programs, nearly all of which are primarily championed by Democrats, make up the bulk of government, you can't say that the GOP is as representative of the mainstream as its power in the three branches of government would indicate. 50/50? Only if you allow cheating. Posted by: Pacific John at December 17, 2003 04:53 PM | PERMALINK" I suspect that with the right leader and a few subtle shifts in rhetoric and emphasis, Democrats — and liberals — will have another turn at the plate before long." The shifts in rhetoric and emphasis required are neither few or subtle. I wish they were, but this is a lot harder than you think. It took the right wing forty years to elect someone as extreme there as George Bush. Preseumably, it won't take that long to get back to a moderate discourse, because as a country we can't afford it, but it will take a very long time. Posted by: tristero at December 17, 2003 04:54 PM | PERMALINKI'm confused. "The fact is that America has been center-right for practically its entire history .... [and] In terms of ideology, America has been a 50-50 nation for a long time." Which is it? Posted by: kill4peace at December 17, 2003 04:59 PM | PERMALINK"But it won't work. Conservatives may not like it, but Americans like Social Security and Medicare and won't let them be destroyed. " But they have ALREADY been destroyed by a stealth attack that the public isnot AWARE of. The whole point is that by the time the public understands what is going on it will be too late (like what happened with their corporate pensions.) Medicare has been partially destroyed by this "reform" and Social Security by the deficits. That is the Social Security money that is going out as tax cuts -- all of it. Posted by: Dave Johnson at December 17, 2003 05:08 PM | PERMALINKOne thing that the Democratic party absolutely must realize, but doesn't seem to so far, is that the country has changed. A lot of the issues that used to divide the country are now dead, but the Democrats are still trying to fight the battles of the past. This is mostly easily seen with respect to cultural issues. There has been tremendous progress on race relations, for example. Without a doubt, racism still exists in the US. But so far as Democratic activists are concerned, Bull Connor is still sicing dogs on peaceful protestors. It's getting old. When Al Gore made that speech about slave shackles back in 2000, it really bothered me even thoguh I voted for him. No Democratic presidential candidate has the guts to read Sharpton the riot act, even though he's a buffoonish candidate who has no business running for President. The same is true for the issue of abortion. Most pro-life people today hold that view becuase they are troubled by the death of the fetus. Yet the Democrats demonize the pro-life movement as if it is still all about the oppression of women. They rail and rail agaisnt sincerely comitted pro-life people as if they are mysoginist bigots who simply want to keep women bearfoot and pregnant. Well, that may have been a subtext in the pro-life movement at one time, but it really isn't that relevant today. Similarly, a lot of churchgoing people, even the dreaded evangelicals and fundamentalists, go to church not becuause they are superstitious, narrow-minded simpletons who hope that the invasion of Iraq will hasten Armageddon, but rather ordinary people who want to raise their families in a wholesome atmosphere where they will receive instruction in morality and religion. And when a person is opposed to, say, gay marriage, Democrats almost ineveitably conclude that he or she is a hate-filled homophobic bigot. What they fail to realize is that most Americans have gay friends and relaitves. Most people really aren't all that uncomfortable with homosexuality, and the Democrats do a disservice when they label everyone who disagrees with them on the specifics as a policy as a "homophobe." This is one of the things that I think is driving the demographic shift. A lot of the social issues that used to divide the two parties just aren't that big a deal any more. Segregation is gone forever. Racism is still here but it is dying. Feminism? Dead letter. Everyone accepts the fact that women should be able to work in whatever career they choose. There is still some left, and women are certainly harassed on occasion, but again, it's nothing like it used to be. The Democrats used to appeal to a lot of centrist voters becuase they offered a clear alternative to the segregationists and those who believed that women had no business being CEO's, pilots, etc. But these battles are over. The Democrats need to find other problems that need fixing. Moreover, they need to stop pretending that that the problems of the past are still with us. You don't have to be a racist to oppose affirmative action, and the Democrats are not winning any friends by pretending that those who do oppose it somehow lack compassion or don't acknowledge the existence of racism. Posted by: Joe Schmoe at December 17, 2003 05:10 PM | PERMALINK"And I think you're a tad off-base. The Birchers were, for the most part, paranoid and extreme. I grant you there are still many of those types around, but they don't dominate Heritage, nor are they all Republicans." Tonto - read the reference. The people funding the Republican think tank machine ARE Birchers, libertarians and the likes. Every time you hear a right-winger talk about the "Democrat Party" instead of "Democratic" you're hearing their acknowledgement to the Birchers. (Old enough to remember what I'm talking about here?) Posted by: Dave Johnson at December 17, 2003 05:11 PM | PERMALINKYour conclusion that "America" (the big monolith that does not exist) is solidly center right describes the cernter of gravity of those who have controlled the government, perhaps. It does not accurately describe the political leanings of the people who make-up it's population. How can a country that is sharply split 50-50 on ideological lines be called anything but split. It's falacious reasoning to suggest these two extreme equal moderate overall. It's like taking the average tax cut. Or like saying that the US has a moderate climate because (a hypo) 1/2 is in the cold north and 1/2 is in the tropics, so overall it is moderate, when in fact it is not moderate any where. It is either hot or cold. The country is left of center if you use the current conservatives as the standard for defining the right. Theya re a far cry from the GOP conservatives of my dad's GOP. Are you really saying the Texas GOP platform is representative of nearly a majority of people's political beliefs in the USA? Posted by: obe at December 17, 2003 05:12 PM | PERMALINKJeeze - I left one out - public schools. They even want to get rid of public schools. How far right can you get? Posted by: Dave Johnson at December 17, 2003 05:13 PM | PERMALINKOne area in which the Democrats have made enormous progress toward reform is in the area of economics. I remember when a lot of Democrats seemed to be inherently suspicious of business and businesspeople. Profit motive = evil motive so far as many Democrats were concerned. A related notion was that problems could be solved by creating bloated bureauracracies with huge budges. Want to eliminate poverty? Heavily fund anti-poverty programs. Living conditions of the urban poor a problem? Erect huge housing projects and have HUD administer them. Needless to say, Democrats truly don't beleive this any more. We have come a long, long way and now accept that a capitalist free-market system is actually a good thing. It needs to be regulated, but it isn't inherently evil and those who participate it should not be viewed with distrust. No Democrat is calling for the creation of a huge government bureauracy any more. Democrats finally accepted welfare reform and stopped accusing those of advocating it of lacking compassion. If the Democrats can just change thier tune on cultural issues, I don't see how they can be stopped as a party. It will take time to counter the inertia of party identification among voters and to overcome patronage machines, but there is still time if we reform ourselves soon. Posted by: Joe Schmoe at December 17, 2003 05:21 PM | PERMALINKErrr...Birchers were not an exclusive GOP franchise, Even as recently as the 1980's there was a Democratic member of Congress, Larry MacDonald, who was a Bircher. ( ironically, he was killed in the KAL 800 shootdown by a Soviet Mig in 1983). After all the Birchers thought Dean Acheson AND Dwight Eisenhower were both tools of the Communist conspiracy. Posted by: mark safranski at December 17, 2003 05:23 PM | PERMALINKJoe Schmoe These are good points. I'm not so sure that most Americans are comfortable with homosexuality. After the MA case concerning gay marriage, the polls I saw indicated that a majority of Americans, some 60%, view homosexuality as a "sin." I'm not sure what "sin" means to most Americans. I agree with Kevin that the party split in Congress better reflects the ideological split than ever before. I don't think it will change significantly (moderate shifts may be enough to change party control but it will stay close to 50-50) in the near future. What might change it are changing demographic trends in the country. Increased Hispanic immigration and low native birth rates will eventually lead to a reshaping of the electorate. That likely is good for the Democrats. Now if only Medicare and Social Security can be preserved until that happens. Posted by: Stuart at December 17, 2003 05:40 PM | PERMALINKJoe Schmoe I broadly agree. The liberals/Democrats are victims of their own success. I feel that the message of the Democratic party does not resonate well with the American people in this day and age. Posted by: Roland at December 17, 2003 05:52 PM | PERMALINKRoland, I think the point that Joe Schmoe is making is that people are able to separate the idea of homosexuality being a sin from the idea of being hostile to homosexuals. To use an analogy, many Christians live next door to atheists and they can live peaceably. Even-though the Christians believe the athesists are committing a sin by not believing in God. In my own neighborhood I've seen examples of this. The architectural committee has three members, one is a strict Catholic, one is a Protestant, and one is an open homosexual. I know for a fact that the Catholic believes homosexuality is a sin. Nonetheless, he has a friendly relationship with the homosexual, and they have invited each other to dinner parties, etc. The point -- just because someone thinks someone is committing a sin, does not necessarily mean they will be hostile. Posted by: Proper response at December 17, 2003 05:55 PM | PERMALINKRoland and Proper Response - Roger, Proper Response, that is exactly what I mean. A good friend of mine is a Catholic priest. He is gay. I don't think that homosexuality is a sin. My cousin does, though. She's also opposed to gay marriage, at least by that name. Nonetheless, the priest is her close friend. Our friend is one of the most caring and compassionate people whom I have ever met. He was an internist for 15 years before he entered the priesthood, and he continues to work as an internist today -- he just doesn't get paid any more. Think about that. For a while, he didn't even own a car; he had to petition the order to be allowed to buy one. Interestingly, our friend does not feel that his homosexuality is inconsistent with his work as a priest. I suspect that he is in a relationship at the moment; we have had dinner with his significant other on several occasions. I do know that he would never endanger a child. I would have no problem sending my son to stay with him when he gets older. My cousin feels that homosexuality is a sin, and does not support gay marriage. Nonetheless, she and this person are fast friends. She certainly doesn't want to see him become the victim of a hate crime. She does not support the criminalization of sodomy. Nor does she shun or discriminate against other homosexual people whom she knows. I think this is pretty typical. Most people know one or more gay people, and while they may not be entirely comfortable with it, they love and respect their gay friends and relaitives. If the Democrats could simply acknowledge this, the debate over issues like gay marriage would have a whole different tone. Right now, a lot of Democrats seem to think that each new court decision is a victory of the forces of liberalism and enlightenment over darkness, bigotry, and superstition. But it's not. There just aren't that many narrow-minded bigots any more. For instance, while my cousin is opposed to gay marriage in name, she of course recognizes that many gay people do have committed, decades-long relationships and should be able to inherit property from one another. She also can obviously understand why a gay person might want to give the ability to make medical decisions to his or her significant other. She's uncomfortable with the idea of two males (or two women) standing before the altar and receiveing the sacrement of marriage, but that doesn't make her a hate-filled bigot. If Democrats would simply treat the anti gay-marriage position with respect, and recognize that not everyone who holds it sympathizes with the people who beat Matthew Sheppard to death, they would alienate far fewer people and would, I think, be in much better electoral shape. A lot of the Republicans' advantages on cultural issues would disappear overnight if the Democrats would simply meet people halfway on these issues and recognize that times have changed and that tremendous progress has been made. Posted by: Joe Schmoe at December 17, 2003 06:24 PM | PERMALINKA corollary to responsiveness seems to be a short attention span (e.g., Joe Schmoe on Democratic attitudes toward racism: "It's getting old.") Other countries' politics seem to be suffused with a much greater historical awareness. The clear implication is that, absent some truly catastrophic event such as the Great Depression (to which I attribute much of the Roosevelt Coalition's sataying power), any purported realignment of American politics is built on sand. That would include the "New Democrats." It would also -- troglodyte hooting notwithstanding -- include the (minority) coalition that brought the current administration to power. Posted by: bleh at December 17, 2003 06:24 PM | PERMALINKPS, Joe Schmoe: why do you think Democrats don't "treat the anti gay-marriage position with respect"? What Democratic spokesman has professed that kind of intolerance? Last I looked, Dean, for example, had signed off on a compromise that specifically avoided gay marriage and implemented a civil procedure instead. And how on Earth is it that Democrats can be accused in any way of intolerance on this issue? This sounds like Limbaugh-esque jiu-jitsu to me. Do you really mean what you say? Very confusing... Posted by: bleh at December 17, 2003 06:30 PM | PERMALINKSullivan and Rosenfeld set up a classic straw man argument. Nobody -- NOBODY - is claiming that today's GOP has the type of "dominance" that New Deal Democrats do. If anybody deigns to actually read the Barnes and Brooks pieces, they would know that they are talking about the GOP having a functional governing majority. That's not the same as the "dominance" that Sullivan and Rosenfeld write that the GOP now claims. Moreover, to cite an effort to replace FDR with Reagan on the dime as meaning that people are claiming that the GOP is a "dominant" party like the New Deal Democrats (winning 75% of House seats) is such a completely asinine argument that it beggars belief that anyone would take any part of the op-ed seriously. To the extent that Kevin does so, it is to his detriment. (One other note with respect to Kevin's post - He may not realize, but Republican did not mean "conservative" in those days to the extent it does today. His claim that the Seante seats broke down as: "58 liberals, 38 conservatives" is simply dumb. It truly broke down 58 non-Southern Democrats (some of whom may be conservative), 22 Southern Democrats, and 16 Republicans (some of whom may be liberals). Getting any liberal-conservative breakdown out of that is impossible.) Posted by: Al at December 17, 2003 06:32 PM | PERMALINKYou know, bleh, some thigs really do get old. There used to be widespread discrimiantion against the Irish. It no longer exists. The Free Silver movement? Over. The KKK? A shadow of its former self. I don't for one second deny that there is still plenty of racism in America. However, it is obvious that things have changed a great deal for the better. Posted by: Joe Schmoe at December 17, 2003 06:35 PM | PERMALINK"Nobody -- NOBODY - is claiming that today's GOP has the type of "dominance" that New Deal Democrats do." Maybe not quite, in terms of congressional seats, but as far as there being no effective opposition, are you kidding? I'd call them dominant. Except now they also have complete control of the media. Posted by: scarshapedstar at December 17, 2003 06:42 PM | PERMALINKWhat does "right of center" mean, anyway? The "center" is not fixed for all time in one spot on a static spectrum. You mean no matter what is happening, the country throughout it's entire history always found that spot, no matter what the issues of the day, smak dab right of center? I can't help it, but the statement "The fact is that America has been a center-right country for practically its entire history" is an extreme generalization that makes no sense to me. It sounds like the goal is to utter that statement, and then defend it with over-generalizations. What is the point of the conclusion/statement, anyway? That Clark has a better chance in the GE even though he is dropping in the polls? That Bush is not the radical we think he is? That we have no reason to worry about what bushco is doing because throughout all our history we were right center, so we must be there now, too, or will get back there soon? I don't understand. Kevin, Joe, all I can say is that your ignorance of social issues in America today is astounding, even for you. Why do you even bother pretending that you're a Democrat, anymore? "In terms of ideology, America has been a 50-50 nation for a long time. Outside events have prompted small swings of the pendulum — Watergate in favor of liberals, 9/11 in favor of conservatives — but not vast sea changes." The great sea change came during the Carter years, owing in a big way to the fact that those who were adults, voters, during the Depression were passing out of active politics, many passing on altogether, giving way to a wave of elders (likely-to-vote folks) more of the attitude, "I got mine, now you can go get yours." And much less of the attitude, "We need to pull together to solve big problems, achieve great common goals and deal with big, shared calamities." The old FDR coalition had largely eroded away, with farms greatly reduced in number, with labor unions greatly in decline. What's more, nearly the entire electorate had come up enjoying the benefits and protections of New Deal era reforms and regulations. They were largely ignorant of how rough the edges of laissez-faire, free-market, Big Money Rules capitalism could be, with its boom-and-bust cycles, pre-FDIC bank collapses, no social safety net, etc. The kind their parents and grandparents had experienced pre-New Deal, in other words. Successive Democrat administrations had been extrapolations or modified, updated renditions of the New Deal, except Carter's. During his themeless years in the White House, the country withstood setbacks at home and abroad, and he waxed philosophical, sought economies and retrenchment, coped stoically, talked in terms of our greatest days being behind us. Thus, when a handsome, likeable actor came along at just that time to demagog about welfare queens, to call for getting government out the way so entrepreneurship could run wild and free, say the sky was the limit, and to belittle what government had done and disparage those in it, as if they were worthless parasites and meddlesome incompetents, a whole lot of people who perhaps thought they knew and understood more than they actually did, were more than ready to buy in. The old-line, Main Street Republican, neoconservative, big-money, pro-corporate, social-religious conservative, nouveau-riche/expect-to-get-rich yuppy coalition has been dominant ever since. My view of it, anyway. Posted by: S.W. Anderson at December 17, 2003 09:36 PM | PERMALINK Why are we overlooking what may be the single most important factor driving the Republican majority in Congress? I mean the low voter turnout. This is one thing the Rovians are working hard to achieve, IMHO. Over the last couple of election cycles I think they've found that attack ads, name-calling, and all that good stuff that makes up extremist politics disgusts big numbers of ordinary moderate people who decide not to vote as a result, while it brings out the true believers in droves. What the Dems have to do is give a hundred people in each precinct a reason to come out on election day. That will bring them a revolution. If there are so many 'conservatives' (thinking fiscally) in congress, how did that stinkin' Medicare bill get passed? Posted by: Poika at December 17, 2003 09:48 PM | PERMALINKA few subtle shifts of rhetoric? I actually like the idea, on principle and in terms of practice, but Gore only lost by a few electorals. Dean is eminently more electable, being pro-gun, a doctor, and clearly a distinguishable choice. Dean should wipe up all previous Gore voters, a large contingent of Green and independent voters, and a number of Republicans who are tired of the bullshit. Clark possibly can do the same, but the signs aren't as strong, at least yet. Kerry and Edwards likely would be candidates who could have a really good shot at succeeding Gore, but not with the overall appeal of Dean or Clark (though Clark's appeal is definitely limited to a national consciousness of warfare, which really is not essential to our well-being right now). Posted by: freelixir at December 18, 2003 01:34 AM | PERMALINKA few other candidates, Lieberman and Gephardt, have errantly poisoned the well, when what they truly lack is an overall quality of charisma. In the bitterness of that (lack of) recognition, the poison darts have flown, and these guys have discredited themselves. Posted by: freelixir at December 18, 2003 01:35 AM | PERMALINKGranted your historical "gotcha", but by the same standard, today's Republicans couldn't even be said to have a majority, let alone be dominant. Subtract the Olympia Snows and Lincoln Chafees, and you've got under 50%. Posted by: Brett Bellmore at December 18, 2003 03:02 AM | PERMALINKIn a conversation with a Brit, he made an observationt hat changed my viewpoint on US political parties, GOP vs DP. He said that they weren't really parties, in the British sense, but rather coalitions of many diverse groups that change positions as necessary to try and gain a majority. Once you start looking at it that way, the working of "political parties" in the US looks a lot clearer. Posted by: rhinoman at December 18, 2003 05:54 AM | PERMALINKUm, just to point out, so-called "conservatives" in the south might have been considered social conservatives (racists, homophobes, etc.), but they loved the federal largess that was poured on them. They still do. They also didn't like federal taxes, and they still don't. As an aside, one wonders how they think (well we know they don't) that the federal government can continue to pour federal monies on them if it doesn't have the taxes to cover it. Posted by: raj at December 18, 2003 06:06 AM | PERMALINKS.W. Anderson, The problem, as someone else said, is that Democrats are victims of their own success. The issues they talk about are subtle, and have consequences too far in the future. We are going to have to see bigger social problems before the pendulum starts to swing back. It took the depression, and then the Vietnam war to get it moving last time. This time - who knows? Maybe the Bush crash of '07'? Posted by: Tripp at December 18, 2003 07:21 AM | PERMALINKJoe has a lot of good points about the DP. But I agree that US is acenter country with small But the big changes over last couple of decades has been money in system. US politics now one $ one vote rather than one person one vote. I believe this main reason for low voter turn out. Most people believe voting will not make any difference. Maybe the real short run problem has been that the RP has been hijacked by a group of truly radical neocons that really want to make major changes in both US domestic and foreign policy. Dean and dems should really make election about the extreme policies the neocons are implementing. Poika, they're not fiscal conservatives, they're political conservatives. Pace the rhetoric, many are not fiscally conservative at all. EJ Dionne has a good WaPo piece: The Politics of Payoff President Bush likes to talk about the need for "fiscal sanity in Washington." His decision to run up the national debt is entirely sane -- as long as you understand his real purpose. Bush doesn't care a whit about deficits. That's because he is not a fiscal conservative. He is a political conservative out to buy himself a majority in 2004 and spending the next generation's money to do it. Some act mystified, as if conservatives are always more responsible with the people's money than liberals. But it's possible to be generous toward social needs and pay as you go. That's what liberals have usually done. Paul Gigot, the Wall Street Journal's conservative editorial page editor, once called this approach "balanced-budget liberalism." It's conservatives, not liberals, who twice over the past quarter-century have created extravagant deficits. (snip)
To me, the Republicans are today ascendant, and have held the upper hand (even if they have not always controlled all part of government) since 1968. However, the Republican Party to me looks a lot like the Democrats did in the early 60s. LBJs Great Society, in this sense, is kind of like the Bush Presidency. An ostensibly popular and ascendant program that mask important contradictions and weaknesses that are not immediately apparent. I expect Bush to be reelected in 2004, but expect things to start boomeranging on Republicans come 2006 and especially by 2008. Indeed, in this sense, the next realignment we are going to see will be in favor of the Democrats - its just hasn't happened yet, and won't for another couple election cycles. Ben P. Posted by: Ben P at December 18, 2003 09:13 AM | PERMALINKAltoid, Freelixir, Tripp, Good points all. An additional consideration: The two major parties have weakened, with greatly reduced discipline within government and outside government. The Dems are the more weakened outside government, however. Nothing on their side matches the well-funded, vociferous, nervous-twitch neocon core/corps. A big reason why I said I think the Republicans/conservatives are dominant. It's not just numbers, it's who will kick in some money, talk up a candidate and actually show up to vote. A key upshot is that Dems can and will rally round when an especially strong, attractive, charismatic figure comes to the fore. And they can draw in independents and some who rarely if ever vote besides. But unless that strong, charismatic leader rises above serving his own ends (re-election, legacy building) to forge a viable coalition with some staying power -- something for the coming decade, at least -- that can take on a life and meaning of its own once he's moved off the stage, the party remains weak. JFK never got the chance to do that, nor did LBJ, because of the war. Carter lacked both that vision and the horsepower to make it go. Clinton had the horsepower, might've come up with the vision, but blew the chance through perfidy, stupidity and the unceasing efforts of his character assassins. I haven't quite settled on Dean as my No. 1 choice, but I'm drawn his way when I hear him talking about party building, about reacquainting the great "go away and don't bother me" masses of distracted know-nothings and nonvoting scoffers, about which side of the bread their butter is really on. The Dems need a solid structure that rests on a broad and cohesive foundation. As someone above mentioned, that can come about as the result of a calamity like war or depression. It could also be built and molded by a master builder. The question is, do any of these guys really get that, and if so, will they really dig in and do the work? Posted by: S.W. Anderson at December 18, 2003 03:04 PM | PERMALINKreality pass silverstone video sleeping sex tushy lickers videos wasted whores Perfect Toes Bliss Mature Boys Casting CagedTushy Posted by: ashton moore at June 30, 2004 07:56 PM | PERMALINKBest XXX Sites - |
|
|
|
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 |
||||
|
||||
