Changing the Opposition

John Quiggen reports on the Australian political situation, where it seems that not only has Labor been voted in and the Liberals (that's the right-wing party in Australia) been given the boot, but in a somewhat unexpected move, the Liberals are tacking to the left and bringing in a new, much more moderate leader.

Here in the states, there's a lot of optimism about the Democratic Part's changes in 2008, and also a lot of debate about which presidential candidate could best take advantage of the opportunity that seems to be presenting itself. In domestic terms, though, I think the key issue will be less about which Democrat wins than it will be about what lesson the Republicans decide to take away from it. The 2006 midterms wound up not having resulted in very much progressive legislation not only because of Bush's steadfast obstructionism, but because the congressional GOP as a whole succeeded in convincing itself that they'd lost primarily because of insufficiently dogmatic adherence to small-government orthodoxy. Meanwhile, the American political system makes it frighteningly easy for minorities to obstruct progressive reform. This same problem will be in place in 2009 unless Republican defeat convinces some non-trivial number of Republicans that they need to take a new direction.

Comments

Optimism for 2008 is misplaced. The Dems and Republicans respond more to their moneyed interests. The Repubs may change tack in 2008 and become more moderate, but what does that mean in US political terms? Both parties are rightwing, both parties are pretty similar, HRC gives the impression that not much would change under her presidency.

For change to be affected in the US political system, the people will have to stop sleepwalking. Priorities will have to change, the media has to be different when it comes to covering issues. The parties are too conservative and in the hip pockets of the lobbyists to become the engines of change. The whole congressional-military-industrial-complex has to be gotten rid of.

Posted by Donavan | December 1, 2007 7:07 AM

"Meanwhile, the American political system makes it frighteningly easy for minorities to obstruct progressive reform."

True. However, the American political system also makes it easy for minorities to obstruct funding for military adventurism, tax cuts for the wealthy, wingnut appointments to the federal bench, etc. The fact that progressive legislators don't use this power as effectively as conservatives doesn't mean the power of the minority to check abuses by the majority is bad. IOW, the fault isn't with the system, it is with the inability of progressives to use this system to their advantage.

Posted by Joel | December 1, 2007 7:25 AM

Re: Both parties are rightwing

No they are not. Please quit repeating this talkng point. It plays right into the hands of the real rightwing. The Democrats are not leftwing, I will grant you that. But they are centrists (even by Euroepan standards which is what I assume you are going by). There is a world of dioffernce between what the Democrats represent and what the radical right in the GOPP represents

Re: HRC gives the impression that not much would change under her presidency.

If we do nothing but go back to the Clintonian policies of the 90s that would be an immense change, and one very much for the better. But Mrs Clinton (and her riva;s) have all siogned on for universal healthcare and for measures to combat global warming, which would also be major departures from the Bush adninistration. Please quit stirring up apathy by ignoring such distinctions.

Posted by JonF | December 1, 2007 7:48 AM

Matt: On what evidence do you claim that Republicans took this lesson away? Do you have quotes? A single quote? It seems to me that Republicans would have concluded that the reasons were (a) scandals, esp. Foley, and (b) the war in Iraq is not going well, and (c) generalized incompetence from the White House. We can argue about the GOP's behavior in the months since contradicting especially (b), but if you asked Republicans on the Hill in December 2006 why they lost Congress, they would not have said "we haven't been pushing the small-government agenda enough."

Posted by Martin | December 1, 2007 8:48 AM

The “two” party system is broken in a few respects. Matt notes how minority factions can bring things to a halt. Additionally, I would add the intensity and zealotry of single issue/litmus test ideologues on both sides inhibit effective representative government.

But the biggest issue with the current system is the role of big money, and its ability to control both parties. The impact of big money is magnified with only two real party alternatives.

The Republicans seem to be under some kind of spell from the Kristal, AEI, National Review fanatics, and don’t care that their radical views are firmly rejected by the American public. There could be an election tsunami making the Republican Party post 2008 as relevant as the Bull Moose Party is today.

I hope Bloomberg runs. A lot of people will support him because, unlike Perot, Bloomberg would govern as a moderate and be a good President. His candidacy would also have a very positive effect of breaking the death grip on government from the current two party system.

Posted by erict | December 1, 2007 9:14 AM

Ick. hard to believe that Brendan Nelson, who advocated teaching "intelligent design" in Australian classrooms, qualifies as a moderate.

He's a step up from Howard, Costello or Abbott I will grant, but the Liberals would have been smarter to put up Malcolm Turnbull.

Posted by sweaty guy | December 1, 2007 9:15 AM

The Republicans/conservatives may be willing to deal. We can probably get UHC and some good start on global warming. The price will be very high but bearable. A nasty immigration law and an abandonment of voting rights enforcement in Red areas might satisfy them, to retain white male control for another generation or two in the face of the demographic shifts. Maybe a war in Iran.

Price to high? America is a tragedy and a crime. Try Canada, or move to a Red State.

Posted by bob mcmanus | December 1, 2007 9:38 AM

Both parties are rightwing, both parties are pretty similar...

Dude, have you been in a coma for the last 7 years?

For change to be affected in the US political system, the people will have to stop sleepwalking. Priorities will have to change, the media has to be different when it comes to covering issues. The parties are too conservative and in the hip pockets of the lobbyists to become the engines of change. The whole congressional-military-industrial-complex has to be gotten rid of.

And a Pony! Would you like that today, or tomorrow? You seem to be arguing that until someone comes along who can reasonably promise to immediately revolutionize all of the above it just doesn't make any sense to vote for anyone.

Why don't you run along now and try to convince Ralph Nader to run again and stop bothering us.

Posted by DMonteith | December 1, 2007 9:42 AM

Re: It seems to me that Republicans would have concluded that the reasons were (a) scandals, esp. Foley, and (b) the war in Iraq is not going well, and (c) generalized incompetence from the White House.

I used to hang out over on RedState.com. After the 20006 defeat there was a brief period of soul-searching and recrimination. Then the wagons circled, the minds snapped shut and the chant went up "We haven been impure! We have trafficked in the lore of the liberals!" The right, even the fairly sane and rational right on RedState, simply cannot conceive that their agenda is inherently wrong, prone to failure and in the long run proves to be unpopular. They fear new ideas with an almost neurotic phobia.

Posted by JonF | December 1, 2007 10:04 AM

"They fear new ideas with an almost neurotic phobia."

No, unfortunately. They fear *old* ideas with an almost neurotic phobia: old ideas like using tax money to pay for government expeditures, instead of borrowing money from China; old ideas like not engaging in military occupations of countries that are not a threat to the US; old ideas like right to privacy and separation of church and state; old ideas like the immorality of torture; old ideas like progressive taxation.

Posted by Joel | December 1, 2007 10:33 AM

The GOP today hardly represents "small government orthodoxy." Maybe "proto-police state oligarchy" would be closer to the mark.

Posted by peter | December 1, 2007 10:53 AM

This same problem will be in place in 2009 unless Republican defeat convinces some non-trivial number of Republicans that they need to take a new direction.

Yeah, I remember in 2004 when the GOP not only won the Presidency but also expanded their majority in Congress, a non-trivial numer of the defeated Democrats decided that they needed to take a more moderate position on issues the President campaigned on, like Social Security reform. Therefore, a lot was accomplished in 2005.

Oh, wait...

The parties are becoming increasingly polarized. If (when) the GOP loses in 2008, the response will - and should be - to become more riht wing, not less. Becoming a party in favor of parroting the Democrat position in favor of higher taxes, more government, isolationist foreign policy, open borders, etc. ain't going to win the Republicans any elections.

Posted by Al | December 1, 2007 10:57 AM

JonF: I did not know that, and it is interesting, and it certainly qualifies as support for Matt's statement. I hesitate to agree that it actually is sufficient support for what Matt is talking about. We would not quickly take statements appearing on MoveOn.org or coming out of the mouth of Ward Churchill to prove what Nancy Pelosi's motives are, and the same applies here, in reverse. Insofar as the GOP debates have demonstrated that the GOP has not changed its tune much (far from it), it's an open question whether anyone really believes that this is the way to win wide allegiance in the electorate, or merely a bad option (placate the base) where no other option seems viable. As far as I can tell, the most likely way the GOP will win the 2008 election is if Giuliani whips up a 9/11-tinged fury over terrorists or if anti-immigrant sentiment or some such is more potent than we realize, neither of which has much to do with a belief in small government. I think the assertion that TPTB in the GOP believe that the way to win elections lies in small-governmentism is very questionable. I do not think they do believe that, for the most part.

Posted by Martin | December 1, 2007 11:15 AM

I agree with Martin. Small government, whatever that means, is one of those procedural terms--like states' rights--that can be enlisted to support practically any agenda. As a liberal, I favor small government when big government listens in on my conversations and scans my email, but I like big government to issue my SS checks and pay my medical bills. What distinguishes the parties is that, in general, Democrats want to help people, whereas Republicans want to help themselves and their friends and screw everyone else. They've mainly become a party of greed and hatred, and little else. Unfortunately for all of us, it's contagious.

Posted by Henderstock | December 1, 2007 12:26 PM

What galls me is how the Democrats have been unwilling to punish the Republicans for obstructing bills. If they threaten a filibuster, then make them filibuster. Even if the Dems lose, they can actually show the American people what they did instead of just whining, "They threatened to filibuster." If they don't have enough votes for a bill, bring it to the floor anyway. Put the opposition on record as voting against bringing the troops home, universal health care, or whatever else it is. The leadership of Pelosi and Reid has been pathetic.

Posted by Captain Noble | December 1, 2007 12:45 PM

"If they threaten a filibuster, then make them filibuster"

Well, remember when the Repubs have the floor in a real filibuster unlimited debate, weird shit can happen. Get 150 yr old Bob Byrd out of bed at 3 AM with a quorum call. They don't need a quorum to pass mom-and-apple-pie, War on France, that budget or reconciliation bill that has been hanging around. They can put 2000 amendments on a bill that people have been working for months.

I think

So Democrats have to outnumber them at all times, watch the halls during lunch and bathroom breaks. Just ugly and exhausting for rich old folks.

Posted by bob mcmanus | December 1, 2007 1:19 PM

Re: They fear *old* ideas with an almost neurotic phobia

Perhaps I should have said that they fear any ideas not their own. In their perception their ideas are the hallowed and traditional precepts of public policy. Because they are so closed-minded their ideas have lost any interface with reality and the notion that they need to look for new plans and new programs beyond their bowdlerized Gospel According to St. Ronald strikes terror into their heart.

Re: I did not know that, and it is interesting, and it certainly qualifies as support for Matt's statement.

For the record I think Matt's statement is too narrow. The Right's wagons have circled all their orthodoxies, not just small government rhetoric (which they still pay only lip service to). They certainly have not abandoned support for the Iraq War or social conservatism either although a Giuliani candidacy might mean they are willing to throw the latter under the bus. Among the RedState recrminations complaints about single-issue pro-lifers and anti-gay zealots were the most comments, so that's a possibility. But for the most part they have dug in deep and refused to budge on anything.

Re: The most likely way the GOP will win the 2008 election is if Giuliani whips up a 9/11-tinged fury over terrorists

Absent some new terrorist outrage (always a possibility) I think the bloody shirt of 9-11 is getting too frayed to wave any longer. All issues have freshness dates, and the Great Terror Scare is smelling a bit rancid these days when the main fears are about the economy.

Re: if anti-immigrant sentiment or some such is more potent than we realize

The GOP is hobbled on immigration by the fact that the Establishment, and the bill-paying business wing, is still very pro-immigrant. At best the GOP can pay lip-service to nativism and xenophobia, but anything too serious will cause the paymasters to shut their check books, and they are already running into trouble there.

Posted by Jonf | December 1, 2007 2:46 PM

JonF: I can't find anything to disagree with there. You're no fun at all.

Posted by Martin | December 1, 2007 2:52 PM

Further proof that the single most urgent reform for the US political system is to KILL THE FILIBUSTER (although departisanizing the office of Attorney General by requiring his confirmation by supermajority is the second).

The Democrats could kill the filibuster -- entirely constitutionally -- if they ever work up the nerve to admit that they were wrong in backing the damn thing previously. But that nerve isn't going to come from Congress; the next Dem President will have to stir up a public furor over it -- maybe when it's used to block any public health reform, which of course it will be. In this connection, one thing to be said for Hillary is that she has a temper and doesn't believe in trying to placate implacable opponents.

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | December 1, 2007 4:50 PM

I hesitate to agree that it actually is sufficient support for what Matt is talking about.

How about Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana, who was a contender for Minority Leader?

"Some will argue that we lost our majority because of scandals at home and challenges abroad. I say, we did not just lose our majority, we lost our way.

"While the scandals of the 109th Congress harmed our cause, the greatest scandal in Washington, D.C. is runaway federal spending.

[...]

"As the 110th Congress convenes next year, Republicans must cordially accept defeat and dedicate ourselves to advancing our cause as the loyal opposition knowing that the only way to retake our natural, governing majority, is to renew our commitment to limited government, national defense, traditional values and reform."

I'm quoting from the Corner, but you could presumably find the statement elsewhere.

Posted by mds | December 1, 2007 6:15 PM

Agree with Sweatyguy, although it is rather amusing that the Liberal leader is a former unionist and Labor Party member. The times, they are a-changin'... but electing Brendan Nelson rather than Malcolm Turnbull as their leader demonstrates that the Liberals haven't really learned that much. The Libs are clinging to the idea that this election was merely a repudiation of Howard, the man, when if you look at the electoral breakdown the people that did worst were the Howardian hard right - moderates like Turnbull managed to buck the trend.

As for the implications for 2009 - almost certainly, a loss will send Republicans through a period of painful and hilarious soul-searching. It really depends on the losing candidate, though: if it's Giuliani, the religious right will claim it's because he didn't get the social stuff right; if it's one of the God candidates, and the loss is bad, it might convince a largish faction of the GOP that they can do without quite so much Bible-bashing. But at no point will small gummint be the culprit. It's the closest thing the GOP has to a raison d'etre - they're not going to abandon it on the back of one disastrous presidency.

Posted by Lucy | December 1, 2007 6:59 PM

In 1972, the Democratic party was in a similar, or worse, situation than the one the the Republican party finds itself in today. After McGovern's 49 state loss to Nixon, the Democrats decided that the only way to survive was to move to the political center. The result was that the Democratic party remained electorially viable (Democrats won three of the next eight presidential elections) but at the cost of losing the political initiative. That is finally changing.

If the Republican party tries to move back to the center now, the same thing could happen to it. It could spend the next thirty years distancing itself from its base and trying to win elections on terms largely defined by the Democrats. I think it is understandable that the Republican party is not eager to head down that path.

Posted by Kenneth Almquist | December 1, 2007 11:50 PM

I was going to cite RedState in response to Martin's early comment, but I see that JonF already beat me to it. Those people really think it was insufficient adherence to the small-government gospel that lost them the 2006 elections.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | December 2, 2007 4:54 PM

Just wanted to note, with regard to Quiggin on Australia, that this kind of staggering ideological collapse is very similar to the way Communism simply vanished in Eastern Europe in 1989: it's what happens when a party that doesn't actually believe its own ideology, but only believes in power, suddenly loses the one thing it actually believes in, i.e. power. Suddenly, it's hard to find anyone who will admit to holding the views that were the dominant consensus six months earlier.

Posted by brooksfoe | December 2, 2007 9:13 PM