Scott Lemieux reminds us of the orthodox Republicans we might have had:
The current geographical and ideological makeup of the GOP coalition hasn't become inherently non-viable, and outside the margins the components aren't ripe to be permanently picked off by the Democrats. And while it's true that the Republican primary seems to have opened up major divisions between cultural reactionaries and fiscal reactionaries, I think this is largely illusory. Essentially, it's just the product of peculiar circumstances: the plain-vanilla Southern conservative who seemed like the frontrunner turned lost a Senate election with a racial slur thrown in, and the plain-vanilla Southern conservative who contested the primary seems to be using Weekend at Bernie's as a campaign manual. Hence, the primary is being seriously fought between a recent convert to Reaganism and other candidates with little crossover appeal between the party's factions.
I agree entirely. In a larger sense, though, I would say to Jack Balkin and anyone else with vision of big changes in American politics to just remember that it all depends on what happens. I ended a review of some recent political books thusly:
A glance at Jacobson's poll charts reminds us what a fleeting thing political success is. Polarization has been a semi-constant theme of the Bush years, but the president who once enjoyed record-high approval levels is, today, flirting with Nixon territory. The political X-factor, as Harold MacMillan famously remarked, is "events, my dear boy, events." Had Bush responded effectively to the challenges of 9-11, one could imagine the GOP regaining Reaganesque levels of dominance. Instead, his policies have failed and created a moment of opportunity for Democrats -- one whose outcome, boring as it is to observe, will depend in part on the quality of their own efforts and in part on events outside their control. Popular (or unpopular) response to contingencies, if sustained, can create not just the appearance of political dominance but the reality as well.
And that's basically how I see things. If President Obama and a Democratic congress manage to pass a few pieces of popular legislation that have been clever designed to re-enforce pro-Democrat institutional and social trends, and if President Obama manages to avoid any noteworthy foreign policy screw-ups or personal scandals then Democrats will be well-positioned to make some gains in the midterms. Meanwhile, a prolonged period of Democratic control of congress would serve to keep controversial cultural wedge issues off the legislative table, which, combined with a decent macroeconomic situation, could pave the way for Democratic inroads into a widish swathe of "red" America. It could totally happen.
But there are a lot of "ifs" in there and it's just as plausible that something totally different will happen. John McCain could revitalize the Republican coalition. A terrorist attack could discredit the new Democratic president and wreck the Democratic Party. Who knows. It's all about the events.
| 
Heads in the Sand
>> A glance at Jacobson's poll charts reminds us
>> what a fleeting thing political success is.
>> Polarization has been a semi-constant theme of
>> the Bush years, but the president who once
>> enjoyed record-high approval levels is, today,
>> flirting with Nixon territory.
Have to disagree here. The amount of damage that Cheney and his acolytes have done in the shadows is immeasurable and probably not fixable by anyone of any party or administration who follows. They have achieved a political success equal to or greater than FDR/Hopkins' and it may well outlast the United States.
Cranky
Posted by Cranky Observer | January 9, 2008 11:49 AM