November 28, 2004
Giving the people what they want
Ace has got a really good take on the inevitable 'realignment' conversation that is happening after the election. Is there a Republican-leaning realignment? Yes, but with conditions. Ace writes 'If the Democrats have to produce a candidate as charismatic and skilled as Bill Clinton, plus a gangbusters economy and no major foreign policy threat known by the public in order to win an election, that means they're not going to win too many elections in the future.'
I agree but worry about that 'break from history' syndrome that Peggy Noonan wrote of before the election. What if people get tired of the war on terror? What if they no longer want the alerts or updates? What if they can't stomach the American loss of life anymore? I think that would lead to a major shift to the Democrats who, for better or worse, don't seem to be all that engaged in the war on terror beyond criticizing Bush for it. And, now that the election is over and Bush is secure in his four more years, I can't see them broaching the topic that often at all. What if people want that?
Read Ace's whole post and check out Ruy Texeira's Emerging Democratic Majority site which has been arguing for some time that there will be a realignment towards the Democrats and isn't buying the new registration numbers. EDM is also still arguing that Bush doesn't have a mandate because the polls show only a slight majority approve of him as president. But, of course, to use this phrase again: those polls and two dollars can get you on the subway. The only poll that matters, we were told again and again by liberal commentators when Kerry's numbers were sagging, is on election day. And that poll gives Bush a clear majority of the votes, and thus a mandate.
Posted by Karol at November 28, 2004 02:17 PM | TrackBackTechnorati Tags:
While there SHOULD be a realinment towards the Democrats, that presupposes the Dems would shift to the center. HOWEVER, the real leaders of the Dems are the Old Media guys, and they are not about to compromise. As they work harder to hold the line, they will make things worse.
Posted by: wizard61 at November 28, 2004 03:26 PMDick Morris has been arguing for years that, demographically, a Democratic realignment is bound to happen. The fact that it hasn't, and the fact that they've been beaten so handily in all branches of government, must really speak to where that party is ideologically right now.
Posted by: Dorian at November 28, 2004 05:54 PM
"EDM is also still arguing that Bush doesn't have a mandate because the polls show only a slight majority approve of him as president"
The reason that Bush's approval rating is only 55% is that many Americans think that Bush is not conservative enough. They are dissatisfied with Bush because:
1. He has increased spending instead of reducing it.
2. He has not decreased the size of government.
If you add in dissatisfied conservatives, Bush's approval rating would be well over 60%.
That does not bode well for the Democrat's future unless they want to become the party of small government.
Posted by: Jake at November 28, 2004 11:01 PMI second what Dorian said. There are many people in blue and puple states who are urban, who work in traditionally Democratic industries, and who do not believe that the Bible is the literal word of God. Combined with the Liberal Left, they constitute a majority in the US.
Ideologically, the Dems are bankrupt. On the marketplace of ideas, there is nothing that can compete with neo-conservatism when it comes to foreign policy. There are simply no serious alternatives.
That doesn't mean the Dems can't win in '08. If the economy is bad, they probably will. If the economy is ok, it will depend on things like terrorist attacks on the US, and on the whole jihad situation. In any case, Dems like Hillary are working on forging a centrist, populist platform, appealing to "common good" and "social justice". Currently, they don't need much ideological capital because of their access to the media, and also because the Reps are in control of both WH and congress: that means, if people are unhappy for whatever reason, it will be easy to blame Republicans, and win. With the global situation being unstable as it is, anything can happen.
To win at the ballot box despite America's slow rightward drift the Democrats don't need "a candidate as charismatic and skilled as Bill Clinton, plus a gangbusters economy and no major foreign policy threat known by the public."
All the Democrats need is for the Republicans to blow it. Let's consider a couple of examples.
Republican governors love to raise taxes, forgetting that that's the major practical voter-impact difference between the two parties. Bush had a tougher time in Ohio this year because the highly unpopular Republican governor has shown himself to be a Gypsy Moth and Republicrat.
You ask, "What if people get tired of the war on terror?" The far greater risk is that the White House will get tired. The administration orchestrated a politically-motivated, disastrous seven-month delay in clearing out the Sunni Triangle, and suffered for it with weak polling numbers that nearly cost the election. Bush's numbers are rising again because we're - finally - starting to get the job done over there... proving that the American people are far more conservative than George Bush will ever be.
Like many in his party George Bush is a Republican, not a conservative. Whenever this factor shows up because the Republicans yield to their apparently uncontrollable, self-destructive urge to shift center-left, or the President secumbs to his political nature and fails to rise to his obligations as Commander in Chief the Republicans are going to get their triangulating asses kicked when the people go to the voting booths.
