Nearly every thirty years in the United States there is a fundamental realignment of the political system. The last major realignment was 1980, when the Reagan Democrats began the slow tilt towards the GOP, which continued in Congress even while President Clinton occupied the Oval Office.
2002 was the beginning of another major realigning shift in the American electorate.
Michael J. Totten has a list of moderate Democrats who are jumping ship because of the liberal stance on the war on terrorism. They’re saying things like this:
Dean and his supporters simply fail to face up to the unpleasant fact that the Democratic Party has a national security credibility problem that, if not solved, will be politically fatal.
I have made the horrible observation that if you are a classic liberal you are now a Republican. The intolerance, the anti-Semitism, the fascist shutdown of all debate (the current Cal Poly fiasco) make it impossible to be a Democrat.
What happend to the "I’ll defend to the death the right to…."? The Left is a horror show.
Why are the saying such things? Well, the simple answer is because the Democratic Party is tilting towards the extreme left. The reaction to the victory against the Ba’athist oppression of Uday and Qusay Hussein was met by a flood of innuendo and conspiracy theories. Normally this would be the ravings of the extreme left wing – yet now such theories have found themselves being whispered by the mainstream of the Democratic Party.
Caerdroia has some interesting thoughts on this scism. He finds that moderate Democrats are rapidly finding that the Democratic Party is quickly telling them that they are no longer welcome. The attacks by the supporters of Dean against more moderate Democrats such as Joe Lieberman and Dick Gephardt are one symptom of this scism in the Democratic Party.
Caerdroia argues that this could lead to a centrist political party coming up from the ashes. Despite the institutional barriers that would likely prevent such a move, it is possible. Moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans have more in common with each other than moderates have in common with ideologues like Howard Dean or Michael Savage.
The fact remains that this is a time of war for the United States, a time in which our nation remains under attack from the imminent threat of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Beyond the usual partisan political squabbles, moderates realize that winning this war is of primary political importance. The debate in Iraq has had the effect of energizing the Democratic base at the expense of moderates who don’t see George W. Bush as the personification of all that is evil.
At this rate, the Democrats will be a party exclusively of the hard-left, those who want to push for more isolationism, military weakness, and more state control. Those are not issues which have any resonance with an American electorate where 60% are investors and where memories of September 11 are still deeply ingrained. The Democratic Party has so far offered nothing to do those who don’t already believe the Democratic Party line.
At the very least, 2004 will be a repeat of 1972 and 1984 where hard-line ideologues brought the Democratic Party into a tailspin by attacking the President constantly while offering no policies of their own. Possible is that the Democratic Party could self-destruct as moderates jump ship towards a new centrist alliance. Either way, this realignment is a product of the Democrat’s fundamental unwillingness to understand the post-September 11 world. It is this inability that ensures that the left wing of the Democratic Party has nothing to offer the vast majority of the American electorate.
You make a few credible points, but ultimately drown them out in a sea of bad information and silly predictions about the mood of fickle American voters next November that are way too early to make.
Your first piece of bad information was that most of the “Reagan Democrats” all became Republicans over the course of the 80’s and 90’s. In reality, this group went back to the Dems in the 1992, 1996, and 2000 Presidential elections, and save for the 1994 midterms, have stayed with the Democrats in Congressional elections as well. Of course, the South has been trending GOP since 1964, so I don’t consider too many in this group to be “Reagan Democrats”. I always considered the Rust Belt to be ground zero for the Reagan Democrats. States like Michigan and Illinois have been trending Democrat for the past 12 years in both Presidential and Congressional elections, while the increased economic volatility in blue-collar states like Ohio and Pennsylvania is all but certain to lean those swing states away from the party who despises them by nature. California was considered Reagan Democrat country too, and we know where that state’s tendencies have drifted since the 40th President left office.
I think you and Totten drastically overstate the degree to which Democrats are going to abandon their party because of “the post 9-11 world”. Perhaps there are a few people convinced that Bush’s gun-to-your-head foreign policy is the right approach and that Democrats are fools to balk at it, but I think it’s the exception rather than the rule…and the same sorts of people so easily duped into supporting a pre-emptive war agenda will be just as easy to sway back in the fallout of the economic mess that isn’t going away along with Bush’s character and budgetary woes.
I do agree that the public is likely to perceive the Democrats as moving to the far left, even though the reality is that the party is less aligned with the values of modern liberalism than any other point in my lifetime. You are correct that they need a proactive agenda to run on, but that’s being obstructed by Republican schemes to bankrupt government through never-ending tax cuts and increased spending. The Democrats could never come up with a credible funding plan to pay for the things they support moving forward with since the GOP has the nation drowning in red ink as far into the future as we can see.
The Democrats biggest problem is that they can’t condense their layered ideas into good soundbytes that are necessary to win the approval of impatient stupid people, a group that makes up a frighteningly high percentage of the American electorate. Nearly all of the simple ideas coming from the mouths of Republicans can fit on a bumper sticker, making them the obvious choice of so many impatient stupid people who lack the energy or intelligence to listen to Democratic arguments when the GOP promises them rebate checks in the mail as the cure-all to the American economy and regime change of potential enemy states as the cure to terrorism.
"…Bush’s gun-to-your-head foreign policy…"
"…a pre-emptive war agenda…"
"…Republican schemes to bankrupt government through never-ending tax cuts and increased spending…"
"…impatient stupid people, a group that makes up a frighteningly high percentage of the American electorate…"
"…so many impatient stupid people who lack the energy or intelligence to listen to Democratic arguments…"
Guess what, Mark. America has heard Democratic arguments ad nauseam and they know that more government, more taxes, and less national defense doesn’t get anyone anywhere.
Your arguments are the precise reason why the Democratic Party is losing, and deservingly so. Exactly what would someone on the fence politically find attractive about such statements. So far you’ve done nothing but spew Democratic talking points (so much for the deep nuances of liberal ideology…) and then accuse the American electorate of being too stupid to agree with you. Obviously someone lost their copy of How to Win Friends and Influence People. It isn’t that the American electorate is stupid, its that they aren’t buying the DNC party line – and it doesn’t take a genius (or a village) to figure out why.
I think ignorance combind with either apathy, disafection, or rabid patriotism (pick any two) would be a better way to descibe current state of the electorate. However as I’ve stated before, Presidential campaigns seem to be won more by marketing strategy than anything else, and calling your customer an idiot is not a good way to do business, even if it’s true.
This is a discussion board frequented by partisan political junkies, not a campaign advertisement for either party. Monkey just talked about how blue-collar workers choose their line of work because they are content to be poor, which is a telling statement about how the GOP’s core constituency really feels about people who don’t wear a tie to work and whose paychecks are smaller than their own, but is likewise bad PR and not likely to be something even the most labor-hating Republican ideologue would say in a public forum or in campaign mode if they wanted their party to win. Clearly, the people who fit into the category I described would be turned off by my description of them, but would they be turned off even more to find out just how apathetic the GOP is towards their secure existence as evidenced by Monkey’s comments in the thread below?
As I’ve stated before, I wouldn’t do well running for public office since I have a low tolerance for stupidity about issues as important as politics, and would be unable to bottle up my frustration when dealing with the vast supply of halfwits destroying their own livelihood and their children’s by embracing ideas that were discredited a century ago.
Jay, it’s interesting how you mention the Democratic message of more government, more taxes, and less national defense as if those three ideas are somehow mutually exclusive to what the Republicans have in store for America. “More defense” guarantees more government, and even if you run a nation of credit for as long as possible to keep taxes from going up to pay for the increased government and increased defense, the bill has to be paid eventually, and the consequence will be a much higher long-term tax burden than anything the Democrats have in mind for the short-term. I’ll grant you that the GOP has done a good job so far of convincing voters they can have it all, but the numbers are showing up now that discredit the premise that Republican snake oil peddlers sold to the glossy eyed huddled masses(just as they did when they tried this approach before). One can only hope that the second painful lesson on this front will finally convince Americans what the Republican party accomplishes for them and their children, but in many ways it’s already too late.
Monkey just talked about how blue-collar workers choose their line of work because they are content to be poor,
Congratulation. Once again you manage to twist my words. I didn’t say that they are poor because they want to be poor.
I said that they are poor because of the life choices they made.
I brought up my family as an example. Anyone with a will and dedication can start with nothing and end up doing very well in America.
I’ll be waiting for the quote that shows me saying what you claim I said.
Let’s see it, Mark.
Monkey: “People who choose to get ahead – do so. Those who don’t – work blue collar jobs.”
This ethic isn’t just false and discriminatory, it’s stupid. Like most conservatives, you have absolutely no grasp on the concept of division of labor and are fundamentally incapable of comprehending that blue-collar jobs have to be done by somebody regardless of individuals “choosing to get ahead.” The nature of the economy and the nature of humans dictates that it will take more than “hard work” to lift people into six-figure salaries, especially as the GOP-driven economic policy pushes to come up with new ways to suppress wage levels every day.
Anybody who uses their personal experience as a one-size-fits-all example of how the world should work is arrogant and blinded by privilege. There will never be a time when all people can be successful in America. The division of labor dictates that the services of low-skill and medium-skill workers are necessary to fulfill the demands of a functional economy. That instantly nullifies your hard work=pot of gold theory. Enough said.
you have absolutely no grasp on the concept of division of labor and are fundamentally incapable of comprehending that blue-collar jobs have to be done by somebody
I don’t? Ofcourse I do. Where did I say/imply that I don’t? All I am saying is that people are responsible for the choices they make in life. Nothing is wrong with working blue collar. I did so all through high school, and my father worked blue collar for a number of years. You are the one complaining, not I.
The nature of the economy and the nature of humans dictates that it will take more than “hard work” to lift people into six-figure salaries
Note that the only person who is whining about money is you. Not I. Looks like you have contempt for those who are successful. As for more then “hard work”, sure, knowing somebody helps. Being born into a rich family helps, too. But working hard has worked for my family (and our friends)very well. We came here with no money, no language, and nobody here to support us (and I don’t meant just financially). Given that, any person born here already had an edge on us. Hence, your argument fails.
Anybody who uses their personal experience as a one-size-fits-all example of how the world should work is arrogant and blinded by privilege.
What privilege is this? My parents worked long hours and went to a language school after work. After they were finished with their language classes, they took technical classes which helped them get new careers. They struggled and and sacrificed a lot. I didn’t wear $100+ sneakers while getting a free, subsidized lunch at school (like many kids at my high school did). Our money were invested into the future. For you to claim that they got ahead by some kind of “privilege” is to show your contempt for hard work and the results it brings.
Like a C student you resent the fact that somebody else got an A, yet you refuse to study. Your excuse? The teacher hates you, the material is too hard and hey, there’s always something on tv!
we’re all glad you made it. we’ve got to know your story, little by little, and it is really cool. congrats!
But not everyone has the same story. maybe you wouldn’t have worked so hard if your parents hade been drug addicts, or whatever else.
The point is: (as obvious as it is): one size does not fit all (sizes).
But not everyone has the same story. maybe you wouldn’t have worked so hard if your parents hade been drug addicts, or whatever else.
Look, the more strikes you have against you – the harder you have to work. I am not denying that. However, the point stays the same – hard work pays off.