Realignment Talk
Big Trunk at Powerline spotlights an essay by Andrew Busch in the new Claremont Review of Books that considers the ascendance of Republicans as America's governing party and wonders where the GOP goes from here. His conclusion: Depends on the choices Republicans make, decisions the Democrats make, and events.
Back when I was writing editorials for a living, one of the rules was to never end an editorial with "Time will tell." There's an equivalency here somewhere.
I believe we can be a little more adventurous than that. Comparing 2004 to 1964, there are reasons to believe that Republicans are better situated to remain in the majority. Get back to me in 2044 if this doesn't work out.
The Guy at the Top
George W. Bush now, Lyndon Johnson then. GWB has done more party-building in both Texas and the United States than any national figure in memory, possibly excepting Newt Gingrich. When Bush was elected governor of Texas -- only the second Republican governor since Reconstruction -- Democrats held all other statewide offices and both houses of the Legislature. When he left, Republicans held all statewide offices and both houses of the Legislature. That Busch (the professor's) "rolling realignment" continued in 2004 instead of petering out is largely GWB's doing. Bush has added Republicans to the party.
Under Lyndon Johnson, civil rights strife and the Vietnam War set elements of the Democratic coalition at each others' throats. Hawks v. doves, segregationists v. blacks, students v. the establishment.
Republicans are much more likely than Democrats to hold a common set of beliefs. It isn't a party subdivided by coalitions. That argues against its splintering.
The Bigger They Are...
With the nation as closely divided as it is today, it takes some work to understand just how big the Democratic Party was. Barry Goldwater pointed the way forward for Republicans in 1964, but he didn't say the road went through the desert. His landslide loss left Republicans with just 140 House seats, down from 176 in the previous Congress. After a few good election cycles they crashed again with Watergate. The Congress Jimmy Carter got to work with in 1977 had a Democratic majority in the House of 292-143. In the Senate, the margin was 61 to 38. That's just out-and-out massive.
It wasn't until 1994 that a lasting GOP congressional majority arrived. But after 10 years, Republicans still haven't got that important 60th Senate seat. Their margin in the House, at 232-201, is more than 60 seats shy of the Democrats' high-water mark.
Republicans have a majority, but I don't think they have the strength to overreach. There's nothing like Vietnam or civil rights tearing at the country. National Review recently headlined illegal immigration as a potential party-breaker, but the margins in Congress are so small that I think this is one initiative at which President Bush will fail.
The bigger cloud on the horizon, I think, is Social Security: Long-term, change is inevitable. But whoever bites the bullet and fixes the problem may be hurt. It means extremely large doses of debt, budget cuts or tax increases, or all three. Here again, I think a lot of Republicans will vote to wait: This will be a crisis someday, but not yet. If it's a losing proposition, might as well put it off.
Another point that argues for a stable majority, though: Big swings in Congress used to be rather common. But because of the way redistricting works these days -- one man-one vote, with computers identifying party strength down to the census block level -- the number of competitive House seats has diminished to perhaps 30 nationwide. No more 50-seat swings, absent a meltdown.
Who's on the Bench?
Democrats have a personnel problem. Republicans don't.
Of all the Democrats who ran for president last year, only two or three were even plausible candidates. And they settled on a senator from Massachusetts. In 2008, the conventional wisdom is that they'll nominate a senator from New York.
There's a bunch of Republican senators who want to be president: McCain, Hagel, Allen, Frist, etc. Why they think they can get elected from the Senate is beyond me. But the GOP also has Rudy Guiliani and lots of governors waiting in the wings. The governor of Florida would be perfect if his last name weren't Bush.
Down the ticket, it seems like Republicans aren't having the problems they used to have recruiting good candidates for office. As long as they can keep feeding state legisators into the pool, they'll be in good shape.
And the party's strong at the grass roots: Volunteer activity last November was unbelievable.
What'll it take?
If you're a Democrat, I feel your pain. I was a Republican in Texas before it turned red. But you must be thinking, "What do we have to do to beat these guys?"
Here's the fact of the matter: Republicans are philosophically where the American majority is. You want to win, that's where you have to go. You can start by making choices within your own party. You can be the party of Barbara Boxer, shrill and dishonest in her treatment of Condi Rice. Or you can be the party of Diane Feinstein, who introduced Rice to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Both Democrats. Both from California. Both women. But with a world of difference between them.
I don't see the Republican Party breaking up. They'll lose their majority when the Democrats move right or the country moves left. The country seems disinclined to move, and I see that Michael Moore has been nominated for yet another award.
Back when I was writing editorials for a living, one of the rules was to never end an editorial with "Time will tell." There's an equivalency here somewhere.
I believe we can be a little more adventurous than that. Comparing 2004 to 1964, there are reasons to believe that Republicans are better situated to remain in the majority. Get back to me in 2044 if this doesn't work out.
The Guy at the Top
George W. Bush now, Lyndon Johnson then. GWB has done more party-building in both Texas and the United States than any national figure in memory, possibly excepting Newt Gingrich. When Bush was elected governor of Texas -- only the second Republican governor since Reconstruction -- Democrats held all other statewide offices and both houses of the Legislature. When he left, Republicans held all statewide offices and both houses of the Legislature. That Busch (the professor's) "rolling realignment" continued in 2004 instead of petering out is largely GWB's doing. Bush has added Republicans to the party.
Under Lyndon Johnson, civil rights strife and the Vietnam War set elements of the Democratic coalition at each others' throats. Hawks v. doves, segregationists v. blacks, students v. the establishment.
Republicans are much more likely than Democrats to hold a common set of beliefs. It isn't a party subdivided by coalitions. That argues against its splintering.
The Bigger They Are...
With the nation as closely divided as it is today, it takes some work to understand just how big the Democratic Party was. Barry Goldwater pointed the way forward for Republicans in 1964, but he didn't say the road went through the desert. His landslide loss left Republicans with just 140 House seats, down from 176 in the previous Congress. After a few good election cycles they crashed again with Watergate. The Congress Jimmy Carter got to work with in 1977 had a Democratic majority in the House of 292-143. In the Senate, the margin was 61 to 38. That's just out-and-out massive.
It wasn't until 1994 that a lasting GOP congressional majority arrived. But after 10 years, Republicans still haven't got that important 60th Senate seat. Their margin in the House, at 232-201, is more than 60 seats shy of the Democrats' high-water mark.
Republicans have a majority, but I don't think they have the strength to overreach. There's nothing like Vietnam or civil rights tearing at the country. National Review recently headlined illegal immigration as a potential party-breaker, but the margins in Congress are so small that I think this is one initiative at which President Bush will fail.
The bigger cloud on the horizon, I think, is Social Security: Long-term, change is inevitable. But whoever bites the bullet and fixes the problem may be hurt. It means extremely large doses of debt, budget cuts or tax increases, or all three. Here again, I think a lot of Republicans will vote to wait: This will be a crisis someday, but not yet. If it's a losing proposition, might as well put it off.
Another point that argues for a stable majority, though: Big swings in Congress used to be rather common. But because of the way redistricting works these days -- one man-one vote, with computers identifying party strength down to the census block level -- the number of competitive House seats has diminished to perhaps 30 nationwide. No more 50-seat swings, absent a meltdown.
Who's on the Bench?
Democrats have a personnel problem. Republicans don't.
Of all the Democrats who ran for president last year, only two or three were even plausible candidates. And they settled on a senator from Massachusetts. In 2008, the conventional wisdom is that they'll nominate a senator from New York.
There's a bunch of Republican senators who want to be president: McCain, Hagel, Allen, Frist, etc. Why they think they can get elected from the Senate is beyond me. But the GOP also has Rudy Guiliani and lots of governors waiting in the wings. The governor of Florida would be perfect if his last name weren't Bush.
Down the ticket, it seems like Republicans aren't having the problems they used to have recruiting good candidates for office. As long as they can keep feeding state legisators into the pool, they'll be in good shape.
And the party's strong at the grass roots: Volunteer activity last November was unbelievable.
What'll it take?
If you're a Democrat, I feel your pain. I was a Republican in Texas before it turned red. But you must be thinking, "What do we have to do to beat these guys?"
Here's the fact of the matter: Republicans are philosophically where the American majority is. You want to win, that's where you have to go. You can start by making choices within your own party. You can be the party of Barbara Boxer, shrill and dishonest in her treatment of Condi Rice. Or you can be the party of Diane Feinstein, who introduced Rice to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Both Democrats. Both from California. Both women. But with a world of difference between them.
I don't see the Republican Party breaking up. They'll lose their majority when the Democrats move right or the country moves left. The country seems disinclined to move, and I see that Michael Moore has been nominated for yet another award.
posted by Karl Maher at 11:22 AM
<< Home