Get Ready for a Democratic Era

[cali]

By John B. Judis and Ruy Teixeira
Sunday, December 23, 2007; Page B01

Karl Rove's grandest aspiration was to create a Republican majority that would dominate American politics for a generation or more. But as the effects of his distinctive brand of fear-mongering fade, it's the Democrats who are poised to become the country's majority party -- and perhaps for a long time to come.

Many conservatives have insisted that the Democrats' wins in the 2006 midterm elections, as well as their recent pickups in some 2007 races, were mere blips. They wish. Political, ideological, demographic and economic trends are all leading toward durable Democratic majorities in Congress, control of most statehouses and, very possibly, the end of the decades-old GOP hammerlock on the electoral college.

This sea change is the result of the electorate's disenchantment with conservative Republicans, beginning in the 1990s. The old conservative majority, as given voice by Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich, sought to cut federal regulation, to privatize government operations and to slash social spending. But by late in Bill Clinton's presidency, broad public majorities had come to back environmental and consumer regulation, as well as significant new government spending on health care and education. As President Bush discovered in 2005, the public also disliked attempts to gut Social Security.


Moreover, much of the electorate had grown leery of the GOP's fervent identification with the religious right. As early as 1992, mainstream voters were turned off by Pat Buchanan's nasty, divisive "culture war" speech at the Republican National Convention. Attempts by religious conservatives to stop teaching evolution and funding human stem-cell research spurred a widespread backlash, even in states such as Kansas, which Democrats had given up for dead.

<snip>


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/21/AR2007122101415.html

[TwilightGardener]

1. Good stuff! Giving it a rec.

[Mojambo]

2. Corporatist or non-corporatist seating? n/t

[cali]

3. this is a meta article by two excellent

analysts- and progressives. It's about the environment we find ourselves in. I think it bodes well for creating a more progressive congress.

[pinto]

4. Thanks for the post. Good political analysis on the state of American electoral politics.

I think they've got a number of good points - especially on how national races are won or lost - and the shift in demographics, political POV's - especially Republican pet wedge issues and privatization - and numerous states' trend to Democrats over Republicans.

[cali]

7. happy to have posted it.

I think they're spot on. and it's great to read something like this.

Merry Christmas, Pinto.

[Olney Blue]

5. This is good news, but there is a cautionary tale as well.

The republicans grew "fat and happy" anticipating prolonged power- look what happen.

I also worry about the effect of another terrorist attack.

[Joe Fields]

6. that would be all well and good, if we had a two party system, with

one party actually behaving as though they had an idealogical difference to the other party.

[cali]

8. this provides the environment to build a better democratic

majority, and it will help progressives to mount agressive runs- as well as emboldening progressives in Congress already, over the next few years.

[Joe Fields]

17. It can be done, Cali, and I live to see the day.

We have a rare and great opportunity to make it happen. I just hope the dem leadership doesn't blow this golden opportunity. Right this moment, I wouldn't place my money on them.

[pinto]

11. I think we *do* have big ideological differences with the Republicans.

We, as a party, remain on the whole in favor of:

Government oversight and its proactive role in health, environmental, regulatory and taxation issues.

- as opposed to Republican support of increased privatization, relaxed environmental oversight, abandoning the regulatory role of the federal government and maintaining tax loopholes for those most able to support same.

An independent and equal balance of powers among the three federal branches.

- as opposed to the unitary executive stand of the current administration.

A participatory role in international affairs, based on dialog, diplomacy and mutual respect for world opinion.

- as opposed to pre-emptive foreign policy, undermining of international relationships and treaties and a disregard for our historical role in world affairs.

The right to vote, free of manipulative encumbrances.

- as opposed to broad, blatant barriers to voter participation.

Equality in the workplace.

- as opposed to draconian standards for redress.

Unions.

as opposed to the constant RW drumbeat for privatization.

To name a few...

[Joe Fields]

18. The party rank and file do. The leadership doesn't.

They talk a good game, but the end result is no different than the repubs.

[pinto]

20. And, we rank and file remain the voters that elect our representatives.

I disagree that the end result is no different then the repubs, yet agree - we can elect *more* Dems to have a greater voice for us in Congress and take the White House in '08.

[Enrique]

16. that's the way I thought when I voted for Nader

all the people telling me I was wasting my vote, I thought they were fools. I thought I was so fucking smart. Pretty soon after Bush started stealing the election, I was like duh, I'm the idiot.

[KG]

9. wishful thinking.

the neo-cons will still be ones really running things, behind the scenes, just like they did during the clinton years.

[cali]

13. yes, you really provided a thorough rebuttal to

the piece. Not. And the line about the neocons running things behind the scenes during the Clinton years, is nonsense. His foreign policy was not reflective of such a claim.

[KG]

15. wasn't meant to be a rebuttal.

it's the truth, wheather you want to admit it to yourself or not.

[cali]

19. bwahahaha

it's not a fact. it's opinion. It's your "truth", not the truth.

[KG]

23. some of us were actually paying attention during the 90's. and still are.

but feel free to find comfort in your dem party fairy tales.

[pinto]

21. I don't think so, honestly. From foreign policy to domestic affairs I think the

points made in the article are largely on point. The tide is turning.

[Snarkoleptic]

10. Rest not on yer laurels...there is still plenty of work to be done.

I hear a lot of 'If xxxxx doesn't get the Dem. nomination, I'm staying home next November".
I'm for John Edwards, but I'll vote D next November as any one of us is better than any one of the regressives.
Like they say, "vote your heart in the primary and your party in the general.".

[brazos121200]

12. This is great article. The demographic constituencies that

tend to support the Democrats is growing, while the constituencies that tend to support the repubs are shrinking. This has been the case for about 15 years now. Presidential elections have been relatively close in recent years, close enough for the repubs tosteal the last two elections, but htis should be coming to an end soon. As the Democrat's constituencies grow it will be harder and harder for repubs to retain control over the political landscape. Middle America is tired of the lies and moral degeneracy of the republicans and have had about enough. Recent congressional and gubernatiorial elections since the 2006 general election confirm this shift in American politics. This is not to say that the Democrats can't blow it. They could, especially if they don't unite in Congress and quit buckling under to the republican minority. The Democrats have a golden opportunity to retake the hearts and minds of the American people, and I hope and believe they can do it.

[pinto]

22. I agree. Well said.

:kick:

[ulysses]

14. heard that call in '92.

This time, I think I'll respond by stoking the fires under our Dems, not letting them go out.

[dysfunctional press]

24. don't count on it...not while we're still in the 'corporate era'.

and after all, like the article kinda points out- the gop was all set for a "republican era".

absolute power corrupts BOTH sides of the aisle.

[pinto]

25. I don't honestly think Dems are as focused on 'absolute power'

as the Rovian brigade, intent on a generation of Republican mismanagement of the government.

I see your point, in that the article posits a long term Democratic majority in Congress, the WH and State governments - yet I don't think our majority will look like the (R) majority of recent history, or act as they did to undermine basic fundamentals, manipulate the political process or play the blatant smoke 'n mirrors game this administration has.