|
As things do sometimes, a lot of threads of meaning suddenly hit the saturation point and crystalized in my mind. I'm not ready to go to the wall on this prediction, because there are too many variables and the pace of change is far too fast to factor with any kind of accuracy, but I do think this is a likely path for the future:
The GOP will die. No more "Republican Party." There will be a token GOP for a while, that will run token candidates, probably representing the furthest-out millenialist nutjob fringe, but that, too, will gradually fade away and die as they realize there is not enough support to maintain a viable party machine for such limited gains. Here's how it will happen, roughly: The Big Money folks who pull the strings are well aware that 2008 is more or less of a writeoff as far as the national offices go. Check where their cash is going-- the flow is shifting again, a large stream diverging back into Dem coffers to buy them the access they need after the 2008 election.
But, because their true ideological home is the GOP and they will always feel more comfortable in the leather-covered armchairs in the Club smoking rooms, they want to maintain as much of a foothold as they can in the political mix. Their money will be selectively targeted at a comparatively small, but key, group of contests --some House and Senate seats, but mostly State and local elected officials in key areas in key states. They are hoping that these races can stay off the radar screen, or at least under the cover of the noise of the big races, and that they won't be too badly affected by the anti-GOP tide. They are also, of course, planning a fair number of closely-targeted illegalities and dirty tricks to decide what they still believe will be close contests in key races.
They are going to be stunned by the magnitude of their failure. There are going to be FAR fewer "close" races than they now imagine, and very few indeed that will be close enough for them to steal undetected. Many, perhaps most, of their carefully-selected fair-haired boys and girls in those supposedly low-profile races are going to end up as very costly defeats. And the margins of Democratic victory are going to be much greater than their worst fears.
They will write this off to a short-term backlash, and hope that 2010 and 2012 will see a resurgence of GOPpie viability.
They will also hedge their bets; that is, they will begin making terms with key interests in the Democratic Party. They will look to extend their power base here, even if it means some short-term losses in the regulatory arena, and the weakening of the cheap-labor paradise they've enjoyed for so long. They'll put on their happy faces and fund research into alternative energy technology, play 'green-minded good citizens' for awhile, and quietly move their most important investments offshore.
As the next two or three election cycles reflect the long-term demographic shift and the sustained distaste of the electorate for a GOP increasingly abandoned by all but the nuttiest extremists, they will stop trying to prop up the GOP at all, and go with Plan B.
Plan B is the takeover of the Democratic Party and the sustained pressure to achieve two goals that are a bit tricky because they tend to work against each other: One goal ("A") is to sideline the moderates, soothe them back to sleep, make them happy with what the Big Money interest is doing under the cover of "Democratic" policies and candidates. The other goal ("B") is to shove the more left-ideological elements of the Democratic Party out of the Party altogether, to form a new opposition party that will absorb left-leaning discontent, make plenty of public noise, even win a few races, but not develop any potent opposition power.
This will mean that the Democratic Party will replace the GOP, and the new party will have to replace the Democratic Party.
This will be quite a balancing act, because some of the things they will have to do to achieve Goal A will inhibit them from doing what they must to achieve Goal B, and some of the most effective and obvious tactics for achieving Goal B will interfere with their efforts to achieve A. The two goals are not, however, mutually exclusive and it is entirely possible that they will succeed. If they do, the left will face a period of at least two or three decades of political impotence even greater than what we have experienced over the last thirty-five years.
It is possible that the left would ultimately emerge as a stronger, more purposeful and more effective force at the end of that period, but not by any means certain. And in the interval, Big Money will have created a new 'normal' that will be solidly institutionalized. It will include elements of concession to the middle --possibly even some halfbaked version of National Health, and some new energy technologies-- in an effort to restore some of the economic security necessary for the middle's sound sleep. They will velvet-wrap the chains, in other words. (The middle just loves velvet-- so much classier than cotton chenille.) It will represent a status quo that will be very challenging for the left to alter.
I think a better scenario would be for the Democratic Party to accommodate the Big Money only minimally, and keep up a relentless counter-pressure that will ultimately force them to form their OWN new opposition party to replace the GOP. This will entail a concession of power and money that will impair the Democratic Party's effectiveness somewhat, and make it much less of a "sure thing" in swing districts. Our agenda will suffer greater dilution based on the continuing involvement of centrists and even old-style conservative Dems, but in the long run, it will keep greater leverage on the left than letting ourselves be shoved out to form a "pure" leftward party.
It could go either way. Right now, the first scenario (takeover of the Dems by the Big Money, splintering off a new leftward Party) looks a tad more likely to me, but I don't think it's by any means a foregone conclusion. Especially if we look clearly and strategically at these options, and make a calculating decision about how to meet the various contingencies that will occur over the next eight years.
presciently, Bright
|