Can the Republicans Gain a Lasting Majority?

JB

The comparison speaks volumes about what Rove and Bush are attempting: a fundamental realignment of American politics that will create a conservative Republican majority for a generation. In this analogy, 2000 is to 1932 as 2004 is to 1936, and as 2006 might be to 1938. But there is one important difference between the two time periods. Democrats won by landslides in 1932 and 1936, racking up sizeable majorities in the House and the Senate. They lost some ground in 1938-- in part due to unpopularity over court packing, in part due to a deteriorating economy-- but they did not lose control of either house of Congress. And in 1940 Roosevelt was elected to an unprecedented third term, while maintaining sizeable Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. Similarly, during the heyday of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, the Democrats not only controlled all the branches of government, they also controlled both houses of Congress by decisive margins.

To make the lasting kinds of changes that Bush and Rove seek, the Republicans need to gain a significant majority of American voters over a sustained period. They have not managed to do that yet.

There have been no Republican landslides for the Presidency since the 1980s, or for Congress since 1994. Since 1994 they have never had more than 232 seats in the House, or 55 seats in the Senate. (After the 1964 elections, the Democratic numbers were 295 and 68, respectively; after the 1936 election they were an astonishing 334 and 76-- with a smaller House and Senate!)

Even in the current six years of one party government, the Republicans have never enjoyed the sheer power that liberal Democrats had when they transformed American society during the New Deal and the Civil Rights Revolution. (Indeed, to put it another way, even after their losses in 1938 the Democrats had larger majorities in both the House and the Senate than the Republicans have ever had in their most *successful* years since 1994: 262 seats in the House, 69 seats in the Senate. Rove may call that a "huge wipeout" for the Democrats, but I'll bet he'd be delighted to have Republican majorities that large.) In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan was checked by a Democratic-controlled Congress. When the Republicans tried to dominate American politics after the 1994 elections (with considerably smaller majorities than the Democrats enjoyed during the New Deal and the Civil Rights Revolution), they were beaten back by Clinton in the government shutdown showdown. When they sought to impeach Clinton, they failed to remove him and even lost seats in the 1998 elections.

Repeatedly the conservative movement has tried to achieve the hegemonic status that the Democratic Party enjoyed during the 1930s and then briefly during the 1960s-- significantly altering assumptions of government and constitutionalism. Each time they have come close, they have either been stopped or have stumbled due to self-inflicted wounds.

Rove may have hoped that the 2000 and 2004 elections would be the beginnings of a fundamental transformation like the New Deal and the Civil Rights Revolution. But 2000 wasn't a landslide-- Bush didn't even win a popular majority, and 2004 was a moderately close contest. And things haven't turned out exactly as Rove hoped since the 2004 election. Even so, Rove is correct that what happens in 2006 won't necessarily settle things once and for all. If Bush had been turned out of office in 2004, that would tell a very different story. But a loss in mid-year elections in 2006 doesn't necessarily spell the end of the Republican Revolution.

Much depends on whether the Republicans can successfully recreate a National Security/Values Coalition, find a movement conservative to win the Presidency decisively in 2008, regain Congress by significant margins, and grow those margins over time, just as the Democrats did in the 1930's. If they can do all of these things, then Rove's plan will be vindicated. But that means that we won't know whether Rove's plan succeeds for many years.

Rove may know something about the 2006 elections that everyone else doesn't. Or he may be counting on 2008 to provide the landslide victory that will cement a Republican majority for a generation. If Iraq continues the way it has been, this does not seem likely. But politics has a way of changing very quickly in a very short period of time. On September 10th, 2001, the Bush Presidency seemed stalled. A day later, it had new life and a new set of political goals-- fighting the War on Terror-- that it had every reason to believe would unite the Republican Party and finally carry it to a permanent majority.