Balkinization  

Monday, October 30, 2006

Can the Republicans Gain a Lasting Majority?

JB

The key sentence in this premature requiem for Karl Rove's political influence in the Republican Party is the last one, in which Rove states matter of factly that the fate of the conservative movement does not stand or fall on the results of the 2006 elections: "1938 was a huge wipeout for the Democrats -- do you think that was the end of the New Deal?"

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.


Comments:

In answer to the question which headlines your post, Professor, the answer is clearly, "We hope not." Or, at least, to the extent that by "Republican" we mean this adminstration which has done so much damage to the institutions of our nation in the pursuit of a sham of "justice" against the murderers of nine-one-one, we must hope not. Hard to believe this is "the party of Lincoln." That tremor you feel is no doubt Honest Abe spinning in his grave.
 

There has been a center-right (although not always an Elephant) majority in this country at the Presidential level since Reagan and overall since 1994. The party realignment just took longer than the ideological one.

If the Donkeys manage a tiny majority over the Elephants in the next House (the Senate is a lost cause for you), it will be because of about a dozen Donkeys are running as conservatives as Brian observed in the post below.

It is instructive that the Donkey running in my deep red district around Colorado Springs refuses to even identify himself as a Democrat. In a radio debate yesterday, he ran from the term "liberal" like a scalded cat and kept comparing himself to Reagan.

My friends, the candidate closest to your leftist views listed in the blog above is Ned Lamont. Lamont will be thrashed in a deep blue state by a supporter of the Iraq War.

Don't confuse traditional 6th year weariness with the party in power with some sort of an ideological realignment.

Indeed, if you want to save yourself yet another cycle of heartbreak, I would not assume that the Donkeys are even taking the house. The media polls consistently oversample Donkey respondents who never show up at the polls. I see no evidence in actual voting in special elections and primaries of increased Donkey turnout. In contrast, the Elephant GOTV effort seems to be at or above 2004 levels. Early and absentee voting, which Elephants disproportionately use, is up from previous elections. If the media polls keep tightening, the Elephant GOTV effort will most likely add 3-5 points onto what the Elephant candidate is getting in the final media polls make this a status quo election.

If I had to guess, the Elephants will lose 8-12 seats in the House and 2-3 in the Senate. If either Guliani or McCain run as the GOP candidate in 2008, the GOP should recover all of those losses.
 

The Republican party will never enjoy an age of dominance like the Democrats enjoyed during the New Deal era or the Great Society era. And the reason is simple: the policies the Republican party supports aren't good ones. They are, for the most part, bad ideas that are doomed to crash against the shores of reality sooner or later. That will make it very difficult to for the GOP to sustain any lasting majority.
 

Third world war: please your stuf on you own blog and don't pollute this thread by cutting and pasting illegible stuff (particularly when it is your own).
 

CNN did a poll recently asking people about their policy preferences and a sizable majority still followed the Reagan principles of limited government. Indeed, the GOPs current problems very likely has far more to do with the conservative majority's irritation at the Elephants spending like drunken Donkeys over the past 6 years rather than any resurgence of 60s style liberalism.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/27/
poll.government/index.html
 

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.

Dubya "hit the trifecta". There should have been no one more happy with the events of 9/11/2001 -- excepting Osama himself -- than Dubya and Rove. A perfect vehicle for their partisan political machinations. They must have wondered how they could be so blessed. Unfortunately for them, their eyes were bigger than their stomachs, and they haven't been able to handle the surfeit of riches presented them; despite their desires, they've mucked things up so badly it's difficult for even the most apathetic to not take notice of their incompetence and underhandedness. Their remaining supporters just pretend not to notice....

Cheers,
 

"Bart" Dealma says:

It is instructive that the Donkey running in my deep red district around Colorado Springs refuses to even identify himself as a Democrat.

Colorado Springs? <*cue Monty Python*> "Say no more, say no more." It seems "Bart" is of the considered opinion, validated by his day-to-day experiences, that Colorado Springs is just a microcosm, a miniature of the True United States of America. The Democrat there doesn't stand a "prayer" (so to speak), but that's not where the tide has turned ... yet.

Cheers,
 

"Bart" DePalma:

My friends, the candidate closest to your leftist views listed in the blog above is Ned Lamont. Lamont will be thrashed in a deep blue state by a supporter of the Iraq War.

Oh, you mean "Holy" Joe>!?!?! The guy who's spending his remaining advertising trying to insist that he's always been against the war and critical of the preznit?

Cheers,
 

"Bart" DePalma says:

I see no evidence in actual voting in special elections and primaries of increased Donkey turnout....

NP. Remember that "Bart", with his Amazing RepublicVision™ glasses on, can see things we can't see ... and therefore also doesn't see the things that we see that get blocked by the amazing sights he does see ... you know, like the Schmidt/Hackett special election? In fact, "Bart" also "saw" that DailyKos was "0 for 20" in candidates they had been backing.... Those glasses are miraculous!

Cheers,
 

Post a Comment

Older Posts
Newer Posts
Home