Fantastic BooMan post on the coming political realignment--will Dem

[milkyway]

voters pass up this historic opportunity?

____________________

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2008/2/7/165429/5254

<snip>

This is certainly how former Bush speechwriter David Frum (subscription) sees things moving.

The conservative ascendancy in American politics is coming to an end...

<snip>

In 2002, equal numbers of Americans identified as Republicans and Democrats. In the six years since, Republican identification has collapsed back to the level recorded before Ronald Reagan. The decline has been steepest among young voters. If they eat right, exercise and wear seatbelts, today's 20-somethings will be voting against George W. Bush deep into the 2060s. Most ominously, US polls show an ideological sea change: a desire for a more activist government, a loss of interest in the tax question and a shift to the left on most social issues (although not, interestingly, abortion).

As things are going, the Democratic nominee will win a majority of the votes cast (unlike Mr Clinton). They will almost certainly gain an increased majority in Congress (unlike Mr Carter). If the present mood lasts, that nominee will have a green light to move the US in new policy directions (unlike either Mr Clinton or Mr Carter).

The stage has been set for the boldest and most dramatic redirection of US politics since Reagan's first year in office.

Of course, Frum has just described the experience of every progressive/Democrat over the last 38 years (just coincidentally, this exactly corresponds to my entire life). Whether we have been in power or out of power, we have not had the initiative on policy since Lyndon Johnson's presidency succumbed to the violence in Vietnam.

But we're on the cusp of a new progressive era. I will do another piece soon that looks at the differential turnout in the respective primaries of the Democratic and Republican parties, and how that turnout might cause a tsunami in the House and Senate races. I won't know all the details until I dig into the data, but I can say with some confidence that if Barack Obama is our nominee we will stand an excellent chance of wiping out several Republican senators that most people consider to be safe. And we'll also wipe out no small amount of seemingly safe House members, too.

The nomination of Hillary Clinton will probably eliminate any chance to beat those safe senators, although big House gains are still possible because most of the vulnerable House seats are in the Northeast or Upper Midwest. But it will much harder to expand the field of vulnerable House seats with Clinton as the nominee because she has such high negatives, particularly in areas currently held by Republican representatives.

When you are considering which candidate has the better health care plan, or housing plan, or whatever, please remember that a realigning election changes everything. Imagine what FDR could have accomplished with a 1928 Congress. Almost nothing. But with a 1932 Congress he gave us the New Deal. It matters a lot more whether our nominees can bring in a tsunami of new congresspeople than whether they have a slightly better policy paper on education reform. We should dare to think big. And, because almost all of us have no memory of living in a country with a progressive ruling majority, we simply cannot dream big enough. In my opinion, Clintonism, the Democratic Leadership Council, triangulation, or whatever you want to call it, is a philosophy for an era of conservative dominance, and it is wholly inappropriate for the times we are about to enter into. In fact, it may be the only thing that can prevent a new progressive era from arriving at all.

____________________

In a DU post last week I discussed some of these issues:

The tug-of-war between democrats and republicans has been fought in recent years within a center-right political box that has been in place since the presidency of Ronald Reagan. Before Reagan's presidency, the national political discussion was more to the left than it is today. Through his courting of so-called Reagan democrats, Reagan moved the political playing field to the right, and President Clinton had to operate within the confines of that box. If Clinton had come along before Reagan, he would have been a much more progressive president. It has been argued that John Kerry in 2004 ran to the right of Richard Nixon in 1972. That's how far right our country has drifted.

Barack Obama was right when he said that Reagan had a more transformative effect than Clinton. The Clinton presidency was affected and constrained by the Reagan presidency, resulting in many progressives being angry with the more pragmatic Clinton; the bush junior presidency has certainly felt no constraints placed on it by the Clinton presidency. Barack Obama is highly aware of this repositioning of our national politics, and one of his goals is to reposition the playing field back to the left. He said several years ago that he wants to reverse the rightward drift of our nation.

<snip>

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4307302

[The_Casual_Observer]

1. It's just as likely that Obama would get the Jimmy Carter treatment

[Benhurst]

2. True; but that is also true for Hillary.

This may be another 1928. No matter who is elected, one of ours or McCain, it's very possible he or she is being set up to be another Herbert Hoover.

The Bush chickens are coming home to roost.

[many a good man]

3. I completely agree

An electoral realignment is in the wind and our task is to pick the candidate who will best ensure its passage. Both candidates carry great promise and great risk. It is refreshing to find a post like yours that addresses this issue directly.

Several years ago I dreamed of finding a candidate that will sweep me off my feet. I'm too cynical and hardened for Obama to have that affect on me but he is obviously doing it to millions of others. Millions of Democrats and non-Democrats. The media is giving him a free ride. His charisma allows him to speak over the right wing army of pundits, attack dogs, and flacks. He can remove the tarnish from the word "liberal" and make it shine again.

Obama is the one most capable of nurturing a "movement."

[milkyway]

4. The word "movement" is the key. JFK's policies might not have been very liberal, but

the optimism he gave so many young people helped nurture a movement that brought dramatic progressive change in the following years.

I cannot imagine the word "movement" being associated with Hillary. I remember seeing a poll months ago where 41% of the country said there was no way they could ever vote for her. The irrational Hillary-hating of much of the country will prevent any dramatic progressive change from taking place. There's a reason most of the Dem politicians from the moutain and plains states are supporting Obama. Hillary is toxic in that region and putting her on the ticket will kill the progress we've made in Congress and at local levels.

Of course, any time you create a movement those that oppose you will call you a cult. :)

[housewolf]

5. Hmmm.... very interesting!

I had a political "awakening" in 19992 that caused me to work on Jerry Brown's presidential campaign. In the fall, as Clinton was debating GHW Bush and Ross Perot, I took a political science course at a local college. This post reminded me of something the instructor said...

Which is that throughout our history there has been an ongoing swing of conthe pendulum between right and left that is cyclic, and that these cycles run approximately every 35 - 40 years.

Based on that, the conservative governing philosophy cycle of the late 19th and early 20th century came to an end in 1930 with FDR. That liberal/progressive cycle ran until the late 1960's/early 1970's, giving way to conservatism from that time until now. At this point, it's conservativism has been governing for 40 years (1968 - 2008). Nixon governed in something of a transitional time, blending some conservative ideas (power of the presidency) and some liberal ideas (environmental). There were 2 brief periods of democratic presidencies during that time - Carter and Clinton - but if we are honest with ourselves, we have to admit that, at least during the Clinton administration, conservatism was the governing philosophy (welfare reform, trade agreements, "Contract with America", etc.)

All of which is to say that if you look at it back through history, there is some evidence to support Frum's thesis that we are moving into a new progressive era. Which doesn't mean that conservatives are all running for the hills - no, they're not going to give way with a big fight.