Thursday, November 06, 2008

Is Obama's Election the Herald of a Long-Term Political Realignment?

Republicans Can No Longer Afford to Remain a Right-Wing, White Male-Dominated Party in a Country That's More Centrist and Racially Diverse Than Ever; They Must Expand Their Appeal to a New Generation by Moving Back Toward the Moderate Center and Reaching Out to Non-Whites -- or Else Face a Decade or More Exiled to the Political Wilderness

Sick elephant: The Republicans in 2008 took their worst electoral drubbing since at least the post-Watergate midterm congressional election of 1974, and possibly the Lyndon Johnson landslide of 1964. Conservatives insist that, saddled with a deeply unpopular president in George W. Bush and the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, their massive losses to the Democrats is only temporary and would be reversed as early as 2012. But they're not taking into account the fact that the GOP's electoral base has narrowed significantly and has become too right wing for most Americans -- just as the Democrats' base became too narrow and too left wing a generation ago -- and if the party doesn't move back to the center, the GOP could find itself cast out into the political wilderness for a decade or more. (Image courtesy

(Posted 5:00 a.m. EST Thursday, November 6, 2008)



November 4, 2008, was the day when American politics shifted on its axis.

The ascent of an African-American to the presidency -- a victory by a 47-year-old man who was born when segregation was still the law of the land across much of this nation -- is a moment so powerful and so obvious that its symbolism needs no commentary.

But it was the reality of power, not the symbolism, that changed Tuesday night in ways more profound than meets the eye.

The rout of the Republican Party, and the accompanying gains by Democrats in Congress, mean that Barack Obama will assume office with vastly more influence in the nation’s capital than most of his recent predecessors have wielded.

The only exceptions suggest the magnitude of the moment. Power flowed in unprecedented ways to George W. Bush in the year after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. It flowed likewise to Lyndon B. Johnson after his landslide victory over Barry Goldwater in 1964.

Beyond those fleeting moments, every president for more than two generations has confronted divided government or hobbling internal divisions within his own party.

The Democrats’ moment with Obama, as a brilliant campaigner confronts the challenges of governance, could also prove fleeting. For now, the results -- in their breadth across a continent -- suggest seismic change that goes far beyond Obama's six-percent margin in the popular vote.

The evening recalled what activist Eldridge Cleaver observed of the instant when Rosa Parks refused to move to the back of the bus and a movement followed: “Somewhere in the universe a gear in the machinery shifted.”

Here are five big things about the machinery of national politics and Washington that will be different once Obama takes office on Jan. 20, 2009:


For most of the past 30 years, since the dawn of the Reagan Era, conservatives have held the momentum in American politics. Even the Clinton years were shaped -- and constrained -- by conservative ideas (work requirements for welfare, the Defense of Marriage Act) and conservative rhetoric (“the era of Big Government is over”).

Republicans rode this wave to win the presidency five of seven times since 1980, and to dominate Congress for a dozen years after 1994. Now the wave has crashed, breaking the back of the modern Republican Party in the process.

Obama’s victory and the second straight election to award big gains to congressional Democrats showed that the 2006 election was not, as Karl Rove and others argued at the time, a flukish result that reflected isolated scandals in the headlines at the time.

Republicans lost their reform mantle. Voters who wanted change voted for Obama 89 percent to 9 percent. They lost their decisive edge on national security. They even lost the battle over taxes.

Republicans lost support in every area of the country. Virginia went Democratic, and North Carolina at midnight hung in the balance. Republicans still hold a significant, if smaller, chunk of the South and a smattering of western states. The cities were lost long ago. The suburbs fell last night -- and now even the exurbs are shaky.

Republicans lost one of their most effective political tactics. Portraying Al Gore or John Kerry as exotic and untrustworthy characters with culturally elitist values proved brutally effective for the GOP in 2000 and 2004, as it had in numerous other races for years.

In 2008, such tactics barely dented Obama -- who because of his race and background looked at first like a more vulnerable target -- and they backfired against such candidates as Sen. Elizabeth Dole in North Carolina, who was routed badly after trying to paint Democrat Kay Hagan as an atheist.

The movement that brought so many conservatives to great power over the past 20 years -- Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, Bush, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove -- is left without a clear leader, without a clear agenda and without a clear route back.

The crash of the conservative wave does not necessarily mean the rise of a liberal one. By stressing middle-class tax cuts and the rights of gun owners, Obama showed he is sensitive to hot buttons. But he will take power with the opposition party diminished, demoralized and divided by a draining internal argument about its future.


Many people find Obama’s post-partisan rhetoric soothing. But it’s doubtful that these sentiments, even if sincere, reflect the reality of the new Washington.

This is a city that defines itself by partisanship. Politicians and the operatives they support play for the shirts or the skins and believe that one side’s gain is the other’s loss.

In this environment, Democrats have the capital in a headlock, holding more power at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue than they have had for at least 32 years (Jimmy Carter) and, more realistically, 44 years (Johnson). Obama seems ready to press this advantage.

The best early clue of his ambitions: He wants sharp-elbowed Representative Rahm Emanuel (D-Illinois) to run his White House.

Democrats are positioned to do more than move legislation. They will flush Republicans out of key positions in the federal government and lobbying firms. They will install their own people in the federal courts. They will be positioned -- for the first time in two generations -- to raise money for those who usually give to Republicans and easily recruit the most desirable candidates in 2010, as other Democrats look to join what looks like a winning team.


While Obama’s race hovered over this campaign, what was most striking was that it was not the all-consuming subject that it would have been in the past. Exit polls showed Obama pulling support from 43 percent of white voters, two percentage points higher than Kerry.

And look around elsewhere in American politics. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s gender was a novelty when she first took the gavel but now it draws little notice. Represenative Jim Clyburn (D-South Carolina) is a top member of the House Democratic leadership.

Meanwhile, the Republican Party’s inability to offer more diversity in its top ranks, Sarah Palin notwithstanding, threatens to become a crippling liability. Latinos -- particularly Mexican-Americans alienated by many Republicans' seemingly anti-Latino rhetoric in the immigration debate -- broke for Obama 67 percent to 31 percent.

The party inexplicably failed to field a single non-white candidate with a plausible chance to win a House or Senate seat or a governorship. It will enter the next Congress just as it did the past two: without a single African-American member.

A party dominated by white males -- a fact made painfully obvious at the GOP's convention in Minnesota in September -- is poorly positioned to prosper among an increasingly diverse electorate. Somehow, the GOP needs to find new ways to appeal to non-whites, or else risk a long life in the wilderness as the white percentage of the overall population continues to shrink.


For a couple of generations, conservatives had the more effective political infrastructure. They used direct mail and talk radio to run circles around liberals in raising money and communicating their message around the filter of the establishment media. Some of that money flowed into think tanks that helped nurture ideas and operatives.

This year was striking because the technology/communications advantage was decisively with the Democrats, with their mastery of the Internet. Obama and other Democrats used this to raise vastly more money than McCain and to mobilize legions of people who had not previously been engaged with politics. Liberal think tanks such as the Center for American Progress have served as a Democratic government-in-waiting.

Important to remember: This Democratic infrastructure advantage is not disappearing. Obama, regarded as a heroic figure among party activists, can use it to help raise even more money, and to mobilize support for his agenda. This is a potent force that will inspire fear, and give him unprecedented clout, over legislators of both parties.

Obama is the Google of politics: He has technological expertise and an audience his political competitors simply cannot match. Looking ahead to 2010, House and Senate Democrats will be jealously eyeing Obama’s e-mail lists and technology secrets — giving him even greater leverage over them. Republicans will be forced to invest serious money and time to narrow the technology gap.


For two generations, American politics has been dominated by issues and personalities that were shaped by the ideological and cultural conflicts of the Vietnam era.

The rest of the population may have been bored stiff, but the Baby Boomers -- that forever-polarized generation -- continued their remorseless argument, as evidenced by Bush and Kerry partisans quarreling over Swift Boats and National Guard service in 2004.

Obama -- who will be America's first Generation X president -- had not yet reached adolescence in the 1960s. He seems little interested in the cultural conflicts that preoccupy the Baby Boomers. The fact that he admitted to using cocaine was hardly a factor in this election.

And this young president-elect -- at 47, the fourth-youngest in the nation's history, after Theodore Roosevelt (42) John F. Kennedy (43) and Bill Clinton (46) -- exerted powerful appeal over even younger voters. They favored Obama by 34 percentage points, 66 percent to 32 percent -- a trend with huge potential to echo for years to come.

"Guns, God and gays" will not disappear from our politics. But they are diminished as electoral weapons as the country confronts a new generation of disputes: global warming, mortgage meltdowns and the detention of terrorism suspects, to name a few.

# # #

Volume III, Number 72
Special Report copyright 2008, Capitol News Company, LLC.
The 'Skeeter Bites Report copyright 2008, Skeeter Sanders. All rights reserved.


Sphere: Related Content

Monday, November 03, 2008


With a Record 27 Million Early Votes Already Cast in a History-Making Election, Is America Really Ready to Enter a New Era Tomorrow by Voting In its First-Ever Black President? That's One of Five Major Questions That Won't be Answered Until After the Votes are Tallied

Is America ready to move beyond over two centuries of racial divisions with the election of Barack Obama as its first black president on Tuesday? That is the number-one question on the minds of millions of Americans -- indeed billions of people around the world, for this history-making election is drawing unprecedented international media attention, with election-night coverage expected to draw almost as many television viewers around the planet as the Olympics and the World Cup soccer tournament. (Photo courtesy The Temple News, Temple University, Philadelphia)

(Posted 5:00 a.m. EST Monday, November 3, 2008)


The Boston Globe

While Barack Obama enters the final day of the presidential campaign today (Monday) with a clear lead in the polls -- but not so big as to rule out a surprise victory for John McCain -- the impact of the 2008 presidential campaign will depend not only on who wins, but also on whether the results signify a deeper realignment in American politics.

"We like to tell the election story through the candidates," said Thomas Patterson, a professor at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. "But this time there are larger forces in play."

And while Obama's lead, between three and seven percentage points in most national polls, is big enough to make him the favorite going into Tuesday, the other big questions of the election are all too close to call.


Going down the stretch, McCain is campaigning heavily on Obama's comment that he wants to "spread the wealth." And McCain has even discovered a seven-year-old radio interview suggesting that Obama may believe in "redistributive" economics.

During the heyday of the Democrats' New Deal coalition, which dominated politics from the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932 until the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, the idea of spreading the wealth around was hardly political poison -- it was the backbone of the Democratic Party's economic philosophy. Since 1980 and the "Reagan Revolution," however, using tax policies to redistribute income has been widely viewed as an outmoded approach that chokes off economic growth.

Obama hasn't fully embraced 1960s-style tax-and-spend liberalism, but he hasn't run away from it as much as other Democratic presidential nominees since 1984 have done. Bill Clinton, the most successful Democratic vote-getter of that period, went out of his way to declare that "the era of big government is over," and assure voters that he is a "pro-growth" Democrat who favors "third way" policies.

Obama also touts his policies as pro-growth, but has emphasized that he believes people earning more than $250,000 should bear the brunt of tax increases to cover social initiatives that would disproportionately benefit lower-income people. To the extent that such a mechanism "spreads the wealth," he's in favor of it.

Many observers have noted that Americans want more economic security in their lives, including guaranteed health care, pensions, disaster relief, and improvements to public infrastructure. And the McCain campaign, in a break with Ronald Reagan's creed of smaller government, has called for the government to pay up to $300 billion to buy up home mortgages and chop the monthly payments to reflect diminished home values.

In addition, the McCain proposal that follows the Reagan creed most closely -- his call for extending the Bush tax cuts and adding new cuts of business taxes -- seems to be falling on deaf ears; in recent weeks, the GOP nominee has concentrated more on warning of tax hikes under Obama than touting the benefits of his own tax-cut plan.

David Brooks, the conservative New York Times columnist, has predicted that the economic uncertainty will lead to a Democratic sweep followed by an intensive return to tax-and-spend liberalism. "What we're going to see, in short, is the Gingrich revolution in reverse and on steroids," Brooks wrote last month.

McCain believes that voters still fear the kind of overreach that Brooks predicts. A modest victory for Obama could easily be ascribed to a simple desire for a change, benefiting a candidate who tried to present his policies in modest terms.

A big Obama win, however, could be read as a mandate for just the kind of liberalism that Brooks fears. And it could signal a much longer-term political realignment. The New Deal era and the Reagan Revolution each followed failed presidencies that, fairly or not, are still invoked as cautionary tales -- the Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter administrations. George W. Bush's administration, with record-low approval ratings, may join the list.


On the day of Obama's Democratic nomination acceptance speech -- coincidentally, the 45th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s immortal "I Have a Dream" speech -- tens of thousands of African-Americans, most with children in tow, waited for hours in security lines to enter Denver's Mile High football stadium to celebrate the crowning of the nation's first black presidential nominee of a major American political party.

Despite the football setting, it was more of a church crowd -- uplifted, generous, and full of faith. While some black voters would express concerns for Obama's safety and nervousness about his campaign, many others have remained quietly confident, even when polls narrowed and other Democrats worried that Obama wasn't as far ahead as he should be, given the country's problems.

Much of black voters' faith is in Obama himself. But there is also a quiet recognition among many that, whatever the extent of racial divisions, they don't preclude a majority-white country from electing a black president -- even though many never imagined that it would happen in their lifetime.

That by itself could change racial pathologies that have existed throughout American history.

Since George Washington, the president has been the symbol of the nation, as much as European monarchs once embodied their nations' identity. Having a black president just four decades after the end of legal segregation would force a reconsideration of almost all assumptions about race relations in America.

But if Obama were to lose -- and if white resistance to a black nominee were cited as a major factor -- black hopes would be dashed in a way that could increase racial tensions, at least in the short term.

Still, the legacy of the Obama campaign, win or lose, on race relations probably won't be clear until long after Tuesday.


Back in the 1960s, the emerging Baby Boom generation pushed American politics leftward. But through the 1980s and 1990s, voters under 30 see-sawed between backing Democrats and Republicans, while turning out in smaller numbers than anyone else overall. Their strongest sentiment seemed to be their indifference.

In the 2000 race between Al Gore and George W. Bush, only 40 percent of registered voters from ages 18 to 29 bothered to vote, compared with 65 percent of voters over 30, according to a survey by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center.

In 2004, the turnout of voters under 30 jumped by nine percentage points, to 49 percent, while that of older voters increased by only three. And those younger voters supported Democrat John Kerry over Bush by a seven-point margin, 48 percent to 41 percent.

This year, voters between 18 and 29 are backing Obama by a whopping 29 points -- 61 percent to 32 percent, according to a Pew survey. And while more young voters showed up for this year's Democratic primaries than in 2004, no one is sure whether turnout of young voters will take another big leap in the general election, although as of midnight EDT on Saturday, a record 27 million early and absentee ballots were cast nationwide, with young people under 30 comprising about 28 percent of early voters.

"We're expecting them to at least match their turnout level of 2004, if not increase it," said Scott Keeter, Pew's director of survey research. "Given the enormous lead Obama has among young voters, they'll be a key to whether he wins or not."


Arguably, the opinions of foreigners have never counted for anything in U.S. politics. Some of the most unpopular American presidents in the outside world -- such as Reagan -- were hugely popular at home, while those most concerned with the world -- like Hoover and Carter -- were domestic flops.

But the latest steep plunge in America's standing in the world, spurred by the policies of the Bush administration, has gotten some political attention at home, especially when linked to the administration's failure to persuade enough allies to share the costs of intervention in Iraq.

Obama has cited his own racial background and time spent in Indonesia as a reason why "the world will look at America differently when I'm president."

That argument drew voters to Obama during his primary race against Hillary Clinton. And he reinforced just how much his election could do to improve relations with U.S. allies by staging a campaign-style rally in Berlin, Germany, attended by hundreds of thousands of adoring Germans in a scene reminiscent of President John F. Kennedy's visit to the then-divided city in 1963, just a month before he was assassinated.

Elsewhere in the world, from Europe to Asia, there has been intense scrutiny of the American election to an unprecedented degree -- and excitement over the Obama campaign. The global interest suggests that millions of foreigners might be prepared to change their opinions of the United States under a President Obama.

But in recent weeks, as a direct result of the financial crisis, foreign policy has taken a back seat in the election, so it will be hard to judge how much an Obama victory would be a mandate to be more attentive to U.S. allies. And it remains to be seen whether a President Obama would be able to meet the high expectations that American allies seem to have for him.


The Republican coalition has been compared to a stool with three legs -- strong national defense, low taxes, and conservative social values. It's never been a secret that many Republicans buy into only one or another of the three legs, but they've bought in strongly enough that their disagreements with the others haven't mattered. Recently, though, the stool has been wobbling.

Back in Easter of 2005, President Bush and both houses of the then-GOP-controlled Congress rushed back to Washington to intervene in the case of Terri Schiavo, a brain-damaged woman whose husband had chosen to remove her from a respirator. Polls showed vast majorities of Americans opposed to government intervention, but Bush and GOP congressional leaders pushed legislation through anyway.

That weekend was a triumph for abortion foes, but may have driven other Republicans away. Likewise, the unexpected toll in Iraq has sparked concerns among evangelicals, and the recent Wall Street meltdown has made many middle-class Republicans question their party's economic policies.

McCain is mostly aligned with the defense wing, but also has credibility as a budget cutter. He has tried to hold together all three conservative constituencies, even wooing social conservatives -- who have long resisted him -- with his pick of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his vice presidential nominee.

Still, a McCain presidency, compared with Bush's, would probably reduce the impact of the Religious Right. And if McCain is defeated, the three branches of the GOP will have to decide whether to hang together -- or go their separate ways.

"They may choose to dampen down the role of social conservatives, a bit like the Democrats after the '80s really pushed down as much as they could on the African-American agenda," says Patterson. But in the short term, he said, much will depend on events outside the party's control, like the economy.

"If the economy's weak, they'll gain seats in Congress in two years," assuming that Democrats, as expected, maintain control of the House and the Senate, Patterson said. "They'll declare that the party's back."

But in what form will remain to be seen.

# # #

Volume III, Number 71
Special Report Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company.
The 'Skeeter Bites Report Copyright 2008, Skeeter Sanders. All rights reserved.


Sphere: Related Content