Two related themes I have frequently invoked in my guest-blooging are that this cycle seems to be shaping up as part of a 16-year cycle of “change†elections and that we thus should not be surprised that the presumptive presidential nominees of our major parties prevailed in no small part because they appeal to the public demand for hopeyness and changitude, which is expressed in polls as the desires for bipartisan cooperation and the elimination of “special interests†in Washington, DC, as opposed to particular changes in domestic or foreign policy.  Both Barack Obama and John McCain thrived primarily by appealing to voters outside the bases of their respective parties.
The reaction of people in those bases is interesting to watch. On the Left, netrootsers like Chris Bowers writes that Obama’s ascendancy signals a major cultural shift in the Democratic party, wherein “the southern Dems and Liebercrat elite will be largely replaced by rising creative class types.” This is a variant of what CNN viewers got from the blow-up between Obama-friendly DNC regular Donna Brazile and Clintonite consultant Paul Begala. While most focused on Begala’s comments, those comments were provoked by Brazile’s thesis:
BRAZILE: Well, Lou, I have worked on a lot of Democratic campaigns, and I respect Paul. But, Paul, you’re looking at the old coalition. A new Democratic coalition is younger. It is more urban, as well as suburban, and we don’t have to just rely on white blue-collar voters and Hispanics. We need to look at the Democratic Party, expand the party, expand the base and not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Both formulations are variants of The Emerging Democratic Majority thesis of John B. Judis and Ruy Teixeira (the converse wrorking-class GOP thesis having been adopted by Ross Douthat). However, that Judis himself seems jittery over the degree to which Obama has seen his political base narrow rather than widen, with some of his strengths becoming weaknesses, suggests he is far less sure that Democratic majority has emerged just yet.
On the Right, Michelle Malkin and others are convinced that the GOP’s problem is that it has too many RINOs and is doomed to suffer losses because too many of its elected officials have abandoned the base of the party. The RINO hunting approach of the Club For Growth has been mirrored by the netrootsers pursuing “Bush Dogs” within the Democratic party. I presume that moderate Republicans would counter-argue that the prevailing political winds — the perceptions that the economy is faltering and that the Iraq war was a mistake — require that the GOP tack toward the center, while the liberal base of the Democrats have greater latitude to flex their muscles.
However, the political infrastructure of the United States — from the winner-take-all structure of the Electoral College to the separation of powers to the long-standing rules of the US Senate — tends to require coalitions and less freedom of movement than either ideological base would like.  “Change” elections historically have resulted in a Democratic president, but also historically one who has difficulty getting his agenda items through a Democratic Congress.ÂÂ
Those within the base of each party serve a vital function. As our political parties have become more oriented around a Right-Left dichotomy, those within the base can act as both the brains and hearts of their parties — the people who keep the parties from becoming nothing but vehicles for the acquisition and retention of power (which Lord Acton would tell you is the surest route to corruption). Those who buy into the post-partisan mirage sold by the Obamas and McCains of the world may never figure out that ideology may be the best weapon available against corruption and the narrow “special interests” they seek to marginalize. Conversely, those driven by their political principles occasionally need to take a moment to reflect upon the notion that the Founders of theis nation and the Framers of our constitution intentionally made it difficult for any faction — ideological or otherwise — to move very quickly in any particular direction without a broad, lasting consensus.
Karl, Rasmussen is “gonna quit tracking the democratic race.
Can thye do that?
http://tinyurl.com/2u693r
[Rasmussen link shortened. -K]
With this in mind, Rasmussen Reports will soon end our daily tracking of the Democratic race and focus exclusively on the general election competition between Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama. Barring something totally unforeseen, that is the choice American voters will have before them in November. While we have not firmly decided upon a final day for tracking the Democratic race, it is coming soon.
game ovah?
Bad enough that it wastes our time with spurious nonsense. Now it’s screwing up the page format. You’d think its programmers would have taught it to use TinyURL.
But I suppose that would, by implication, give it the appearance of higher thought functions. So, never mind.
This is pretty much Malkin’s (and Rush Limbaugh’s) point. The Republicans abandoned Reaganism’s ideology that helped turn so many waste-of-money bureaucratic office buildings into income-producing parking lots, that brought the Soviet Union down, and that founded the economic expansion of the ’90s, and now they will pay the price. When conservatives express their ideas into action, Republicans win. When they want to be universally loved by leftists (who will send them off to a virtual gulag anyway – look how Democrats treated Rupublicans, especially in the House, between 1960 and 1994) they behave more like liberals and lose.
Hmmmm.
I’m still not voting for McCain. I don’t trust him, most especially about amnesty for illegals.
IMO he might be the first GOP President elected with a minority of GOP voters.
Excellent analysis, Karl. The Republic is built on moderation, which makes the conservative revolution of the last 25 years all the more amazing.
TheGeezer,
I think they are really two different points, not that I disagree with the one you raise. MM and Rush are talking about an issue-based, winning strategy. I am addressing the unnecessary disconnect that goo-goo reformers have with issues generally. One of my recurring themes is that those who favor “judgment/character” over “the issues” and vice versa should try to understand that each brings something to the discussion.
Two of the Perils of Punditry in the post-internet age:
1. Assuming the current election is extra special and unique
2. Assuming the blogosphere has permantly changed the political landscape, so that the old logic no longer applies.
In 2004 the Deaniacs learned to their chagrin how fallacious these two assumptions are.
In 2008 Obama will win the vote of AFSCME members, African Americans, college students and professors, and urban elites (including journalists). McCain will win the vote of small business owners and middle-class, exurban America. McCain will win narrowly. His victory will survive numerous court challenges. The CW, heavily promoted in the press, will be that his victory was due to a combination of Republican racism and dirty tricks, and a failure of the Democrats to clearly communicate their message.
thank you Karl..i was hurried and i forgot.
here is how i would vote for McCain over O…..mccain promises to support ESCR, and takes Colin Powell for VP.
Except that it wasn’t anything radical. It was a moderation of what had happened before. It’s amazing only to people who never travel outside of the liberal bubble.
Nishi, STFU.
kk
If the driving expectation behind Obama really is “change”, then the dissonance generated by turning the White House into a South Side hack headquarters overnight would be pretty tough to ignore.
I can vote against Obama without blinking. There are seriously no worse options out there. But to vote for McCain if Hillary! wanders out of the wilderness…?
I’m glad November is still down the road a piece.
The Republican have failed because they have no faith in the electorate. They have no faith in the electorate because media tells them they have to DO SOMETHING every single day. Voters gave them majorities and twenty eight years of the presidency in the expectation that they would DO LESS in the way of controlling our lives and MORE in the way of the sentiments and duties described in the first few hundred words of the Constitution…
So the media message pours out of speakers, screens, and printing presses into the laps of elected Republicans, their staffs, their consultants, and they all jump to out – liberal the Democrats.
Dumbass voters just voted, and can’t get heard for love nor money since.
Well, woodsheds are useful for more than storing wood. It’s past time the Republicans were sent there.
Lionel – Go back to playing with trains.
TmjUtah –
Yup.
Greedy wussies don’t win elections.