This whole debate about whether 2008 was or was not a 'realigning' election is rather silly.
Since the turn of the last century, there have been 11 cases in which the presidency changed parties: 1912 (Wilson), 1920 (Harding), 1932 (Roosevelt), 1952 (Eisenhower), 1960 (Kennedy), 1968 (Nixon), 1976 (Carter), 1980 (Reagan), 1992 (Clinton), 2000 (Bush), and 2008 (Obama). In 9 of the 11 cases, the party winning the presidency had also made substantial gains in the Congress as compared with four years' earlier (although not necessarily as compared with two years' earlier). The two exceptions were the last two party changes before Obama: Clinton in 1992, when the Democrats were pretty much treading water in the Congress, and Bush in 2000, when the Republicans were doing likewise.
What ultimately distinguishes the elections that are considered to have been realignments is the efficacy of the governance of the rising party, rather than the force with which said party took office. Ronald Reagan and FDR, famously, had coattails -- but so did Warren G. Harding, who brought the Republicans a net gain of 123 (!) seats in the House in 1920. One might likewise have been tempted to consider the combination of the Democrats' landslide in the 1974 midterms and Jimmy Carter's ascendancy in 1976 a 'realignment'. Reagan and FDR, however, were effective Presidents, whereas Carter and Harding were not, quickly managing to relinquish most of what they had gained. Barack Obama, perhaps, may be the first President since Reagan in 1980 to have an opportunity to realign the country; whether or not he'll do so is another matter.
(As to the two exceptions I discussed earlier: I think you can argue, in essence, that Bill Clinton's election was something of an historical accident, a correction in the long bull market for conservatives that ran from 1980 through 2006. And Clinton governed from the center, arguably accomplishing more for conservatives during his presidency than he did for liberals, ranging from the Defense of Marriage Act to NAFTA to welfare reform.)
11.12.2008
Was 2008 A Realigning Election? Ask Me In Eight Years.
@ 7:29 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
328 comments
So if Obama is effective then this will have been a realigning election, but if he isn't effective it won't have been? That sounds rather commonsensical, but I guess it helps to have evidence.
Clinton's signing of DOMA is one of the great shame-filled moments of his shame-punctuated presidency. And I voted for him twice.
I'm not sure what the language of re-alignment does here. Re-alignments are not simply party efficacy but rather accomplishments plus longevity? We won't know if this is a possible realignment, then, until into the Obama second term, it seems to me.
Oh, and Nate, could you address the question of Blogger and whether you plan to stick with it. I'll be coming back here in any event, but I know that a number of us have been really frustrated by the Blogger format. You said in one of your earliest posts on this site that you aren't a website guy, and I completely understand that. But as you become more prominent and prepare for periods when traffic will get high again, I think it would be smart to switch to a more robust and comment-friendly system. The fact that Blogger froze up several times during election night and during the Democratic convention was immensely frustrating.
If you have already thought about this and decided to stick with Blogger, that's fine. But it would be great if you could let us know whether you are aware of our frustrations with Blogger. I'm sorry to harp on this, but this is such a great site that I think it deserves a better technological platform. Thanks again.
On Clinton as "accident": I find this compelling. The best comparison I can think of is Wilson winning in 1912; he only won because of the Republican Party fracture, and then won a squeaker in 1916 with the benefits of incumbency. The GOP dominated at the national level from 1896-1932, with only Wilson serving as a "hiccup." Clinton won in 1992 (at least partially) with the help of Ross Perot.
I think the biggest change that Obama might bring is not what he will do for Democrats (or Republicans), but *how* he will do it.
If he follows through on transparency and openness, especially if he begins to reveal what Bush and Cheney have tried to keep secret from the American people, I think the effect will be far more profound than any specific policy, at least in the first four years.
I do agree that we cannot claim a true realignment unless the country wants more after four years. But the *how* is more important than the *what* right now.
One really important aspect of realignment election is not just win size, but that the parties realign themselves both on the make up of their coalitions and realign themselves on issues. Take for example the 1964 election which is where the democrats and the republicans realigned on the issue of race. As I don't think we have really seen a shift on issues in this election from where the parties traditional stand I don't think this election will be defined as a realignment election. But then again it is impossible to tell in the moment whether or not we will get a realignment.
I remember the talk 16 years ago about how pivotal the time was: both parties realized that to build past their base, they had to capture a center that was becoming increasingly Independent. I wish I had saved those articles - in today's terminology, they were discussing how to create a "realigning" election. Clinton did this to some degree, while eight years later the Rove strategy was the reverse (Governor Pete Wilson was using a similar strategy in California).
Anyway... what you said. We'll know in four years. By then, the G.O.P. may revert to the Rove strategy, sigh.
Nate,
You are doing a great job of staying relevant after the elections in terms of the pieces you are writing, but I think at some point it may behoove you to put out a new sort of "mission statement" to clarify your future intentions.
Thanks for all you do.
Nate, 3x/day reader in Lisbon, Portugal. I've enjoyed having the back door to your posts through the New Republic blog, since I can access that on my phone. Any plans to adapt the site so it is more mobile-friendly? Desperate fans want to know.
Another potential for demographic 'realignment', as defined in 1964, is the Latino vote.
In many areas, they were a reliable constituency for the Republican party.. but have now seemingly begun to shift heavily Democratic. As Nate says, it will require some time to properly determine whether this was simply caused by the financial issues and Obama, or whether the party identification will last beyond the current election.
wv: phead. I am not!!!!
While I totally agree that the degree of staying power of an administration's party's wins truly depends on how effective that government is, I think the argument people are having is really about other things. Specifically, I think the battle over calling this a realignment or not is actually a proxy for the mandate argument. If you can convince people that a realignment, not just a historical accident, occurred, you have more leeway to attempt the implementation of the ideas you have.
Does anyone else think this is the real discussion going on.
wv: Lo siento, no hablo "inglinse."
@BacoDad - try the 538 feed through Google Reader. Works well on my phone, pictures show up, etc. Links often don't work, but everything else is fine.
And, Nate, tread lightly when you declare that Clinton wasn't all that swell when it came to advancing liberalism or progressive causes or what-have-you - I totally agree with you on this, but it's led to the bitter end of more than one conversation.
On the plus side, Clinton's budget conservatism is the best antidote post-2000 Democrats have had for accusations of tax-and-spendism.
Robert S. Borosage argues persuasively against the claims of certain right-wing ideologues that America remains a country of the centre right:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-l-borosage/the-center-left-nation_b_143159.html
It seems to me that Obama has both the mandate and the constituency to take America in a new direction.
I'm sure that he's smart enough to realise this. I just hope that he has the courage to follow through.
I agree. We won't know for at least eight years. Right now, Obama has a strong grip on minorities, youth and women. The more education someone had the more likely they were to vote for him. If he can transfer that to his party, it will help its ascendancy. If not, it is a personality cult.
The youth will get older and some will become more conservative. But, many of the issues having a hold on the conservatives are disappearing in the young. This is a pattern that is independent of him, he was the catalyst to get them to the voting booth. Now that they see they have the power, who knows.
The minority population will continue to increase until by 2020, the whites will be in the minority. If you define 'white' as north central European, they may already be in the minority.
The older white male, the Republican base is going to die. It's a fact. I'm progressive, but I'm of that group. In eight years, there will be a lot less of my contemporaries.
The opposition is fractured. They consist of three factions: the religious right, the libertarian and the fiscal conservative. Right now, they country is divide in to thirds. Each of those factions have attractions for the third that is not committed to a party.
If one of their better libertarian office holder becomes Libertarian, it may start one faction away.
The fiscal conservatives have tried to split a couple of times.
If they run Palin in four years, I see a split in the party. If it splits, there will probably be a Democrat in eight years (unless Obama royally screws up). In that case, eight years may not be enough.
Realignment occurs in response to underlying historic shifts. William Strauss and Neil Howe have put forth a developed, and fairly well-supported theory of generational change in U.S. history, which identifies a cyclical process of crisis, institutionalization, and degeneration in response to material crisis events and the shaping of generational character. Too long to explain here, but it predicts that we should be expecting both a large C Crisis in the first decade of the 21st century, and a political realignment in response.
The questions of how an administration can lead, and what degree of policy development is possible rests here. The Clinton administration began 1993 as if a great deal were possible, but were in fact met with a skeptical popular response to their innovation. I think it is correct to think of this as something of a historic accident, in the context of a general trend of conservative retrenchment that began in the early 80s and extended over 20 years. Similarly, the Andrew Johnson presidency was an accidental counter to a general flow of active federal engagement toward the abolishment of slavery and federal intervention on behalf of industrialization, which still had many years to run before the momentum begun in 1860 was exhausted.
A number of commentators are now pointing to the Clinton experience as a demonstration of potential overreach by the Obama Presidency. Although temporally nearer, I think it is a less useful model than the Roosevelt presidency. Like Obama, FDR was put into office in response to the failure of previous administrations to anticipate and properly respond to a major crisis. Like Obama, FDR offered little in the way of a clear program durng his campaign, and his admnistration reflected this ambiguity, with key individuals holding very different philosophical views in terms of the role of government, and specific policy approaches to the Depression. Instead, Roosevelt took immediate steps to address the forward edge of the crisis, and quickly moved from there to a wide range of improvisations as his Administration experimented to find what worked. The country responded to this innovation with enthusiasm, even though a number of attempts, such as the fixing of prices under NRA, were less than successful. The country appreciated that FDR was bringing energy in a situation where big things had to be attempted. Roosevelt was successful enough that the country turned away from fascist and communist alternatives, and liberal democracy was sustained.
Obama has a similar chance to be bold. The country will respond positively, I think. His place in history will be determined by his success or failure, but if he chooses an innovative course, he will likely not be denied the opportunity to pursue it by an electoral backlash like Clinton faced in 1994.
My old professor, Steven Skowronek, has a useful way of looking at this. In his book, he says that there are only a few "trasnformational" presidents that change the way people look at policy and politics. After these presidents, successor presidents simply carry on the transformational legacy until a new politics is created.
So in the 20th century, there have been 2 trasnformational presidents - FDR and Reagan. FDR brought in new liberalism, Reagan brought in new conservatism. Presidents like Kennedy and LBJ were really just continuing the FDR legacy and even presidents like Eisenhower and Nixon did not try to roll back FDR's new deal. In Reagan's case, the Bush's were just continuing Reagan's conservative legacy while Clinton really governed as a center-right president in a conservative era.
How do you get to new "transformational" presidents? Have a president overreach and mess up. Carter did that with the FDR legacy. Did GWB do that with Reagan's legacy? It sure looks like it. Obama may be that next transformational president...
I think part of the question depends on whether the Republicans stick with the "southern strategy" or find meaningful ways to engage others outside the interior SE and interior West.
BTW 538.com fans of Nate on Facebook should join the group "Nate Silver probably already knows how many people will join this group"
Of the elections you mentioned, Roosevelt's, Carter's, Reagan's and Obama's were complete rejections of the preceding administration. These men were basically unknown prior to the election but the electorate knew it had had enough of the sitting president. So the two aspects of the question, the election and the realignment of government must be separated. Thus you are correct when you say wait four years to see if there is an actual realignment
Antmatic you're dead on - Skowronek's work on this ("The Politics Presidents Make") is the best work I've read on the subject. Basically, great presidents do two things: create coalitions of voters to support their views that didn't necessarily exist before (i.e. Reagan's uniting of social conservatives, free-marketers, and foreign policy hawks), and forge an enduring national consensus about the right direction for American policy.
Skowronek's work also predicts "aberrations" like Bill Clinton (which aren't really aberrations at all - Nixon and Eisenhower were both Republican Presidents during the FDR era). He argues that presidents from the opposite party of the existing dominant alignment tend to accept the major ideas of the time and try and work within them. So, for example, you could argue that in many ways Richard Nixon was more liberal than some Democrats today (because he was constrained by the FDR legacy), the same way Clinton tended to govern from the center and advance many conservative causes (constrained by the Reagan legacy).
It would appear that the stars are aligned for Barack Obama. Reagan's coalition has broken down - Christian conservatives, libertarians, economic conservatives, and foreign policy hawks no longer see eye to eye on many issues, which is why there was such a rush of conservative intelligentsia supporting Obama this election. Additionally, the country is past the point where they are thinking "capitalism capitalism capitalism," and the direction Obama wants to take the country (i.e. inching towards a social democracy model with universal health care etc.) may well meet with broad acceptance in the public and define the national debate for decades to come...
Pretty exciting times!
Clinton may not have accomplished much in terms of a progressive agenda, but he did accomplish Stephen Breyer and Ruth Ginsburg. And that ain't exactly chopped liver when you think about the kinds of decisions the SCOTUS might be handing down today if those seats had been filled with Republican appointees.
I'd argue that every election causes some realignment. Both parties have their bases but continuously evolve at the margins in their fight to capture the median voter.
Just consider the past 20 years. Democrats have become more business-friendly while Republicans have become a lot more "compassionate".
Well, I'm 44 and I haven't felt this energized in my lifetime. I recall how people felt in the sixties. I was almost excited in 1992 but in reality I was really just relieved. No this election is very different. Have to disagree with you on this one, Nate.
I agree with you up to a point, Nate, but I think that Jay Cost's geographical analysis has a point to it as well. I think the impact of Obama's success over the next 4 years on causing a realignment will be manifested in which states he wins in 4 years. If he captures all the 2008 states plus Montana, Georgia, Missouri, then I think you can say that the "Southern Strategy" is dead at last and there has been realignment. If on the other hand he wins 2008 minus some combination of N. Carolina, Virginia, Indiana, Colorado, then I think there has been no realignment.
Blech. Loads of bullshit all of it. Votes are won by public opinion and all this talk about Hegelian zeitgeists that shape the opinion is nonsense. Myriad factors shape public opinion: prosperity, issues of focus, media portrayal, gravitas of candidates, probably a dozen more. There's no such thing "realigning"--realignments are post hoc reconstructions of antecedently unpredictable events.
R.P. McMurphyDBB is right: in political sociology, realignment is the process whereby a social cleavage switches parties. It has nothing to do with the size of the win.
x0lani: if W. was a "compassionate" conservative president, with Iraq and New Orleans and such, I don't want to know what an "uncompassionate" one looks like (Wallace, Limbaugh etc.)
So what's the answer on your ballot quiz?
Bill and Hillary Clinton managed to convince themselves that they were shrewd political tacticians who won because they knew how to run from the center without alienating their own base. It's the reason why Hillary voted for the Bush tax cuts, the Iraq war, and the bankruptcy bill. Only problem is, they're flat-out wrong: they owe their wins in 1992 and 1996 to a certain H. Ross Perot, without whose influence even G.H.W.B. would've been reelected.
I don't know about realignment, but I do know this. Obama won in a electoral landslide and by the time all votes are counted a popular vote landslide. If this is not a mandate, color me white. This nonsense by the Republicans and the country is "center right" is ridiculous. GWB did not win both elections in a of landslide, period, yet he ramrodded his mandate through and the country is paying for it by his bad judgement as POTUS. It is time for Obama and the majority Democrats to move in boldness, this is what Obama was elected to do. Change does not mean a new party, age or color of skin. Change means new ideas and to move forward with what the people put you in office to do.
I expect this from the Obama Administration and I know he will disappoint at times, but change is all we voted for and expect from him.
Also, I would agree that a lot of Obama support was actually anti-Bush backlash. Obama may well experience an anti-incumbent backlash after 4 or possibly 8 years.
I would still argue that some small realignment has taken place. The legs of the "Republican stool" are supposed to be social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and pro-defense hawks. (The NYT made a convincing case Monday that rural whites make a fourth overlapping leg.)
Social conservatism is still fully entrenched in the Republican party. However, the Republicans lost a lot of moderate fiscal conservatives with the financial crises/mismanagement and moderate pro-military with the mishandling of Iraq and Afghanistan. The more extreme voters will remain firmly with the Republicans.
So the realignment would be this: Fiscal conservatives amenable to restrained regulation and some social spending have moved to the Democratic side. Hawks that prefer speaking softly and carrying a big stick, as opposed to shooting first and asking questions later, would have also moved to the Democratic ticket.
(Clearly this is opinion and I need data to support this, but so far I haven't seen anything to contradict it.)
As a side note - Nate, maybe between analysing congressional races you can identify and analyse sociopolitical microtrends. Although your readership has certainly dropped since the election, there must be a ton of data out there for you to play with.
On reforming this website: to pick on the title of Nate's post, I'd say that the future realignment of the site is a process, not something to just declare.
I agree that Blogger has serious limitations. But damnit Blogger is owned by Google, and 538 is one of Blogger's most popular sites. So maybe it's up to Google to come through with a more accommodating format -- and lend some of its own resources to Nate to redesign the site? (BTW/ Nate went to the same high school as Larry Page, co-founder of Google -- though many years apart. That old school tie, though, should be capitalized on.)
You all also have to consider that this site just "took off" like zoom in no time. Nate gave much greater priority to content than to style, and to building his election projection model than to thinking about the post-election future. So we have to give him a little time to (a) catch his breath, (b) explore new options for the site, and (c) implement them. I'm certainly willing to wait, given Nate's track record to date.
Walter Mondale: LOL! I didn't say Bush actually has a heart. He just said he did. However, I think the social conservatives are being genuine and the compassion is supposed to come through Christian charity, strong families forming strong communities, etc.
There is actually a lot of scholarship devoted to the question of realignments in academia. Essentially, the question is divided into two camps--those who think realignment do exist and those who think that they do not. The "do not" crowd argue along similar lines to Nate..that realignments aren't real historical events, but rather historical benchmarks that are defined after the fact to give students of history thematic periods with which they can assimilate our past.
Sounds nice, but in reality there are periods in American history where political sentiments make real and permanent shifts. W.V.O Key first proposed the idea of a realignment and he gave several qualifications for judging whether an election signifies a realignment or not. Among them: 1) new constituencies must be activated and moved toward one party, 2) the electoral map must be changed, 3) old political debates must be laid to rest, and 4) the party coalition must endure over time and represent the beginning of a period of one party dominance of politics. An historical view is required, but clearly Obama has met the first three of these criteria.
I prefer Stephen Skowronek's appraisal of the realignment theory. He says realignments do in fact exist and takes it a step further by asserting that there is in fact a cycle to presidential succession. Additionally, he argues that what drives this cycle is equal parts electoral politics and legislative accomplish--but that each of these factors are in many ways beyond the control of the individuals occupying the White House. In other words, realignments are historically determined and have much more to do with the winnowing of the national mood toward change than of the abilities of the President at a particular time.
Skowronek argues that what marks a realignment is public dissatisfaction with an old or outdated governing philosophy, and the ushering in of a new message that ties together core constituencies for 5-7 presidential terms. He says there are four types of Presidents: 1) Realignment Presidents (i.e. Reagan), Articulation Presidents (i.e. Bush), Opposition Presidents (i.e. Clinton), and Disjunction Presidents (i.e. Bush II). Sorry Nate, Clinton was not an historical fluke, he was the picture perfect embodiment of an opposition President--a moderate from the opposing party who comes to power criticizing the articulation President for being too out of touch and not forward thinking enough, only to be embroiled in scandal for large periods of his Presidency. Nixon was a perfect example of this as well. That makes Carter and Bush disjunction Presidents--men who both ran on cleaning up government and "restoring its honor" only to be whipped back by a public that is tired of old governing ways (in Carter's case it was big government liberalism as espoused by FDR, and in Bush's it was small government conservatism as espoused by Reagan).
So what tangent does Obama offer from the governing philosophies of the past? Small government conservatism is a thing of the past, I have no doubt about that. Republicans will have to embrace new themes and messages in order to win again, and while tax cuts and spending cuts will probably be a Republican fixture for years to come, they will no longer be the centerpiece of the party's ideology. But what Reagan really represented was a new and vicious theme in politics--the silent majority. We all remember it, that supposed quiet group of racists and bigots who really didn't want their tax money going to "welfare queens" or "undeserving minorities who only got to where they are through affirmative action." This theme is what held the Republican coalition together for thirty years--they made a killing out of portraying Democrats as part of "the other" in America. The name "big spending liberal" offended people not because the government couldn't balance its check book, but because it implied that liberals would spend money on social programs geared towards "scary minorities."
Obama represents the perfect antidote to that thinking. By running on a "post-partisan" platform (which is what he did--his most effective lines during the campaign were zingers about how the campaign had entered "silly season") he has promised to move our politics away from anger and toward reconciliation and productivity. It was a message right for the time--one which undoubtedly would not have worked twenty years ago (especially coming from a black man). Along those same lines, if Mitt Romney stood up tomorrow and starting stumping exclusively about welfare queens, he wouldn't come close to winning a general election, and maybe not even the Republican primary.
So, back to the original question: Does Obama's election represent a realignment? The short answer is yes. The long answer is maybe. Nate is correct to write that Obama has a better opportunity at realignment than any President since Reagan. However, he overlooks the fact that Obama has already passed all but one of the smell tests for realignment--electoral longevity. Obama is the right man for the times, and the times are calling for change. If someone came along in the next few days and bet me that Obama will go down in flames just as Carter did, I would put every cent that I have on Obama doing just the opposite, being an ascendant and historical President just as Reagan and FDR were. History is calling for such a leader, and therefore Obama will be that leader.
"One might likewise have been tempted to consider the combination of the Democrats' landslide in the 1974 midterms and Jimmy Carter's ascendancy in 1976 a 'realignment'. Reagan and FDR, however, were effective Presidents, whereas Carter and Harding were not. . ."
You are too young to remember the 1976 election. Nixon had just won a landslide victory in 1972, and then Republicans were exposed and humiliated in the Watergate, thus 1974.
But, all those Nixon voters didn't go anywhere and they were just waiting for a Republican they could feel good about voting for. Their party was hopelessly divided between the emerging right under Reagan and the old guard under Gerry Ford.
After Ford won, un-repentant Reaganites chanted outside the Republican convention hall "4 more months! 4 more months!" I knew then that even if Carter won, Reagan would be back in 4 years. I was terrified (rightly it turns out) what a Reagan victory would do to America.
Bush by contrast never was a "wave" candidate. He got into office by massive electoral fraud, supported by the S.Ct. and proceeded to steam-roll the opposition, helped in no small measure by 9-11.
In retrospect, his election was like the election of Lyndon Johnson, that last gasp of the old New Deal coalition.
The Demographic of angry white southerners that ran American into the ground between 1968 and 2008 is finished. Many of them quite literally as older racists die off and younger more tolerant voters take their place.
Carter only delayed the inevitable rise of the right-wing. Even if he'd been re-elected, it would have only served as an interregnum, just as Clinton was precariously poised between the two Bushes.
Unless Republicans find a way to appeal to younger voters, minorities and voters outside the South, they're croaked for a very long time!
America is becoming a minority-majority country at the rate of 1% per year. By 4 years from now, we'll be 4% LESS white, and non-whites vote 2 to 1 for Democrats.
nextweek: Sure there are a million factors that may affect an individual's vote. It could even be the color of a candidate's tie. But over half of Americans are registered with either the Democrats or Republicans and vote for their chosen parties fairly reliably. Most voters chose their parties according to some arbitrary ideology or some particular issue, which ipso facto results in alignment.
Similarly, identifying social trends makes or breaks careers in marketing, and they have metrics to measure how successful they are at it. Are you saying they are delusional?
Like Obama, FDR offered little in the way of a clear program durng his campaign, and his admnistration reflected this ambiguity
Can we put this bizarre bit of "conventional wisdom" to bed now?
The idea that Obama offered pretty rhetoric but few specifics was nothing but a fluff argument from the McCain campaign, designed to avoid issues and keep the campaign focused on personalities. There was never any truth to it. Obama offered plenty of policy specifics, both in speeches and especially on his website -- universal healthcare (with copious detail on the form he will propose), a restructuring of the tax code to reverse the recent shifts in favor of the wealthy, investing in renewable energy and shifting our energy infrastructure to reverse global warming and build a component of a new economy, withdrawing from Iraq to focus on Afghanistan, the list goes on.
These are things voters knew about and voted for overwhelmingly, not just a pretty face and vague promises of change. And that's a good thing.
@nextweek
Of course a realignment isn't truly recognizable till after the fact, though one can have an impression early on, and this feels like it. Actually, I regard the Reagan-Bush episodes as relatively brief setbacks in a much longer liberal march -- the gradual gentling of civilization since the brutal days of yore. Europe suffered such trauma in the first half of the 20th century that they made a larger leap towards social responsibility thereafter. We are gradually catching up, as we continue to re-learn the hazards of rugged individualism and laissez faire. With our history it will take us longer, but we will eventually learn to care better for all in our midst.
If this is a realignment election, then it is probably so only because Hispanic voters voted so overwhelmingly for the Democrats. If this trend holds in future elections and the Southwest (and elsewhere) becomes deep blue then it will be the most significant change in electoral behavior since Nixon's southern strategy in 1968.
As much as I might wish it, I'm not convinced that will happen. Hispanic voters tend to be more religious than the average white voter and thus more socially conservative. In 2008, the economy dominated and major social issues were mostly ignored (like in 1992) and that shift tends to favor the Democrats short-term. But I fear that once the economy starts to improve (2012 or 2016), Hispanic voters will again gravitate toward the GOP--particularly if the GOP follows McCain's lead and moderates its stance on immigration.
The key for the Democrats is to keep in the middle of social issues. Gay marriage is simply not a winning issue. With the exception of abortion, the median swing state voter is center-right on most social issues. If the Democrats take a hardline stances that are perceived by the Midwest and South as anti-gun, pro-gay, etc. then the GOP will win start winning national elections. And at some point, once the economy has recovered, the nation will embrace a deficit-hawk, anti-big government candidate that will probably come from the GOP. But the Democrats have a decent chance of holding onto Congress and the White House for at least two more presidential election cycles IF THEY STAY AWAY FROM THE DIVISIVE SOCIAL ISSUES.
The principled pragmatists of the Clinton administration seem to currently be guiding the agenda (eg, Emanuel as COS). That's a good sign. At some point Pelosi/Reid will want to bite off more than they can chew; hopefully Obama will be able to keep the party on a moderate course.
@president hussein
interesting line of argument, about the long liberal march. We got rid of feudalism, slavery (in the west), women got the vote, etc etc. No more public hangings (in the west), no more bear-baiting (in the west). I often think about this to console myself when things don't look too rosy for liberals.
But I thought the west had got rid of torture, and W brought it back. I thought we were getting somewhere on gay rights, and along comes prop 8. And as for the rest of the world, well, lots of places still have capital punishment, including the US. Women get a raw deal in many countries - no education, genital mutilation, stoned for adultery even when they are rape victims. I could go on.
So is the liberal march forward inevitable, given enough time, or will it just take a few unforeseen events to knock us backwards away from the enlightenment?
guys - this clinton bashing from the left must stop. it's ridiculous, naive and immature. the country as a whole was far more conservative in 1992 than today. and yet, during that period, clinton made several real achievements on environmental issues, minimum wages, women's rights, abortion, and so on. he moved millions into the middle class, brought new diversity to the presidential cabinet, and generated a pipeline of tough, smart, savvy leaders that obama is tapping as we speak. yes - he made many pragmatic choices that in retrospect are easy to attack - but he was also trying to WIN - something that principled liberals you guys would drool over had not been able to do in a long time. please - grow up.
I think Nate has it right here. While many electoral analysts speak in terms of realignments and "Critical elections" to use the old V.O.Key terminology, the realignment theory has been challenged and many do not think the theory is all that relevant to explaining changes in party coalitions.
In order to cement an electoral realignment, governing success is imperative. The elections of 2006 and now 2008 present Democrats the opportunity to cement their gains into an enduring realignment. But we won't know until at least 2010, more likely until 2012, whether this realignment has been accomplished.
Personally, I like to look at things from 1860 to 2008, where we have Lincoln (Republican) w/ VP and later successor Andrew Johnson (Democrat) then years and years of Republicans, then Grover Cleveland (Democrat), Chester A. Arthur (Republican) and Grover Cleveland (Democrat, again) as the only break in a couple more decades of Republican rule until Preston Manning^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h Teddy Roosevelt created the Progressive or Bull and Moose party and split the Republican vote to give Wilson the Presidency. Even then, I think of Wilson as an aberration. Nothing short of the Great Depression and the laise-Ã -faire politics of Herbert Hoover (who, like Carter, went on to be the noblest elder statesmen this country had ever had -- though Taft going on to become Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was doubtless the most impressive post-Presidency career move; far outshining Andrew Johnson returning to Tennessee to serve a few more terms in the Senate.
I bring all this up to say we should not count out the Republicans just yet. They have had some SEVERE staying power in the past, and I agree that Clinton was an Aberration. If we consider the Civil War effect, we have 70 years of nearly solid Republican Rule. The Great Depression effect gave us 20 years of Democratic rule, then we entered a knife-edge period that allowed for Ike and Kennedy and a Kennedy Martyrdom that gave Lyndon Banes Johnson his chance to set the stage for 40 more years of Republican rule thanks to the Civil Rights Act (a sacrifice I think we can all agree was well worth making since it gives us the opportunity in 2008 to elect someone like Barack Obama). With the exception of the 1-term Watergate effect (Carter) and the New-South that gave us a centrist like Clinton, you have during the last 40 years a return of the Republican dominance of American politics. Now, Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican who both fought big business, broke up Standard Oil, established the National Park system AND supported questionable wars and in many ways he doesn't fit the mold of Republicans of his day or ours. Then we have George Walker Bush, who likes big oil, panders to the religious right, hates the Kyoto accord, adores questionable wars AND oversaw the largest socialization of American Industry, visa-vi Banking, by any President in history. By that token, W. is the most Socialist President in U.S. history. My point in this is that, in the shadow of near 1-party rule, we do produce some variety in the one party, so looking at Republican vs. Democrat is a bit short-sighted. A dominant party is likely to produce more mavericks, in a sense, like George W. Bush and Teddy Roosevelt.
Yes, you heard me right: I called George W. Bush a maverick: but consider how 'out of the box' he operates, often against the will of the Republican Party at large. This makes him, by definition, a maverick. Which illustrates IMHO an important point: mavericks aren't always a good thing.
All that said, this 'new age' ushered in by our esteemed 44th President real will be historically interesting, not just for a democratic nation electing an ethnic minority to its highest office (Fujimori in Peru and Lula in Brazil already beat us to true pride over that distinction over a decade ago), but for what it means for the next few decades: is it the beginning of the great left shift, or just a bump smaller than the 20-year Great Society era of the 1930's and 40's. Only time will tell...
But the notion that Prop 8 passed because of the Obama turnout surge is silly.
This whole debate about whether 2008 was or was not a 'realigning' election is rather silly.
Is something silly if those of us who do not have your statistical analysis skills pose a question? You may not have noticed, but we come to you for answers to these questions, not ridicule for asking. Perhaps doing so is silly on my part.
I'm going to pull a Palin and take this opportunity to answer the ballot quiz instead since my comment is way off the charts.
The answer is D. None of the above. Especially after confirming this with the sample MN ballot, voting for the POTUS is no different than voting for Senator so the layout for a specific race has no bearing on why that particular race comes up 25,000 votes short.
cugal-
are you assuming that the democratic party will have a 2-1 advantage and it will remain that way in four years?
at some point the repubs will wake up to the fact that they are a party that is literally dying off. at that point they will have to make more of an effort to attract the younger and non-white voters.
i think repubs will make inroads into the non-white advantage the Democrats currently hold because of their more conservative views (which does have an appeal to some) and also simply because people will always look to an alternative to a ruling party.
but that said i think the democrats will continue to hold a large advantage with non-whites for at least the next twenty years.
There's a reason Clinton and Bush did not have big coattails while earlier changes in party control of the Presidency did. It's because incumbents are more protected now than ever before and are re-elected at greater rates than ever before in our history. This is primarily because incumbents everywhere are protected by gerrymandered congressional districts and secondarily because of the increasing influence of money in getting elected and incumbents' greater access to it.
Obama has moved up to 52.7% of the popular vote. He's just hit 7 million votes in California.
@Mrs B,
Yes, the long liberal march is inevitable and inexorable, but it is far from smooth and steady. It's a lot like the stock market. One definitely has to take the long view.
@robr tx,
Good observation. I suspect you're right that we're fighting over how much leeway Republicans will be pressured to give Obama as the winner. Obama really needs to focus primarily on the issues he ran on and not get distracted on peripheral issues. He'll have much more success and there will be much more public support for him and pressure on Republicans not to be obstructionist on these matters.
wv: nettesse, small female child of the loch ness monster.
they owe their wins in 1992 and 1996 to a certain H. Ross Perot, without whose influence even G.H.W.B. would've been reelected
Nice try. Clinton won 370 EV in 1992. Even if you generously give Bush every single state where the Perot vote might have hurt Bush disproportionately, Clinton still would have won 281 EV. In 1996, Perot was about as relevant as John Anderson was in 1976.
Dang Nate, this is the weakest post of yours that I can recall. It seems like you would have something smart to say on this matter, and you punted.
What separates you from the polling pack (amongst other things) are your demographic models. Why not address the prospects for political realignment by making some demographic assumptions pitting a "generic" Democrat against a "generic" Republican.
Does the demise of old, white, Southerners do the trick? The rise of young Hispanics? Alone or together?
Make some baseline assumptions and crank up the simulator!
The election of President Obama is indicative of social and political change occuring in our nation. Our nation is becoming more urbanized or at least more suburbanized than rural. The population is shifting further to large cities from small towns. People are coming into more and more contact with cultures different from their own through the internet, television, music, and immigration.
Every person below the age of 45 has grown up in a world where civil rights are legally guaranteed for all.
Young people today have no connection to nor owe no allegiance to 1980's Reagan conservatism nor 1960's radicalism. Both are just history text book subjects they've read about in class.
New immigrants from very distant shores are becoming more commonplace in our society.
In short, the old American norm of whites in small towns dominating the nation's landscape physically and politically is giving way to a population of more urbanized, racially tolerant, politically moderate, and multi-cultural voters. It's not a complete shift yet. This election was just the tip of what is to come. As some sociologists recognize, every 20 years a new generational group arises to dominate our society. We're just at the front edge of that change now. As older, more conservative voters who remember a harsher past begin to pass away or become less poltically involved, the void is slowly being filled by this first wave led by Obama. That is what is realigning.
"How do you get to new "transformational" presidents? Have a president overreach and mess up. Carter did that with the FDR legacy. Did GWB do that with Reagan's legacy? It sure looks like it. Obama may be that next transformational president..."
This is just wrong. They way you get a "transformational" President is to have a major demographic change in voting!
Three such changes took place in the 20th century. The first was in 1912 when Republican Progressives were drummed out of the party and formed the short-lived "Bull Moose" party of T. Roosevelt. That left the Republican party the same pro-business conservative movement it is today. The party became rural and socially conservative.
The second was in 1932 when Roosevelt added Northern working class whites to the Solid South to form the New Deal Coalition.
And the third was in 1968 when Nixon formed the "Southern Strategy." The "Reagan coalition" was really only the natural culmination of what Nixon rode to victory in 1972 -- interrupted by the Watergate affair that resulted in the Carter Presidency.
Northern working class white voters combined with old conservative Democrats in the solid South gave Democrats a stable majority from 1932 to 1964. The only Republican elected during this era was Eisenhower and he governed as a moderate.
White anger and resentment over the civil rights movement and cultural backlash fueled the Reagan era. The solid South swung Republican and the only Democrats who could win in this right-wing era were Southern moderates Carter and Clinton.
But, as the Republican party became more and more conservative they began to leave more and more voters behind in the industrial North and far West. This took a generation as older Northern Republicans died off and were replaced by younger northern Democrats.
This didn't immediately result in a Democratic majority coalition because people were leaving the industrial north and swelling the electoral votes of Southern red-states all during this period.
But, with the slow rise of minorities, and Bush alienating younger voters, the worm has finally turned. Republicans now are a Southern regional party, isolated and slowly diminishing in strength.
As their numbers decline Republicans have tried to continue to dominate mostly by cheating -- vote fraud, gaming the voting system to exclude minorities, and assorted dirty tricks and underhanded tactics -- Swift Boat campaigns and internet whisper smears.
But, these tactics continue to alienate Democrats and moderate voters, making their problem worse.
It's certainly true that Obama's victory may have precipitated an early collapse of the Reagan coalition before Democratic demographic gains became overwhelming.
But, it was dying anyway, just as the New Deal coalition was dying out under Johnson. Even if Humphrey had won in 1968 (as Clinton did in 1992) he would have been a beleaguered Presidency under assault from the right, just as Carter and Clinton were.
Republicans have no way back to a "conservative America" because that country doesn't exist any more.
I've always considered Clinton to have been a stop-gap President. The Republicans were still in ascendency at the time so the best we could have hoped for during that time was a Democrat who would slow them down. I think he accomplished that, but it doesn't make for a very exciting presidency (other things made his presidency exciting, unfortunately).
As a further addendum here, the New Deal realignment of 1932-36 is the last realignment upon which there is widespread agreement within the academic literature. This realignment was actually foreshadowed by shifts in party coalitions of 1928 with urban areas moving toward the Democrats due to the candidacy of Catholic Smith despite fact that was a Hoover landslide, and Democratic gains in the Congressional elections of 1930.
While a conservative realignment clearly occurred at some point in the latter third of the 20th century, it seemed to occur in segments rather than being a wholesale one-time permanent shift. The 1968 election of Nixon signaled the collapse of the New Deal coalition in the Democratic Party over the Vietnam War, doves vs. hawks, and Civil Rights. While there were some prominent Republicans like Oregon Senators Hatfield and Packwood and Maine Senator Smith, who opposed the War, the rift over the War was most prominent within the Democratic Party. Democrats lost the South at the Presidential level, though they continued to elect conservative Democrats to Congress througout the South. Nixon campaigned as a conservative but governed as a moderate.
The increasingly conservative tilt of the electorate was revealed in the Nixon landslide of 1972, but was interrupted by the Watergate scandal which tarnished the Republican brand. Carter's unsuccessful Presidency delivered the Presidency to Republicans and with the substantial gains made by Republicans in Congress in 1980, there was a conservative/moderate majority on Capitol Hill. Although Democrats still controlled the House, there were a sufficient number of relatively conservative Democrats elected from districts carried by Reagan that they voted with the Republicans to enact the Reagan economic program.
Senate control returned to the Democrats but Republicans took control of both House and Senate in 1994 and did not gain control of the entire government until 2000. The Republicans controlled the entire government for only six years during this 40-year period since the collapse of the New Deal coalition.
So there are disagreements as to when precisely the conservative realignment occurred. This apparent segmentation of the conservative realignment, with the first stage occurring in 1968, the second stage in 1980, a third stage in 1994, the final step in 2000, is precisely why there is now scholarly disagreement as to the relevance of "Realignment Theory" in explaining electoral shifts.
Perhaps the best way to summarize here is to conclude that there are certain elections where large-scale shifts from one party to the other occur, representing repudiation of the party in power. These large-scale shifts from one party to the other present opportunities for the winning party to further its gains in future elections through effective governance, thereby deepening popular support, especially of newer elements to the party's coalition.
Looking at the present situation, for Democrats to be able to achieve future ballot-box success and cement the 2008 gains at the national level, they need to realize success in resolving several major national problems or issues in the coming years. Most importantly, there must be success in turning the economy around by averting economic disaster and beginning a lengthy period of sustained economic growth which will help to solve the growing problem of income inequality that has emerged in recent years. Major strides on at least two other pressing issues from among the group including energy independence and climate change through a "green energy and green jobs" initiative, bringing an end to the Iraq War, education, and health care, are probably also necessary to continued Democratic gains. Health care and education are probably going to have to be step-by-step processes, and are likely to involve greater ideological conflict. Energy and scaling down the Iraq War probably provide the two best opportunities for short-term success.
I'd like for once for someone who states the ridiculous "Clinton won because of Perot" idiocy would cite one bit of evidence for that.
Every piece of evidence - both the immediate exit polls, surveys done afterward and more detailed studies after - show that Perot took equally from the GOP and Clinton nationally. In some states, he took more from Clinton than the GOP. The only states in either election Perot possibly a difference likely was Montana and Colorado in 1992.
Again, one bit of evidence. Just one. Otherwise, let's drop it.
My limited take on the best and worst pollsters of this cycle, based on popular vote percentage predictions on Election Eve:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/12/104733/07/259/659768
However, what I would really like to see done (as explained in the piece) is to evaluate pollsters based on more than a final-day snapshot. Who was “right” on more days once it became an Obama v. McCain race? This is of course complicated… Do you base rightness based on margins, trends, or some other metric? And what do you do about undecideds?
That is: If Gallup had a 4-point differential on some date four months before the election, with 16% undecideds, can one relate that meaningfully to the final result?
The goal being: Who should I be paying attention to in January/July/October 2012?
I see the infamous Cugel is still on here hate-mongering and spewing mean and distasteful rhetoric against anyone who doesn't share his political philosiphies.
Not a surprise, though. He's just an ideological bigot like the president he supported and voted for. It's people like Cugel that are what's worst in this country and tear it apart.
He is doing what he can to triviliaze this country and bring about its downfall, not lift it up and wish for its success.
Cugel is a horrible person and an icon of everything that's wrong in America. It's a shame he likely spreads his filth elsewhere and not just on the pages of 538, but I still have faith that his bigotry and hate is still much more isolated than he would like to believe.
We will know in 2012 if this is a realignment election. Obama will be either a rousing success or a massive failure.
My guess is as bad as things are now we will see an improvement in economic conditions by 2012 and if the world is somewhat peaceful and we have no further terrorist attacks Obama will win a Reagan sized re-election minus a few states in the deep south and Kansas etc but in excess of 425 electoral votes.
The republican party will be stuck as a party of the deep south and states like Utah and Idaho. Until the GOP moves to the middle and boots the religious right they may be out of power for a generation
I have a question for you guys that has arisen from reading the posts in this thread.
Please bear in mind I am a UK citizen who did not learn anything about US history after 1776 at school.
I know who Teddy Roosevelt was, and I know he charged up some hill somewhere. But why the "bull moose" party? What was it, how did it get it's name?
@ sfergus, I think the best argument for "Clinton won because of Perot" is that Perot focused the media narrative and the presidential campaign on the economy, rather than social or personality issues, to the enormous advantage of Clinton. I'm not sure how anyone would ever prove or disprove this theory, so it necessarily remains conjecture.
I'm glad you said this, I've been watching a lot of the talking heads on TV lately and they love to make this into some huge historical change for the Democratic party.
Like you, I think we'll know more in 8 years.
"livemild said...
cugal-[sic]
are you assuming that the democratic party will have a 2-1 advantage and it will remain that way in four years?
at some point the repubs will wake up to the fact that they are a party that is literally dying off. at that point they will have to make more of an effort to attract the younger and non-white voters.
i think repubs will make inroads into the non-white advantage the Democrats currently hold because of their more conservative views (which does have an appeal to some) and also simply because people will always look to an alternative to a ruling party."
Conservative Republican David Brooks doesn't think so!
The Republican base WON'T LET the party "move left" to become more inclusive! When Bush tried to pass immigration reform, his party base repudiated him!
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/opinion/11brooks.html
David Brooks writes:
"Traditionalists own the conservative mythology. Members of the conservative Old Guard see themselves as members of a small, heroic movement marching bravely from the Heartland into belly of the liberal elite. In this narrative, anybody who deviates toward the center, who departs from established doctrine, is a coward, and a sellout. . . .
In short, the Republican Party will probably veer right in the years ahead, and suffer more defeats."
Republicans CAN'T appeal to moderates and minorities, because they don't think they did anything wrong! "America is a center-right country!" "It's all Bush's fault!" They are deep in denial!
Their base really HATES immigrants and is completely opposed to "AMNESTY for illegals!" Not surprisingly, Hispanics aren't rushing to support a party that demonizes them and threatens their friends and relatives and is deeply racist at it's core.
Even if Republicans do change, it's too late! People DON'T change their voting habits, just because a party changes it's ways! Rural whites simply wouldn't vote for moderate Democrats like Mondale, Dukakis, or Gore.
Once people develop their voting identity by the time they hit 30, they mostly don't change (a few change at the margins, but 90% go through life as a conservative or liberal or moderate and vote consistently R or D or I).
Republicans have LOST minorities and the youth vote PERMANENTLY, unless something MAJOR happens to shake things up.
I can't imagine what that would be.
Whether Obama is reelected or not will depend on whether the economy starts to emerge from recession by mid-2010 or not. Unemployment is a lagging indicator, so an actual turnaround won't be perceived by most voters until nearly two years later.
If unemployment is above 9% or so in Sept 2010, not only will the Democrats lose seats in Congress, but they'll likely lose the White House. If it's started to come down, then there's a decent shot that Obama can get reelected. It's really that simple.
But why the "bull moose" party? What was it, how did it get it's name?
Bull Moose party was basically the Teddy Roosevelt party after civil war among Republicans left Roosevelt on the outside. As to how it got its name, I think Roosevelt said something like he felt as strong as a bull moose and the animal became associated with him.
Sorry, Perot did change the 1992 election. You can not just look at the vote totals. Perot changed the nature of the debate to be "anti-Bush" and his campaigning directly led to many people who voted for Clinton. I know many of these people personally. They figured, "if a business guy like Perot doesn't support Bush, I can't either. I'll vote for the other guy."
@ sfergus, I think the best argument for "Clinton won because of Perot" is that Perot focused the media narrative and the presidential campaign on the economy, rather than social or personality issues, to the enormous advantage of Clinton. I'm not sure how anyone would ever prove or disprove this theory, so it necessarily remains conjecture.
I, for one, don't buy it. Perot talked mostly about deficits (federal budget and trade) as well as the strength of the US dollar. We were in the middle of a pretty severe recession in late 1991 and early 1992, so the narrative would have been about the economy regardless of whether Perot was in the race.
And from the very start, Clinton talked about creating new jobs. Meanwhile, Bush I fumbled around trying to explain why he broke his "ready-my-lips-no-new-taxes" pledge from 1988. Given the absence of a major foreign policy crisis and the presence of a fairly widespread recession, the 1992 election was going to be decided by who connected best on the economy. Had Perot never entered the race, I'm willing to bet that the outcome would have been very similar.
I've been reading about the possible GM bailout, and the situation the company finds itself in is extremely dire. I don't know what might happen to this country if GM goes under, but I shudder at the thought. It seems that the greatest strength of this country is the stability associated with our form of government, with its orderly transitions and all. What might happen if a million more untrained workers find themselves on the street, having to pay rent and take care of their families. Talk about political realignment; I would like to understand better what the ramification of civil unrest associated with massive loss of jobs might bring to this extremely diverse country. My first instinct is that the race wars might be reignited, but in even more violent form than during the civil rights movement. Keep in mind that during the Great Depression, the variety of races in this country was much less than it is now. I don't know what to make of this scenario, but I would appreciate your comments.
Instead of looking at party affiliation, would it be possible to break down the composition of Congress on a conservative-liberal ideology continuum? I mean, not just Dixiecrats but even modern day Southern Democrats and and some "blue state" Republicans don't exactly hold true to the given party line. This is also why the 60-seat Senate threshold is misleading.
Dear Friend,
We are a group of Italian bloggers. After the racist declaration of Italian first minister (Silvio Berlusconi) concerning the skin colour of Mr. Barack Obama, U.S. Elected President, we decided to start a collective blog against this kind of racism. The name of the blog is: YES WE ARE DIFFERENT! There you can find our statement. We don’t share this kind of declaration and we would show and inform about it. Our target is to notify that many Italians are not racist. Actually we are still organize to find the right way to publish a page on foreign newspaper to mark our ideas. In the mean time we use the blog to get more supports. First of all: we don’t ask you any financial help! We only kindly ask you to help us, if you share our position would be nice to include a link on your site. This is not a commercial site or a spam. All cost will supported by our groups of bloggers, but is important for us to have more highlighting on the web. We confirm this is not a spam project and the only target is to fight against any kind of racism.
We thank you in advance for your help.
cugal- well said. i was probably way TOO optimistic that they repubs possessed a brain!
in the background someone on tv just said that palin considers herself the future of the republican party...
so much for the GOP being anything but old or learning from their mistakes.
I also just dont understand doing the same thing over and over again like the repubs do when clearly it does not work.
On the subject of realignment, I think it's necessary to step back from insider dynamics of party politics and look at what's driving the political dynamic at any one time.
Party political alignment falls out as a consequence of the history and tradition of the major parties, and their tactical response to the major political issues of the time. But I think it's far more important to step back and look at the bigger picture. Nixon's "Southern Strategy" is the best examply that comes quickly to mind. While it was deliberate political strategy that worked brilliantly for a while, it was - IMHO - the root cause of what just drove the GOP off a cliff in the last election.
Think about it, though. In 1968, this country damn near came apart at the seams. NOTHING made sense to anyone. If you didn't like the way things were for whatever reason, this was a good thing - that would include, well, let's see, pretty much anyone who was not straight, white, and conventionally conservatively Christian. However, there's a hell of a lot of people in that latter category and some of them were more threatened than upset by the 60's. Realistically, a conservative, white, (southern) backlash was coming after the wrenching tumult of the previous 5 years or so. Nixon was smart enough to get on that horse and ride. It was NOT inevitable that he would be able to do so. It was NOT inevitable that it would be the Republicans who would be the ones who captured that backlash. Suppose George Wallace had gotten just a wee bit more traction - or maybe hadn't taken that bullet?
The point is, political realignments are real. They're just not all that much about political parties. National political parties reshape their coalitions in response changes in the underlying primary dynamics of national politics.
As a separate exercise, over the year, how many distinct version of the Democratic and Republican parties can you define? The FDR coalition of the Democrats ran and ran and ran and ran out. Is the Reagan party a new version or a sub-version of the Nixonian version? And so on.....
"I know who Teddy Roosevelt was, and I know he charged up some hill somewhere. But why the "bull moose" party? What was it, how did it get it's name?"
Conservative Republicans revolted at the progressive ideas of Teddy Roosevelt and basically forced the entire progressive wing of the Republican party out. They rallied around Roosevelt in 1912, but Republican voters split between traditional Republican Conservative Taft and Democrat Wilson, allowing Wilson to win.
Wilson won on the basis of solid Southern support. He was deeply racist and had a screening of W.D. Griffith's "Birth of a Nation" in the White House -- the movie in which the KKK was portrayed as the hero -- riding in to save white women from the clutches of black rapists.
T.R. style Progressives moved over to the Democrats, but Republicans returned to power with Harding and Coolidge winning massive majorities in 1920 and 1924 on a "Return to Normalcy" platform. Hoover completed 12 years of uninterrupted Republican rule, before they were destroyed by the Great Depression and the rise of FDR and the New Deal.
The Republican party has remained rural and conservative ever since.
Once Johnson signed the civil rights acts, Southern whites moved over to join Republican northern and western conservatives forming the Nixon-Reagan coalitions.
Wow!
Cugel just referred to Mondale and Dukakis as moderates!
That just shows where he is aligned!
Holy shit! If there ever was an indictment of how big of a liberal loon somebody is, that was it!
OMG! I still can't believe it...Dukakis a moderate?!
HAHAHAHA!!!
Thanks for the explanation of bull moose, another Mike
In the meantime I have been reading up on what happened in 1912. Seems that Teddy R got support for being the Republican candidate but Taft and his cronies overrode the decision. The outcome was not just Teddy R leaving the Republicans but also the permanent establishment of presidential primaries.
One thing occurs to me. Could something similar happen in 2012 - for example, if Palin gets the popular vote in the Republican primaries, but the guys running the party suffer an outbreak of common sense and refuse to endorse her as their presidential candidate. She could then go off and create her own "bull moose" party - even the name would seem tailormade for her! :)
"Whether Obama is reelected or not will depend on whether the economy starts to emerge from recession by mid-2010 or not."
True, but that's like saying "whether Jerry Ford wins or not will be determined by whether voters can get over his Nixon pardon."
That says NOTHING about the fundamental demographic shift of whites angry over civil rights and the anti-war movement into Republican ranks.
Obama could screw up and lose the election, but that would only slow down change, not stop the demographic changes that are taking place -- just as Watergate interrupted the triumphant ascent of conservatives between 1968 and 1980. Reagan might have won in 1976, but a conservative Republican was overwhelmingly likely to win in 1980 or 1984, just because of demographic changes among voters.
The Obama wave is similar. Young voters, women, minorities, urban and suburban voters, northerners, urban southerners in FL, NC, VA, and emerging western progressives -- this coalition isn't going anywhere.
If Obama loses, it will only mean that Republicans peeled off a few voters at the margins, enough for a Republican to win a narrow victory in a Democratic-leaning electorate -- i.e. just like Carter and Clinton did.
But, Democrats are likely to continue to dominate Congress (perhaps by a narrower margin) for the next 10-20 years.
Beyond that we can't see.
@mrs b, I like the bull moose name for a Palin led party! But, I think your scenario is extremely unlikely. First, the way things are set up now, if you win the primaries, then you will be the nominee. So, it's the primary losers who would have to go off and form a new party. Second, the guys running the party LIKE Palin. She really appeals to every element of the party, except the moderates and intellectuals and their numbers and influence in the party is small and diminishing.
Bottom line, Cugel, and this is something you ignorantly and foolishly omit from any of your analysis.
In this country, 34% of people self-identify as conservatives, 44% as moderate/independent, and 22% liberal.
The Republicans have been hijacked by theocratic loons, yes, but the Democratic party has been hijacked by liberal loons such as yourself.
While the party(ies) are off course, the ideology of this country is way more conservative than you'd like to admit. I don't know if I buy the "center-right" argument because there's a "center" somewhere period that is the median/mean of the aggregate thought of this country. Equal distribution on both sides.
This election may have marked a slight shift leftward from where it had been previously, but the "center" mark is still pretty conservative by most standards.
For all this talk of a unified Democratic party and realignment and all sorts of other bullshit, people are displaying a very porr short-term memory.
Not long after the defeat of Kerry in '04, almost everyone agreed the Democratic party was in disarray and fractured along ideological lines and poised for a split. Despite Congressional gains in 2006, the widely held convention wisdom has been that they still haven't gotten their "act" together - whatever that means - and these Republican losses are more just repudiation of Bush era doctrines.
Many were saying heading into the 2008 election that if the Democrats had lost, THEY would be the ones fractured for a very long time - split between blue-collar, union, socially moderate whites, minorities, and liberal activist groups, the three of which STILL HAVE vast differences and form a very fragile coalition going forward to assume they'll all fly under the Democratic banner.
Cugel, you squawk and squeal about Republican animostiy towards immigrants and minorities, but you forget that there is a large chunk of those socially moderate white Democrats who are just as alienating towards lax immigration standards and entitlement programs.
Anyway, just because 2008 was a winner for Democrats, let's not get carried away here.
The Democratic party is still one held together by loosely associated and often abrasive factions that could easily revolt against one another as the party is yet to prove it has new and fresh ideas that WILL ACTUALLY WORK.
Time well tell. Anyone clamoring to their supposed prescient knowledge of what's to come in American politics is foolish at best.
@cugel
thanks for the superb explanation. Wilson is generally only known over here as the president during the First World War, and is thought to be generally a fairly good thing, because he also worked on the League of Nations.
FWIW, Birth of a Nation was screened at my secondary school when I was about 14. Nobody thought it was racist, although I remember feeling it was a bit silly. I wonder if he would have been racist if he was alive now, or whether he was just a product of the times he lived in.
Nixon campaigned as a conservative but governed as a moderate.
So huge increases in spending on social programs, with a dash of wage and price controls thrown in, passed for moderate in the '70s? Not to mention detente with the Soviet Union and opening relations with Communist China? Nixon was arguably the most liberal president of the 20th century, or any century for that matter.
"Mule Rider said...
This election may have marked a slight shift leftward from where it had been previously. "
A slight shift lefward???
I thought Obama was a socialist, marxist, most liberal Senator in the USA?
One more point and one of irony against Cugel's posts. He is quick to point out "racist" or "xenophobic" tendencies among whites in the Republican party as furthering the divide and limiting them to a regional party in a society with an ever-growing minority population.
It's funny, though, that while there is definitely unwarranted racist animosity that flows from many whites to those minority groups, there is a substantial amount of unwarranted racial animosity that flows from blacks and hispanics to the white population.
My blood boils when I see arguments painting the situation as vast hordes of innocent minorities who are continually oppressed and simply take the physical, emotional, and mental abuse from their "white captors" generation after generation, yet they totally ignore and omit all of the hatred and vitriol that flows from the minority community towards Euro-Caucasians.
Cugel, you are a tool.
Dear Mr. Mule Rider:
You make many good points. We enjoy your company and fine wit and treasure the moments you spend with us. And yet we sense -- how to put it? -- a sadness, a cry, as it were, from the wilderness of the soul. We fear you have suffered, that you have known loss. We too have suffered, though not so much lately. It is said of Islamic terrorists that conservatives want to annihilate them while liberals want to offer them understanding and therapy. You are not unlike an Islamic terrorist. You are angry, like so many of your people. You don’t have your mule license; you owe back taxes. The love of your life has gone back to Juneau. No mules for sister Sarah. We’re here to offer solace, in between rebuilding our blessed nation from the ruins we find it in and restoring its good name in the world -- a world that has been unkind to you. This will be the work of a generation. We may not get there in one term. We’ll probably be around for 6 or 8. Meantime, I’m pretty sure we can get you the help you need. Provided you have insurance; otherwise that could be a problem. So buck up Mule Man. And stay in touch.
"So there are disagreements as to when precisely the conservative realignment occurred. This apparent segmentation of the conservative realignment, with the first stage occurring in 1968, the second stage in 1980, a third stage in 1994, the final step in 2000, is precisely why there is now scholarly disagreement as to the relevance of "Realignment Theory" in explaining electoral shifts.
Nixon has been called "the last liberal president" by Noam Chomsky, because he was constrained by declining power liberal institutions from governing totally from the right.
But, by 1980 conservative ideology was totally ascendant. It was inevitable that a conservative would win either in 1980 or 1984.
The only Democrats to win between 1968 and 2008 had to govern within an overall Conservative paradigm.
It's no accident that the only Democrats to win between 1968 and 2008 were Southern moderates Carter and Clinton. Both promised extremely LIMITED reform and NOT a return to New Deal liberalism!
Carter promoted "honest government" while Clinton promised a needed correction to the Reagan-Bush economic policies that produced two recessions within 10 years.
He mostly failed to deliver on whatever progressive ideas he campaigned on because his health care initiative failed, and Republicans gained control of Congress in 1994.
So huge increases in spending on social programs, with a dash of wage and price controls thrown in, passed for moderate in the '70s? Not to mention detente with the Soviet Union and opening relations with Communist China? Nixon was arguably the most liberal president of the 20th century, or any century for that matter.
You forgot to mention possibly his most liberal legacy: along with the price controls, the "Nixon Shock" involved the unilateral termination of Bretton Woods and the direct convertibility of the USD to gold, in part to drive up inflation in hopes of reducing unemployment (back when macroeconomists still had faith in the Phillips Curve). Had LBJ attempted this, Wall Street would have demanded impeachment. But because he was a true, communist-fighting conservative, he won reelection in a huge landslide a year later.
He may not have been the most "liberal" president of the 20th century, but he certainly was the most versatile when it came to his ideology.
What nobody seems to be factoring in to this discussion is Obama himself. He is a pretty unique individual, and one who shows every sign of having learned from past Democrat mistakes - whether those mistakes were in the way Carter and Clinton approached the presidency, or in the way the Democrats ran their presidential campaigns in recent years e.g. not responding to the swiftboat thing.
The other problem the Republicans have is that W was a Republican president and he has just about the lowest approval ratings of any president ever. It is going to take a while for the majority of the country to get past the memories of the W presidency.
That's two considerations that make this different to 1992 or 1976.
BTW I think Carter is absolutely terrific. He was and is right about a lot of things, but what he failed at was understanding the politics of being president. He tried telling people they couldn't continue gobbling up resources at the same time Reagan was telling them they could have whatever they wanted. Surprise! people voted for Reagan.
completely off-topic:
anyone knows how soon we will know anything new about the alaska votes?
any site where to follow the data?
She really appeals to every element of the party, except the moderates and intellectuals and their numbers and influence in the party is small and diminishing.
You left out one other element of the GOP that she doesn't particularly appeal to -- the ones who like to win elections. She simply is not a plausible president, and it is extremely difficult to imagine her transforming herself into one.
In this country, 34% of people self-identify as conservatives, 44% as moderate/independent, and 22% liberal.
... the ideology of this country is way more conservative than you'd like to admit.
This sort of misses the key point that voter self-identification as liberal, moderate or conservative is largely dependent on the policy positions of the major parties. The modern day GOP isn't really running against the New Deal anymore. In fact, they've largely co-opted most of it. So when the right wing true believers talk about most of the country being conservative, they're basically fooling themselves because the word means something very different to the average voter than it means to them.
We will have a realignment when ambitious politicians in newly blue states switch parties.
Another Mike -
Sorry, you are wrong. Before Perot entered the race, Clinton held a big lead over Bush. Then Perot entered and briefly led.
The predicate that the public wanted Bush out preceded Perot.
A week before the election, Clinton led Bush by 13 points. The reason most analysts that year gave for the final margin being 6 points was that since Clinton's victory (and thus Bush's defeat) was assured, millions of Perot sympathizers voted for him feeling safe that Bush would be gone.
Citing people you met is not evidence.
On Wilson/Birth of a Nation
The story of his screening the film at the White House is at best apocryphal. By most historical accounts, this was invented by publicists for the film. Wilson was hardly pro-civil rights (very few whites were at the time), but to describe him as deeply racist, and then cite his enthusasiasm for BoaN as proof is dubious at best.
By definition, we cannot know if we've achieved a realignment until the next several elections. We must see if the fundamentals of one election carry over to the next. If anything, I'm not sure what major demographic groups have switched their support from the GOP to the Dems. Instead, I see dealignment among parts of the GOP base.
anyone knows how soon we will know anything new about the alaska votes?
They're supposed to be counting about 52,000 of the 90,000+ outstanding ballots today. Of course, it's only about 9 AM there, so they're probably just getting started. Even if they do report all of those by tonight, there will still be about 40,000 uncounted.
As an aside, adding 90,000 to the totals already reported gets the turnout just about to 2004 levels, maybe a bit higher.
Updated results:
Obama - 52.7%
McCain - 46.0%
Votes coming in at the moment from California and Illinois. Waiting for updated Alaskan results.
Realignment is something that can only be seen in the rear-view mirror. However, in current time, I am noticing the talking heads on the right saying that the country is a center/right country as much as they can.
That tells me they are on the defensive about the End of the Reagan Era.
It reminds me of Democrats in 1980 who spoke of Roosevelt and Kennedy over and over again in the midst of a cultural and political shift.
The right wing talkers and the Reaganistas are playing the dinosaur this time around. Their ideas failed and they have no ideas in solution to the problem.
The right is meeting in two forums this week. There will be a war for the soul of the Republican Party that will determine their future. Not to mention that the bench is short.
To change, they have to quit looking for a New Reagan. That is the first step in a long road.
Wilson's historical account of Reconstruction followed the standard Southern line -- it's failure was the fault of blacks, who weren't ready for freedom. In other words, it was racist. He also resegregated the federal government, a racist -- indeed a disgracefully racist -- act. He spoke out against hyphenated americans (like German-Americans) as well. His sympathy for Birth of a Nation is somewhat apocryphal, but it is consistent with his other views. By the standards of his own day, his racial views were extremely unpleasant, and his presidency helped to create a climate of increased racism in the country.
Not to make this thread about Birth of a Nation, but its appeal at the time had to do with more than its obvious and blatantly racist elements (which conformed to existing stereotypes). The film had other appeal as a narrative epic, as a war story irrespective of the side it took, and as an incredible advancing of film narrative and presentation to the masses. It was a history making film, and although even in the most sympathetic view a disgraceful film in its racism, it has real value and art within it.
And Griffith before and after made great films that did not have these same elements.
@ mac, I do not believe Palin is nearly as unelectable as you imagine her to be. I suspect her negative ratings come from the view that she's inexperienced and unready and lacking knowledge, not that her positions are too radical. She'll have four or eight years to get ready and the primary process to hone her skills. I wouldn't count her out yet.
On realignment -- Rosenberg's series on Open Left considers Nixon to be the realigning election. Certainly that's when we see the patterns of how the states and various ethnic groups vote shift. Reagan -- however important as President -- did not realign in this view.
...as well as Birth of a Nation, we also watched Battleship Potemkin. An infinitely better film, but equal weight of propaganda I suspect.
I am neither a racist nor a communist, however, so not sure how much impact films have on people!
Now way off thread, and must get back to the point......
How Obama ran is really why this is a transformative election. His really extensive use of the Net changed the makeup of the electorate. Maybe only a small percentage, but with our closely divided politics it will make a significant shift in the overall direction our country takes
Perhaps this is one of many factors, but if you notice what Jimmy Carter and George HW Bush never had that the more successful incumbents did have it's a political savvy and charisma. There's no question Clinton and Reagan have it, in man ways W does too, certainly more than his opponent Kerry, so does Obama. The better pol usually wins. Measure charisma and you'll figure out who your President will be in the age of Television anyway. Palin could not beat Obama in 4 years, but maybe she could beat the Dem in 8 years, scary
@sfergus, I do not neessarily believe Clinton won because of Perot--I'm agnostic on the question. I would love to see the polling from 1992 before Perot entered, but Clinton holding a lead over Bush months before the election is hardly definitive proof of what would have occured had Perot not entered. Certainly, the economy was always going to be a big issue and Clinton tried to focus on it. Bush tried to focus on other matters, particularly "values" issues (like Republicans before and after him), but was not successful. I believe a big reason he was not very successful in shifting the focus off the economy was Perot. Whether it was a difference maker, I don't know and do not believe anyone can answer with certainty. At a minimum, reasonable people can disagree on how Perot impacted the course of that presidential campaign and simply citing the final numbers is not definitive refutation of the Perot cost Bush the election argument.
The numbers are:
Obama: 66.355.413 (53%)
McCain: 58.018.973 (46%).
Source CNN.
Redshift, I appreciate your point that the Obama campaign did in fact publish a lot of specifics about policies they would pursue. My point, however, is that like FDR, Obama has not enunciated a program for how to deal with the economic crisis, which is more than anything the defining issue in this election, and in the potential realignment we're all discussing here.
This is not meant as an indictment of the President-elect. It's just to say that he hasn't told us (and may not know) what he intends to do about a situation that grows in magnitude daily, and is influenced by global factors beyond the President's ability to control.
FDR improvised. I believe Obama will as well. He'll search for what works. He will attempt to reconcile conflicting approaches to the crisis. And I believe the electorate will give him room to do so for a significant amount of time.
For any moron who still thinks "America is a center-right nation" just because Republicans have spent the last 40 years demonizing the label "liberal" recent polling totally destroys that theory, when you look at what so-called "moderates" actually believe!!
http://assets.ourfuture.org/documents/change-election-2008.pdf
Pollster: "Now I'm going to read you a list of proposals the new president will consider. I'd like to find out how high a priority you think each of these issues should be for the next president. For each proposal, tell me if you think it should be the SINGLE highest priority, one of the TOP FEW priorities, but not the highest, NEAR THE TOP of the list, in the MIDDLE OF THE LIST, or TOWARD THE BOTTOM of the list of priorities for the new president.
"Make college affordable to all Americans with a tax credit of $4,000 in exchange for community service"
Single Highest: 6%
Top Few Priorities: 20%
Near top: 22%
Middle Priority: 34%
Low priority: 17%
DK/DA: 1%
"Repeal the Bush tax cuts for those making over 250,000 dollars and cut taxes for middle class families and anyone making under 200,000 dollars" [Obama plan]
Top priority: 10%
Top few: 31%
Near top: 19%
Middle: 18%
Low priority: 22%
DK/DA: 1
"Make health insurance affordable and accessible to all Americans"
Single Top Priority: 15%
Top few: 33%
Near top: 25
Middle: 19
Low priority: 7%
"End the war in Iraq responsibly and redeploy our troops from Iraq to Afghanistan"
Single top priority: 15%
Top few: 38
Near top: 23
middle priority: 15
Low priority: 7
DK/DA: 2
"Repeal tax breaks that benefit companies that move jobs overseas"
Single top priority: 10%
Top Few: 23
Near top: 26
Middle: 25
Low:15
DK/DA: 2
"End dependence on foreign oil by 2025 by requiring one quarter of U.S. electric power to come from alternative energy where new investments will create new jobs"
Single top:14%
Top few: 34
Near top: 34
Middle: 15
Low priority: 3
DK/DA: 1
"Make job-creating investments in America's aging roads and transportation systems and stimulate new economic activity"
Single top priority: 9
Top few: 25
Near top: 26
Middle: 32
Low: 7
"Raise the minimum wage so full-time workers earn a living wage that can cover basic needs for their family"
Single top priority: 7
Top few: 23
Near top: 24
Middle: 31
Low priority: 14
DK/DA: 1
"Expand opportunities for employees to organize in unions so full-time workers earn a living wage that can cover basic needs for their family"
Single top priority: 6
Top few: 15
Near top: 21
Middle: 29
Low: 28
DK/DA: 1
"Enact a three-month moratorium on all foreclosures so that people don't lose their homes"
Single top: 10
Top few: 19
Near top: 22
Middle: 27
Not priority: 21
DK/DA: 1
"Regulate the banking system to make sure a financial crisis like this one can never happen again"
Single top: 14
Top few:35
Near top: 26
Middle: 18
Not priority: 6
DK/DA: 2
Conclusion: Which do you agree with more:
"In order to win in the future the Republican Party must move more to the center in order to win over moderate and independent voters."
Strong agree: 33%, Agree: 20%
total agree: 50%
OR
"In order to win in the future the Republican Party needs to move more to the right and back to its conservative principles"
Strong agree: 21%
Agree: 13%
Total Agree: 34%
That's what a landslide looks like people! MASSIVE support for progressive change combined with majority belief that Republicans are too conservative and need to move to the middle (not that they will)!
@ sfergus, quick checking on 1992 campaign leads me to believe Clinton was way behind Bush and Perot in spring 1992. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992#General_election
Do you have a cite for your assertion that Clinton led Bush before Perot entered?
Perot represented, like Clinton, a desire for an alternative to Bush. His candidacy represented a desire to replace Bush.
The economy was Clinton's issue from the beginning of the campaign, as was change. He shared those with Perot, not Bush.
You can believe whatever you want, but you are constructing your own make-believe world about 1992. Perot did not make the economy the issue; Clinton had already done so. His candidacy thrived initially because of a large number of people's doubts about Clinton's personal life and character, but Clinton recovered on his own.
As I said, believe what you want, but with or without Perot, Clinton was going to win in 1992 based on all available evidence.
Per the polls: yes there was a period when Clinton fell behind, at the height of the personal scandal revelation part of the campaign. Perot's rise came at the expense of CLinton, not Bush. They both represented alternatives to Bush, and Perot briefly took those votes from Clinton.
Thanks for adding proof to my case.
OFF TOPIC (SORRY)
burt does anyone know of when or a link to alaska and the votes that are being counted?
btw-Birth of a Nation was controversial when it came out.
it was a HUGE hit but manly because the film media was new and such a long story driven film was truly unheard of and the public was in awe. many saw the film two or three times.
http://profiles.friendster.com/618859#moreabout
nate?
Woodrow Wilson's sympathy for Birth of a Nation was more than apocryphal, and I feel bound to correct this revisionist statement. Griffith consulted with Thomas Dixon, author of the Clansman, which was the original working title of Birth of a Nation. Dixon himself suggested the new name of the film to Griffith. Griffith also drew heavily on Woodrow Wilson's "A History of the American People" from which he quotes directly in the written dialogue of the movie.
While the movie was being screened in select locations, Reverand Dixon wrote a letter to his old college friend from Johns Hopkins University, now President Woodrow Wilson, requesting a half-hour interview, which the President granted. By mid-February, Dixon was in the White House meeting with Wilson, and stating that he had a favor to ask of him, "Not as chief magistrate of the Republic but as a former scholar and student of history and sociology." That favor was to have the President view Griffith's new movie, as Dixon said, "not because it was the greatest ever produced or because his classmate had written the story...but because this picture made clear for the first time that a new universal language had been invented...a new process of reasoning by which will could be overwhelmed with conviction."
So, on February 18, 1915, The Clansman became the first motion picture ever to be shown in the White House. The audience in the East Room included President Wilson and his family, members of his staff and Cabinet, along with their wives. Wilson's comment, after viewing the film was:
"It is like writing history with Lightning. And my only regret is that it is all so terribly true."
This quotation was quickly put into general circulation, although the White House staff would later attempt to downplay the endorsement.
From the White House, it was on to the U.S. Supreme Court. With the help of another old friend from North Carolina, Navy Secretary Josephus Daniels, Rev. Dixon arranged a private meeting with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Justice Edward White. The old jurist, who had never seen a motion picture, was not inclined to do so, until Dixon told him that it was about the Ku Klux Klan. At that point White's manner changed, and Dixon reports the following exchange:
"'You tell the true story of the Klan?', White asked. 'Yes - for the first time.' White removed his glasses and pushed his book aside, as he leaned towards Dixon and said in a low tone: 'I was a member of the Klan, sir. Through many a dark night, I walked my sentinel's beat through the ugliest streets of New Orleans with a rifle on my shoulder. You've told the true story of that uprising of outraged manhood?' 'In a way I'm sure you'll approve,' the Reverend replied. 'I'll be there!' said White.
Thus, the night after the White House debut of The Clansman, another private showing was arranged, at Washington's Raleigh Hotel, for a specially invited audience of several hundred people, including members of the U.S. Senate, the U.S. Congress, and the diplomatic corps. True to his promise, Chief Justice White attended and brought several other associate justices of the Supreme Court with him.
Apocryphal indeed...
To summarize Democracy Corps polling:
"When you look at attitudes, . . .there is no question: Conservatives have had their day. This is a center-left, not a center-right nation.
. . .we could probe attitudes of voters by political identification. What we found was clear: on both values and issues, moderates line up with liberals to form a strong majority that isolates conservatives.
. . . Should we begin to take troops out of Iraq or stay the course until we reach stability? Liberals 92-7 for getting troops out; moderates 64-33. Conservatives? By two to one -- 66-33 -- they would stay the course.
Does government regulation do more good or more harm? Liberals believe it does more good than harm by 75-18; moderates by 60-36. Conservatives go the other way, even after the financial collapse, 52-44.
Are you worried that we will fail to make investments we need to create jobs or worry that we will spend too much and have to raise taxes? Liberals worry about not making needed investments 73-23; moderates by 53-44. Conservatives worry about spending and taxes 69-29.
Did you worry more that Barack Obama would raise taxes or that John McCain would continue Bush's economic policies? Liberals by a margin of 58% worry about McCain; moderates the same by 29%. Conservatives by 46 - 70-24 - worry about Obama.
Should homosexuality be accepted or discouraged by society. Liberals say accepted by 82-17; moderates by 61-28. Conservatives want homosexuality discouraged by 63-31.
. . .
On issue after issue, moderates stand with liberals, not conservatives. This is a center-left nation.
Republicans are not only an aging, monochromatic, regional minority party. They not only must now suffer the circular firing squad that follows defeat, they not only struggle to find a compelling leader or a relevant agenda. They swim against the tide. They are a largely conservative party in a center-left nation. Obama's mandate is clear. And they'd be well advised to get out of the way."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-l-borosage/the-center-left-nation_b_143159.html
And while I'm on the topic, it's helpful to point out that Woodrow Wilson's History of the American People explained the Ku Klux Klan of the late 1860s as the natural outgrowth of Reconstruction, a lawless reaction to a lawless period. Wilson noted that the Klan "began to attempt by intimidation what they were not allowed to attempt by the ballot or by any ordered course of public action." Although it is unclear whether Wilson's harsh critique of the Reconstruction was colored by personal beliefs, it is clear that his critique provided much of the intellectual/historical justification for the racist policies/reactions of the 20th century American South.
As president of Princeton University, Wilson discouraged blacks from applying for admission, preferring to "keep the peace" among white students rather than have black students admitted. As President, Wilson allowed many of his cabinet officials to establish official segregation in most federal government offices, in some departments for the first time since 1863. His administration is said to have imposed full racial segregation in Washington and hounded from office considerable numbers of black federal employees. To be fair, Wilson did appoint W. E. B. Du Bois, a leader of the NAACP, who had campaigned for Wilson, to an Army commission in charge of dealing with race relations. (DuBois accepted, but he failed his Army physical and did not serve). When a delegation of blacks protested Wilson's discriminatory actions, Wilson told them that "segregation is not a humiliation but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you gentlemen." In 1914, he told the New York Times, "If the colored people made a mistake in voting for me, they ought to correct it."
The segregation introduced into the federal workforce by the Wilson administration was kept in place by the succeeding presidents and not officially ended until the Truman Administration.
thanks kennyb- i didnt know much of what you wrote about.
griffith the next year made intolerance.
go figure-nothing like defending racist views with freedoms...my guess is griffiths freedoms were all he cared about
Cugel said...
November 12, 2008 12:20 PM
Cugel said...
November 12, 2008 12:41 PM
**************
what a couple of amazing post you sent!
reading those numbers was a relief.
thanks.
:)
Griffith was a filmmaker; it was Dixon that provided the White Supremacist case that Griffith takes up in The Clansman/Birth of a Nation. Griffith did try to denounce prejudice in his next film, Intolerance, by showing how slavery was wrong because the Babylonians tried to make some slaves out of their people who didn't believe in some of the main traditional gods. According to Lillian Gish in her autobiography, The Movies, Mr. Griffith and Me, Griffith towards the end of his life expressed an interest in making a film that would be a tribute to African-Americans. But, if true, he never got the chance to make that film. He did make Abraham Lincoln, and although there are many historical inaccuracies in the movie, such as Lincoln giving his Second Innaugural address at Ford's Theater before he was shot, it is a celebration of Lincoln, the man, and does not contain the racist overtones of The Clansman/Birth of a Nation.
Love the site, but I'd like to support a move to a forum of some type. Keep up the great work. Even now, after the election, I'm still addicted to this website.
I really wish you all wouldn't lend Cugel your attention and give him such undue credibility for logical reasoning and rational thought.
He is a bigot of the worst kind and is nothing short of an ideological fascist. Thank God, though, for he represents likely no more than 0.05% of the population. I hope and pray his feelings and sentiments stay confined to such a marginal segment of the population. We can not afford his voice to have a larger voice in this country's politics. We will be doomed.
...and we also saw Intolerance at school......
Have been reading up on Wilson. Interesting. Promoted women's rights, but a racist. I will never understand how someone can champion rights for some, and not for others. I know someone in my own political party who argued strongly for a measure which had the effect of promoting male ethnic minorities above promoting women - and we have an anti-discrimination statement on the back of our membership cards. Completely nuts - what is the matter with these people?
Why Palin won't be electable in 2012 or any future Presidential contest comes down to a paraphrase of what Clinton said about the economy, "It's brains, stupid."
Palin has shown in the Katie Couric interviews and in her rehearsed sound bite answers at the VP debate, she lacks the intellectual capacity to investigate national issues and form sound, well-thought-out ideas on her own.
On another important note, there is a lack of wisdom in her campaign style. Remember it was at her rallies that she said Obama "pals around with terrorists" and there is a "Real America." It was at her rallies where the real loons and agitators screamed the worst insults and divisive things about Obama.
To lead this nation a candidate has to have the wisdom to provide a unifying vision and lead the entire nation, not divide against itself.
Finally, the biggest reason I give her next to no chance of winning a Presidential contest is that she won't secure the GOP nomination against far better and more qualified candidates. You know there were groans in the background of the GOP when McCain picked her over other more plausible candidates for VP, precisely because there are better candidates in the Republican fold. And those would-be-candidates know it. Not only that, but those other possible GOP candidates have far more inside political connections and clout in the lower 48 states than the Governor of Alaska. Many like Romney and Huckabee ran national primary campaigns that gave them experience and relationships outside their home states. Palin's stage orchestrated and tightly controlled "girl-in-the-bubble" campaigning during the general election prevented her from having much insight or say in how the campaign was happening and left her isolated from everyone except the audiences at her rallies. She returns to Alaska in many ways the same mysterious and somewhat disconnected from the lower 48 person she was when she joined the election 3 months ago.
I don't care how many years you simmer that candidate in the stew of Alaskan politics, she's not going to become the well-rounded, intellectuallly qualified, and well-connected candidate for national office that some hope for.
And remember one last thing, after how much McCain tried to shield her and her family from media scrutiny as the VP nominee, if she tries to run for the front slot of President, no one will protect her. All the media gloves will come off, and they will place her and her family under a spotlight so intense that the surface of the sun will seem comfortably baumy in comparison.
Those are the reasons why she doesn't stand a chance in my opinion.
Mule Rider said...
I really wish you all wouldn't lend Cugel
He is a bigot of the worst kind and is nothing short of an ideological fascist. Thank God, though, for he represents likely no more than 0.05% of the population.
November 12, 2008 1:03 PM
***********
sorry MR I appreciate kugel's post today.
Plus ,given that the president elect is spelled O-B-A-M-A ,I don't think He represent only 0.05% of the population.
Prabably is the opposite and you are that small part...
Cugel is an ideological fascist and seeks the ruination of this country, in my opinion.
He is vile and disgusting. Please do not take his posts to heart.
Fascism is right-wing.
Period.
There is no such thing as a liberal fascist, anymore than there is a right-wing communist.
matador,
No. Cugel is something far worse. He doesn't represent anywhere close to 99% of the nearly 53-54% of the country that voted for Barack Obama.
He is waaaaaay to the left and is full of anger, division, and authoritarianism for a left-wing ideological agenda.
Barack Obama looks like he's to the right of Attila the Hun compared to Cugel.
Make no mistake, Cugel is a dangerous human being and exemplary of all the "wrong" in America.
Not much discussion of tax policy here, but it might be the defining aspect of the Reagan-to-Bush II era. The republicans defined themselves as the party of low taxes in contrast to the tax-and-spend democrats. When people talk about why Bush Sr. lost to Clinton, they always cite his raising taxes. What happened in 2008 is that this narrative fell apart, economically, and Obama managed to slough off the tax-and-spend label.
What hasn't been clearly articulated is that repubs have been "borrow-and-spend" especially during Bush II. The ratio of debt to GDP went up under Reagan & Bush I, down under Clinton, up again under Bush II. The voters haven't really paid attention much to the fact that we've increased debt and spending, at least not as much attention as they pay to taxes. For obvious reasons. Until now.
In the run-up to the 2008 election, the long-term narrative about low-taxer republicans vs tax-and-spend democrats broke down.
First, people became aware of the problems with a borrow-and-spend economy. It's come home to the individual tax payer in the most personal way that the entire country is like the guy who took out a home loan on his overpriced house, ran up a lot of credit card debt on all those easy-to-get credit cards, and lived rich for 8 years. But suddenly that house is worth less than he owes, his cards are maxed out, he can't get more credit to keep going, and just today he lost his job. Not good. What might have felt like a trickle-down of wealth was suddenly revealed as personal leverage against inflated assets.
Just to be clear, debt is not a bad thing if you invest what you borrow to build a strong business or economy (national or personal). That's what debt is for. But the Bush II era doesn't seem to have invested well. In retrospect, the past 8 years look like some kind of champagne supernova where all we really did was debt-finance a good time.
Second, Obama took a different route on taxes from his democratic predecessors. He talked about raising taxes at the high end, but always in the context of cutting taxes for most people. The efforts to lump this in with the usual tax-and-spend camp didn't stick, partly because he stayed on message about tax cuts for most people, partly because the whole trickle-down, debt-financed economics of Bush (and pretty much McCain) had become suspect.
So I am guessing/hoping that Obama will be very cautious about raising taxes on lower tax brackets. Seeming reversion to the tax-and-spend model will be very costly in political capital. Ont the other hand, he will definitely have to increase spending to fund wars, bailouts, and any new New Deal-type programs, which I think people support. McCain's program to cut taxes AND spending did not resonate well. So Obama will have to continue deficit/debt-based spending, and to succeed, he'll have to make sure that new New Deal programs are good investments and provide good infrastructure for a capitalist economy. The real problems then, are 1) getting the programs right and 2) moving fast enough to see the promise of payback on investment.
In any case, the successful breaking of the old tax policy memes AND strategies is key to the change of era. Obama has poised himself up to do this but it's a tall order.
"Cudgel is an ideological fascist and seeks the ruination of this country, in my opinion.He is vile and disgusting. Please do not take his posts to heart."
Oh please. If all you have to add to the discussion is this kind of drivel, please leave. You sit there and insult others, but rarely if ever provide any actual content. You call others "facist" and "intolerant" yet contribute nothing to the discussion but insults.
If you have anything meanigful to say, please say it. But if all you want to do is spew insults, there are plenty of other places on the web where you can do that.
I do not know if this is a standard observation among scholars of American politics or not, but at any rate it's worth pointing out that the years 1912-1965 were an anomaly in American history in that immigration effectively stopped.
Immigration's effect on electoral coalitions is delayed: you need people to find their feet in the new land, build a new generation, and then they become a political force.
FDR's 1932 coalition was the last event largely dominated by the wave of immigration of the turn of the century. Following that, the terrain becomes much more stable.
It is reaosnable to suggest that startring at 2008, politics are going to be shaped by the post-1965 immigration. It was this immigration that made Obama unbeatable in the West and in this way constrained McCain's options, forcing him to the crazy Pennsylvania gamble which was essentially "let's go for the old electorate while it's still there".
The Republican party WILL adjust to post-1965 demographics. But it NEEDS to adjust; the Democratic party already is post-1965 (it created 1965, after all). And for this reason, the terrain did change, historically, for the Democrats' benefit.
Looks like, in a literal sense, we're both wrong. Fascism is neither representative of left- or right-wing.
Taken from wikipedia...
Fascism is a totalitarian nationalist ideology that advocates itself as being a third position alternative to both Capitalism and Communism. It seeks to form a Mass movement of militants who are willing to engage in violence against their political opponents and groups or individuals that the movement deems to be enemies. Fascists wish to solve existing economic, political, and social problems by achieving a millenarian national rebirth by exalting the nation or race as well as promoting cults of unity, strength and purity. Fascism opposes the political ideologies of communism, liberalism and conservatism as well as political concepts and systems such as democracy, individualism, pacifism, and pluralism.
mule rider, it seems as though YOU are part of the wrong in America.
The question is, when are you going to realise it?
"Taken from wikipedia..."
wow, how impressive. you decided to look up what fascism is in wikipedia AFTER using the term to describe your opponents. what an insightful commentator you are.
So can we please change "Bible Spice" to "Fascist Spice"?
To a large extent, the Democratic Party future is based on inclusion of Republican socially excluded conservatives, i.e., Minorities, gays, and women who are pro-choice, who can find no moral home in the Grand Old Party. The irony would be, would it not, that if the Democrats were successful in making these social issues into non-issues, by spreading the doctrine of acceptance of others ("What the World Needs Now" playing softly in the background), then many of the Democrats might choose the Republican Party for its fiscal conservatism.
Fascism is neither left-wing or right-wing. It has its own wing.
Sherwick,
You have no idea who I am or what I represent. You are a joke of a human being. If you really want to see how "bad" I am for America and how wrong I am for it in the big scheme of things, perhaps you'd like to meet in person and have an actual debate about these things.
Let me share with you one on one my experience and see if you think I'm what's "tearing this country apart."
I'm a self-made man from a rural, poor family who has achieved a master's degree in economics and am a leading analyst in a very tough and competitive field.
I pay my taxes and give comfortably to charitable causes.
I support all that's right and good in this country and I keep the law and uphold the Constitution.
Hard to believe I'm something that's "wrong" with America.
Mule Rider said...
matador,
No. Cugel is something far worse.
November 12, 2008 1:13 PM
**********
MR I tell you again,for the last time:
I appreciate cugel's numbers and links.
I said it was a relief for me to know through those numbers where america is going to.
that's all.
I don't know Cugel personally so I am not going to judge him,and you should do the same.
plus:
looks like you are very disappointed with this Obama’s presidency, it seem to me that you are no more comfortable living in what you define a socialist America.
Have you ever thought to expatriate ??
If yes, you should consider to come in Italy ,Having known your Karma, here in this site, I am sure you will find in Italy your Nirvana:
In fact ,right now, we have in charge a prime minister as old as McCain, as racist as Palin, as greedy as Cheeney and, last but not least, as out of touch as Bush.
I think you’d like Him.
would you Try ?
aloha MR
:)
RWD,
You are another typicall buffoon. You'd rather play semantics over insults than offer up any intellectual discourse to rebuff anything I've said.
It's fine with me if you want to be a pedantic coward. You've never offered or uttered anything intelligent on here that I've ever seen.
Nope. No consideration of expatriating anywhere else. This is the greatest place on Earth, even if she is broken and battered.
I'll do just like the liberal loons said when we told them to get the hell out of the country when they were bitching and whining and moaning. They said they'd stick around and change things.
Through a series of events, they're getting some of the change they want. However, most of these changes will be very damaging to the long-term stability and health of this country.
So I'm going to stick around and make sure she changes for the better.
I'm sticking with this democracy as opposed to the shit hole that is 90% of what is most of the rest of the world.
Something else that I just noticed. McCain only won 5 states with double-digit Electoral Votes. For the GOP, it will be very tough to ever clear the 269 mark if they are limit to poor math options going forward.
They only got:
Texas (34): which could change if Hispanics keep growing.
Georgia (15): Soooooo close. Imagine if Obama had carried it!
Missouri (11): VERY VERY CLOSE!
Tennessee (11): Probably off the Democratic map for a while.
Arizona (10): It will be more than 10 in 2012. But should be lean dem by then.
So no the leftists want Daddy Government to take over the auto industry.
Who here wants to buy a car designed by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid?
This is what caused the problem in the first place. Government regulation. CAFE standards and that other B.S. LESS regulation, eliminate the "standards" and the auto industry will be back.
Day Seven of the Obama Recession rolls on...
The Fascists were National Socialists. Communists were International Socialists. But it is Socialism all the same--left wing Socialism.
what saddens me Mule Rider, is not your ideas but the language you express them in. If you disagree with Cugel, why can't you simply say you disagree? You don't need to insult him.
You have a different point of view to most on this site, but you are entitled to your opinion. I would prefer it if you could be a little less intemperate. The tone of your posts smacks of intolerance. Ironic, when that is what you appear to be accusing others of.
i too have a Masters degree (MBA) from a top School and work in a tough and competitive field. additionally I came from a very poor family and I pay my taxes and give a lot to charity (and volunteer my time too).
I differ from you, however, in that I do not hate gays.
This is why you represent what is wrong in America.
Your time has passed.
You were the 1800s and 1900s.
I am the 2000s.
When are you going to realise that your time is over?
Hey Sherwick, hate to break it to you but Dear Leader opposes gay marriage.
Mrs. B, no one thinks Gone with the Wind is racist either when they first see it.
The tone of your posts smacks of intolerance. Ironic, when that is what you appear to be accusing others of
Exactly!!!!!!
Read what he has to say! Very! Closely!
It smacks of blatant ideological bitterness. He obviously hates anyone that even hints of being of a conservative ilk.
I would give him the benefit of the doubt if he disagreed politely.
I only dole out to Cugel what he doles out to the rest of society, the conservatives at least.
Correction: When they first READ it. The movie tones it down some.
rwc, I'm sure he can be persuaded to change his mind on that one.
All in good time. All in good time.
:)
What? You mean our Dear Leader Obamamessiah is WRONG about something?
Don't worry, a local ACORN representative will be there shortly to re-educate you.
I think that whatever happens, this will be an important election- maybe not realigning, but cerytainly shifting. The GOP won't be able to win an election on the Bush/Rove/Atwater modeal again.
The only reason this election was as close as it is was because of Palin. No amount of MSM demonization can change that simple fact.
Day Seven of the Obama Recession continues...
I don't "hate" gays. I don't hate anyone, for that matter.
I believe homosexuality is sin, but I respect gays and don't mind them having practically equal rights.
Oh, and you're wrong, it goes back much further than the 1800s or 2000s....try the first century AD. It was taught that homosexuality is a sin by Jesus Christ.
But it was also taught to love and respect people, no matter their misgivings. That too is my philosophy. I've said repeatedly I'm all for homosexuals to be treated fairly in society.
To say I hate them is a blatant lie.
Close RWC? I suggest you look at the latest popular vote and EC vote totals lol
Say goodbye to Texas in 8 years time... maybe even sooner!
And Palin made it as "close" as it was by "getting out" the conservative base, right, RWC?
Keep the myth alive! Palin 2012! (please!).
The MSM Drivey-bys and elites managed to drag him over the finish line, assisted by illegal credit card donations and massive fraud.
@kennyb - never seen GWTW. I have read The Merchant of Venice and Othello though!
In the UK in the 60s we had a popular Saturday night light entertainment show called The Black & White Minstrel Show, full of white guys with boot polish on their faces singing along to easy listening music. And in the 70s several major TV shows were presented by raving old queens.
Thank God my kids are being brought up in a better world than that.
fair enough MR, but I am a Christian too and I most certainly do NOT believe that homosexuality is a sin.
The Obama Presidency: Paid for by Fraud and Broken Promises.
But it doesn't matter to you bootlickers sucking up to Dear Leader.
BTW did you see the reaction Russia had to the Ascension of Dear Leader?
They're putting missiles on the border with Poland. They can smell Dear Leader's weakness. Soon, Iran will have nukes.
RWC.
We won.
You lost.
Get over it!
:)
I respect you as a fellow follower then, and hope your focus is on Christ as it should be, but you have a skewed version of Christianity if you think it is okay (i.e. not a sin) to commit homosexual acts.
It's NOT a sin to BE homosexual (i.e. to not be attracted to the opposite sex), so if that's your argument, then I agree.
But if you ARE homosexual AND commit homosexual acts, THAT is a sin. Plain and simple.
Yes winning. For the liberals/fascists, it is all about winning isn't it?
No principles, no integrity, break every law, get illegal foreign donations, as long as your Chicago Thug gets to power.
Jesus had absolutely nothing to say about homosexuality. If you are going to make such a statement, please cite your evidence.
And if we are going to be literal, he got a bunch of married men to desert their wives and families to follow him, for what it's worth, and though by all accounts lived a "normal" working life until he was 30, never married himself. Very strange.
No it isn't.
RWC - I think you will find that Russia's plans to put missiles on the border with Poland are a result of Bush's plans to put missiles in either Poland or the Czech Republic.
This kind of stupid machismo you blink first, my balls are bigger than yours stuff is exactly why we need some change in the world.
Mule, thanks for responding to my post with more of your inane drivel. I could not have proven my point better.
It isn't?
Maybe Dear Leader's new "National Security Force" he plans on having can "re-educate" me at a special "summer camp" in 2010.
Yes, it's strange that Jesus did not have ONE WORD to say about homosexuality.
Yes MRS B, let's bend over for Putin.
Appeasers like you brought Hitler to power and embolden our enemies. Dear Leader will make Jimmy Carter look strong.
I fully expect Russia will invade a NATO member some time in the next four years, and that Dear Leader will do nothing about it.
Do you eat pork or shellfish mule rider?
If you do, you are, according to the same parts of the Bible which call homosexuality an abomination, equally a sinner.
You can't have it both ways. Selectively selecting Old Testament condemnations of homosexuality while ignoring those you don't agreement makes you a bigoted homophobe, not a Christian.
When Russia invades Estonia or Poland in 2011, moonbats like Mrs B will be telling us all how it was Bush's fault.
Amazing how many Christians did not mind the fact that McCain is an unrpentant adulterer. For some reason they see gay sex as so much worse than a clear violation of the Ten Commandments and Jesus' own teachings.
There were no Christians in the Old Testament.
RWC give the Russians some credit. Obama raised an army, beat the favored Clinton(s) in the primaries, absorbed (most of) that support, and beat the weakened but still formidable republican machine. It's less like the political campaigns of the last few years and more like Alexander the Great consolidating Greece then beating the Persians. I won't argue that McCain was a good soldier or even a great one. But the Russians, like the US electorate, certainly know by now who's the born general.
One of the real pluses of Obama's election is that NATO will be far more united to fend off any Russian threats, not divided like it would have been under McCain.
Did you notice that the evidence is now pretty clear that Georgia provoked Russia, not the other way around?
And Russian Pres Medvedev has asked for an early meeting with Obama - not sure what his agenda is, but he likely wants to ease tension, not add to it.
Jesus was the original Socialist - possibly even a Communist. Look at the way he got so angry with the money-changers and anyone that didn't give away all their money!
;)
Yes Andrew, that is why they sent missiles to the border with Poland. Because Putin is shaking in his boots about Dear Leader.
That is also why A-mad sent a list of demands to Obama the day after he was elected. Because they know he can't be pushed around!
Spare me. They would have never tried either thing with a Republican in power.
"And Russian Pres Medvedev has asked for an early meeting with Obama - not sure what his agenda is, but he likely wants to ease tension, not add to it."
He wants to give him a list of demands that Obama will gladly bend over for. Dear Leader is Jimmy Carter, except even wussier.
I am a believer in the separation of church and state, and don't think government should give a damn about what you, your church, or your god's book says is a sin when legislating. Isn't it interesting that when governments try to justify the prohibition of gay marriage to the courts, they never cite religious reasons to justify their policy-making? At least not successfully.
nule rider has gone away to find some obscure passage where Jesus condemned homosexuals lol
I'm sure the Iranians that will be the new masters of the Middle East just love gay people.
...oh and on the Christians and homosexuals thing, Paul appears to condone slavery (Ephesians Chap 6 vv 5 - 9; and Colossians Chap 3 v 22, and a number of other places) - does that mean it was wrong to abolish it?
I look forward Mule Rider to you advocating banning braided hair (1 Timothy Chap 2 v 9) and replacing conventional medicine with laying on of hands (James Chap 4 v 14).
I could go on, but I expect you have got the point by now.
Thanks Cugel, KennyB, et al. for all the information and enlightenment. Moving on ...
One thing that is left out of the discussion is Obama himself. His character, intelligence, ability to find and enlist expertise willingness to wait, listen, and learn, his subtle humor, his understanding and sympathy, even for those who don't agree with him. I believe he will bring out not only the best in himself, but the best in us. I know our expectations are unreasonable, but it fills me with delight to realize that he might succeed in realizing most of them.
Of course this is disgustingly positive, but the sad note is that our environment is so damaged that we may not be able to surmount that mountain. The paradigm shift we need against ever-increasing consumption has met the limitations of a finite planet.
I'm an elderly white voter living amongst others in my demographic group who were almost unanimously for Obama. We writhed as we watched our country torn apart and bankrupted day after day, year after year. We took the advice of the cheaters who won to "get over it" and woke up with suppressed nausea about the damage being done to us and to the world every day. The joy we felt last Tuesday has increased and steadied with each passing day, as we begin to face the reality that there is a cutoff to all this harm, 69 days to go.
And the demographic of higher-income voters who voted for tax increases in favor of real government of, by, and for the people is an interesting reflection of the sentiments I have tried to voice.
"Christians" of the religious right, I suggest rereading the gospels (esp., Sermon on the Mount) and following the teachings you have mangled: to include, have compassion, and care for others as you would wish to be cared for yourselves "you shall love your neighbor as yourself" is the top commandment.
I doubt he's gotten the point, Mrs B.
People Like MR focus on points that suit their beliefs and overlook the guiding philosophy of Jesus. Can't see the wood for the trees, you might say.
i go away for a while and this is now the topic..."there were no Christians in the Old Testament" lol
with out reading the entire posts i hope no one here actually made that claim. mule rider? cant he go away now thaqt the election is over
this thread has gone around the block more than a few times!
RWC -- I think you are wrong but we will have to see. The Russians and Iranians will try their luck, and sure, they will tailor what they do to who is in power. But it wasn't like they didn't try their luck in Georgia with Bush, or that Iran has been rolling over. Obama has shown some cool steel, esp. in comparison to McCain with his tactical and erratic running around. Let's hope for the best.
BTW I am not the other Andrew -- will have to fix that...
But if you ARE homosexual AND commit homosexual acts, THAT is a sin. Plain and simple.
Same is true when Mule Rider spills his seed when pounding off to RWC's posts, and vice versa.
Not mine, but...
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:
1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors.
They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual cleanliness - Lev.15:19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus
35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I
have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading
glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room
here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two
different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing
garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester
blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really
necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town
together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn.t we just burn them to
death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Sorry, MR, you are wrong about Christ's teachings. The Gospel does not condemn homosexuality, either being homosexual or homosexual acts. The text of the Bible simply does not support the idea that homosexuality is a modern sin. It is possible to derive "homosexuality is a sin" from the Old Testament, but only by rejecting some of Jesus' teachings, and then to be consistent it is necessary to consider things like eating shellfish an equal sin.
Modern emphasis on "Homosexuality is a sin" comes from Church doctrine and the dictums of various early & middle-ages Christian leaders. Now, it's certainly possible to hold the religious belief that those leaders were infallible or divinely inspired. However, that is not the same as saying that Christ taught against homosexuality.
Personally, I reject the notion that a priest can make a proclamation about God's will and be utterly infallible, especially when these proclamations contradict the Gospel. Homosexuals are a lot closer to "love thy brother", and hence more Christian, than those who would deny them the right to marry.
@Ema Nympton
I sympathize with you but suggest you not feed the troll. His language is so intemperate that he is convicted out of his own mouth. Responding in anger only encourages him and bulks up an otherwise interesting discussion.
@livemild
As an ex-Christian, I am very fond of Isaiah, and lots else. My collection of locations for "love your neighbor as yourself" includes Leviticus and Deuteronomy. I don't see the dominance of the discussion you cite. I often mention the gospels because I think they convict the religious right in a way they can't disprove.
w: I'm trying not to do this, but
exorte was too good to be true, as I exhort!
RWC - I seem to remember that that old Republican favourite REAGAN negotiated with the Russians over nuclear weapons reduction. W on the other hand is of the shoot first, think later variety.
And if you think Putin is dangerous, you should acquaint yourself with some of the more lunatic fringe nationalists, who believe in the resurrection of the Russian (NOT Soviet) Empire, and that Slavs are the master race. The free market economy in Russia is a very fine example of what deregulation can achieve. It's like the wild west, with all the sheriffs and marshalls being totally corrupt or terrified. Meanwhile the millions of Russians who are just ordinary people try to get on the best they can.
You think they think Obama is weak? No they don't. They could see Bush was weak because for all his strong talk he has no allies left and few options and he plays the game in a simplistic way so that they find it easy to get the better of him. Obama, on the other hand, is complicated, clever, and has lots of friends - most of the world in fact. He knows that headon collision is not the only way to tackle a problem.
The Russians are unpredictable and proud. They are even more dangerous now than they were during the Cuban missile crisis. Bush was definitely not up to the job of dealing with them.
mule rider still frantically searching the New Testament lol
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
susan -
please dont take offense i inferred none.
i was merely making light of the post about christians not being around at the time of the Old Testament thats all. it was a funny statement- well at least i thought that the poster had a sense of humor
KennyB
Point taken, wonderful examples of why the Bible should not be considered an inerrant document! But there's some beautiful stuff there nonetheless.
However, Bush et al. made me wonder why the god whose authority they claim because they talk to him would not smite them; and consider that he might not exist. In general, I find the biblical god rather made in the image of man than the reverse. The dangers of giving divine authority to the "imaginary friend" is supreme, witness the last 8 years. I don't know, of course, but unfortunately those who claim to know are often demagogical.
mule rider may never come back again if he doesn't find something!
oh dear!
Politics and religion conviently on the same blog! I feel like I'm at a family dinner.
livemild,
Thanks, I appreciated that. Was just hurrying to get in over the fold (200 mark). I've enjoyed the opportunity to vent with some of my thoughts resulting from being an ex-born again, the reasons I gave it up, and my fury over the distortions in the name of a man whose transformational ideas were worthwhile (Jesus, that is)!
a man whose transformational ideas were worthwhile (Jesus, that is)!
Think Obama is all about change? Now there was change!
any news on the alaska votes?
Post a Comment