Divide or Unify

I think I only have one or two more days of election reaction posts. That's the problem with only writing once a day. It was either cram it all into one really long post or stretch it out over a week. So here comes more of the never-ending analysis.

With the Democrats firmly in control of both houses of Congress and the presidency and with a seeming mandate to run with a very progressive agenda, there's been some talk in the press of a major party realignment that marks the start of a liberal Democrat controlled era. If that's true, so much the better. However, I'm not certain. It seems like not too long ago we were hearing about a permanent Republican majority. You can see how that panned out.

It is instructive to notice, though, the differences between the 2004 Bush/Rove realignment and the 2008 Obama/Axelrod version. We know that the 2004 "permanent" realignment lasted for all of two years. So hopefully that's a big difference between the two scenarios.

Another point to consider is how the majorities were created. The Bush/Rove campaign was one of mobilizing the base at the expense of the rest. It was a 50 plus 1 strategy for control. Especially in 2004, there was no great effort to reach out to the middle. Rather, it was an effort to activate the hard core Republicans and get them to the polls.

In contrast, the Obama/Axelrod campaign (which had a large amount of base activating also) wass focused on reaching out to new voters and red states to build a coalition. That's why you saw Bush in 2004 mainly focus on holding the states he'd won four years ago. Obama on the other hand, turned several swing states and several traditionally Republican states (Indiana, North Carolina, almost Montana). The Democratic method for realignment is to bring everyone together. The Republican method was to pick wedge issues (gay marriage ban amendments), mobilize the hardcore base, and work on depressing turnout for the other side.

I'm in no way saying that the only strategy the Republicans can use for building majorities is this divide and conquer strategy. Ronald Reagan is an obvious counter-example in recent memory. However, that was the strategy that the Republicans did use. It's certainly nice to see that the other way works too.

Why McCain's Speech Made Me Sad

Watching John McCain's acceptance speech last night actually mad me sad. And not for any of the resons you're thinking.

The thing about the speech was, once you got past all the war hero/country first stuff, he actually laid out his vision for a more conservative government. Smaller government, fewer services, less taxes. This contrasts dramatically with Obama's vision for government that is a much more liberal/progressive stance. That's right. There's actually the potential for a real debate on the issues and on competing visions for where our country should go and how our government should get us there.

And yet the campaign has too often turned on personal slurs, slanders, and innuendoes. Unlike the Clinton/Obama campaign where they were close enough on the issues that we had to look to the personal for points of separation, the campaign between Obama and McCain has a clear contrast of visions for America's future.

I'm sad because all we're doing now is debating who's the bigger celebrity and who flip flops more politically.

Nasty Rudy and the RNC

Maybe I shouldn't have been, but I was surprised by the tone of the Republican Convention last night. I was really surprised at how completely negative the whole tone of the evening was. Don't get me wrong. I expected a few good zingers aimed at Obama and the Democrats. Clearly the Dems had gotten their fair share in. But I just wasn't ready for the barrage and vehemence with which the Republicans went on the offensive last night. I hate being so naive.

First of all, the Republicans drew the same battle lines that they've been drawing since I've been paying attention. They say that the Democrats are for higher taxes, bigger government, more control over your life, and collaboration with our enemies. Coming slightly less than 24 hours after Joe Lieberman's call for party unity, we can see that this is not going to be a high-minded campaign of civic-mindedness.

I loved how the chants from the crowd last night ranged from the patriotic ("USA") to the negative ("Zero") to the slightly comical ("Drill, Baby, Drill"). Really? Drill, baby, drill? Ugh. The state of political discourse in this country lags yet again.

Rudy Giuliani gave the kind of speech last night that reminds New York residents exactly why we're so glad that Michael Bloomberg is mayor now. I mean, really. Rudy Giuliani is a nasty man. I was literally watching in disbelief. His whole speech consisted of sarcastic mockery of Barack Obama. No real articulation of ideas. Nothing substantive to offer. Just nasty sarcasm being cheered on by the crowds in the convention hall. I can only hope that other people watching had the same reaction I did. Things in politics are nasty enough as they are without having our keynote speakers stoop to that level.

Sarah Palin's speech was really good, as I knew it was going to be. I wish I'd written that yesterday because now I sound like my brother when he went around trying to prove he was a psychic by saying over and over again, "I knew you were going to do that." But this is for real. I did know that Palin was going to give a good speech, especially in comparison to the hype of possible disaster she faced if her speech was bad. Her speech was kind of a cross between Michelle Obama's and John Kerry's given during the Dem convention last week. She started off painting a picture of how down home and normal she and her family are and then segued into a pretty forceful attack against the other guys. I thought she did both pretty well. She didn't do a whole lot to bolster her claims to experience in foreign policy, but I don't think that's really necessary. Like Obama, she's staking her claim to office on her judgement and on the change she can represent and create. Whether it's the change we want or need is going to be decided by the voters. But while we wait for that to happen, I thought she did a good job making her case.

RNC Time

I was actually able to stay fairly calm and even-keeled last night while watching the Republican Convention. Though several of the speakers got me a little riled up in one way or another, on the whole I kept an admirable veneer of calm. That being said, here are some of my thoughts on the first real night of the RNC.

First, Palin (unsurprisingly) is the main topic of conversation among the pundit class. Due to my cable limitations, I was watching the convention on PBS, which I tend to think of as being pretty solid, substantive news. Yet time and again, no matter what was being discussed on stage, Jim Lehrer and his team kept coming back to Palin. My favorite moment came when the convention saw a video and essay reading from a local high schooler about what the flag means to her. With patriotic music, images, and words it was hard not to feel proud to be an American. That ended and we cut back to Jim and the boys in the booth. Lehrer said something along the lines of, "What a moving tribute. [half second pause] Now, to return to Sarah Palin for a moment..." The moment, of course, turned out to be the rest of the night. Whereas the Democrats were surprisingly able to stay on topic during the entire convention, the Republicans seem to have lost some control over their message. Last night was supposed to be all about service, but you wouldn't have known that if you'd only been listening to Jim Lehrer.

Second, this whole thing with Palin's daughter. Frankly, I don't think it's any of my business. I certainly don't think that it says anything about Palin's ability or inability to serve as Vice President. (There's plenty of other evidence on that front.) I totally agree that it should be a private family matter. Again, watching PBS last night I saw McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds urging the matter to be left privately with the family. As he said, let's leave the private family matters private with the family. As soon as that interview was over we cut to the floor of the convention where someone was giving a speech about how great John and Cindy McCain are for adopting a daughter from Bangladesh. Now, wait a minute. I agree that it was a great thing to do, but I don't know if you get to argue that family matters don't/shouldn't affect our political discourse and then have someone give a speech about how great a family man John McCain is and that we should vote for him as a result. You can say family matters or that it doesn't, but you shouldn't get to try to have it both ways.

Last, Lieberman. For the guy who once described George Bush's (and now John McCain's) tax plan as like feeding the birds by giving more hay to the horses (think about it), it was pretty shocking to see him up on stage endorsing a Republican. I guess shocking isn't the right word because everyone has seen this coming for a long time. Maybe disheartening is a better word for it. For me, the highlight of his speech came when he talked directly to the American people (you could tell because he looked right at the camera and said he was going to talk to the American people now) and tried to say that John McCain isn't George Bush without saying that John McCain isn't George Bush because all the people in the convention hall had just cheered for George Bush about 30 minutes earlier. If you didn't already know what he was trying to say, his speech at that point would have been totally incomprehensible. But that's what you get for switching parties, I guess.

Tonight has Rudy and Palin on the agenda, so there should be plenty to talk about tomorrow.

Wishful Thinking

After thoroughly screwing up pretty much every prediction they have made about which candidates will win the nominations (remember when Huckabee was going to surge to victory? what about Fred Thompson?), the pundit class is now focusing more and more of their attention on predicting the imminent downfall of the Republican party and conservativism in general. I guess they're trying to hunt after some bigger, slower game than those fleet-footed individual candidates.

The latest example I've found is this article by Fareed Zakaria in Newsweek. The magazine ran a cover story a few weeks ago about the death of the Republican Party because of the myriad disasters that fall under the heading of the Bush presidency. I guess this column just wasn't finished in time.

The point of all the stories and columns is that conservative ideals have taken such a knocking during the last six years that no one will ever want to vote Republican again.

If only.

The 24 hour news cycle seems to have not only sped up the rate at which we receive news, it also seems to have affected how long the writers remember what they've written. Not that long ago I seem to remember reading about the permanent party realignment that was going to sweep Republicans into power (and Democrats out) for the next 50,000 years or so. I guess time flies when you're having fun because now the pendulum has swung the other way and it's the Democrats coming into their glorious ascendency.

On the one hand, I have to admire the sheer, straight faced nerve of pundits who can turn 180 degrees so quickly without blinking an eye. On the other hand, is there really so little news to report on in the world that we have to fill space with another round of overstated and likely incorrect predictions? Let's let the Democrats win an election or three before we start talking about the end of the Republicans.