Political Realignment?
There are some people advancing the theory that if the Democrats take control of one or both chambers of Congress it will mean a fundamental realignment of the political landscape in this country. (I took a look at some of this analysis here). Today, Michael Barone takes a look at the issue and points out that it is highly unlikely that there will be a fundamental change for a number of very good reasons.
What would a Democratic victory — likely now but not certain in the House races, possible if all the close ones go their way in the Senate races — mean? Would it mean that we are heading into a political realignment, to a time when Republican positions can no longer rally a majority?
Not really, I think. Right now, it doesn't look like Democrats will end up with the kind of popular vote percentage in House elections won by their party in 1974 (up from 46 percent to 58 percent in two years) or Republicans in 1994 (up from 46 percent to 52 percent).
They're more likely to prevail, if they do, by something like the narrow margins by which Republicans have prevailed in the five House elections from 1996 to 2004. By historical standards, there's been strikingly little variation in those five elections. A Democratic victory of this magnitude would represent the kind of small oscillation that was commonplace in eras when one party or the other was dominant. The difference is that, with the electorate so evenly divided, a small shift can produce changes in party control.
Political realignments occur because of events that have deep demographic impact and when one party stands for new ideas that command majority support. The Iraq war (2,500 deaths) and our current economy (4.6 percent unemployment) are not events of the magnitude of the Civil War (600,000 dead) or the Great Depression (25 percent unemployment).
Moreover, voters' complaints about George W. Bush and the Republican Congress are more about competence than ideology. Why is Bush's second-term job approval so much lower than Bill Clinton's even though the economy has been in similarly good shape during both periods? Iraq. Katrina.
In other words, absent a major event with deep impact of voters, there is little chance for a huge sea change in the electorate's orientation. Barone is quite right, I suspect. There are some competence issues that are troubling voters, not a wholesale abandonment of ideology. This is why some conservatives are upset with the president and the Republican party. But to believe that these conservative voters would defect en masse to the Democrats is completely irrational. Barone also points out that if a realignment was taking place, it should show up in the early national polling for 2008 presidential candidates. It does not, not even remotely.
The Democratic plea is that the Republicans should be punished for incompetence. But even with majorities in both houses of Congress, Democrats will be poorly positioned to offer competence itself. You can make a good case that the Republicans have run out of ideas — they've implemented most of Bush's 2000 platform (tax cuts, education accountability, Medicare changes, more defense spending) and have conclusively failed to implement others (Social Security individual accounts). But Democrats don't have much in the way of ideas to advance in their place.
If a Democratic victory presages realignment, we should see some evidence of that in the polling for 2008. But we don't. Which party has candidates that can poll above their party's 1996-2004 ceilings — 49 percent for Democrats (Clinton 1996), 51 percent for Republicans (Bush 2004)?
Republicans pretty clearly have two, Rudolph Giuliani and John McCain. Democrats can hope that Hillary Rodham Clinton, with her carefully calibrated stands on Iraq and foreign policy, and her bipartisan work on some domestic issues, could be another. So, if he decides to run, could Barack Obama. Another might have been Mark Warner, but he's not running.
I think Barone is spot on here. I've said before that I am of two minds about who should take control of the House or the Senate. If the Democrats do so, they will have to grow up and stop finger pointing. They'll actually have to solve something rather than simply criticize. But I do not see signs of a fundamental realignment. Neither does Barone.
Other Links to this Post
-
The Political Pit Bull — Monday, 16 October , 2006 @ 9:23 am
By Dan, Monday, 16 October , 2006 @ 9:52 am
When Dubbya won by 3% in 2004, the GOP and conservative pundits and bloggers acted like a Republican sweep across America would be unstoppable. Personally, I agree with your position about a shift of power in Congress, I just find it funny that the same type of people that though 3% was a decisive and world changing victory, doesn’t think the same way when it goes the other way.
By Gaius, Monday, 16 October , 2006 @ 9:55 am
Dan, I never said 3% was a sweep or anything of the sort.
By Grown Up, Monday, 16 October , 2006 @ 12:45 pm
Gaius,
It just seems absurd to me to talk about the Democrats finger pointing. Look at the Foley scandal–the Republicans’ response was to question the timing of it, and to blame Democrats for revealing the misdeeds of a Repbulican.
When North Korea tested a nuclear device during the Bush administration, who do Republicans blame? Why, Bill Clinton, of course.
If you’ll remember, even at the end of the Bush I Presidency, Republicans were blaming all economic ills on Jimmy Carter.
Finger pointing is a political game played by both sides.
By Dan, Monday, 16 October , 2006 @ 3:06 pm
Gaius I never specified you. But I’d put money on the fact that Barone did.
By Grown Up, Monday, 16 October , 2006 @ 4:26 pm
Here’s what Karl Rove said on Meet the Press on November 7, 2004, in response to a question from Tim Russert:
MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe it’s a mandate?
MR. ROVE: Look, a victory is a–yes, it’s a requirement, if you will. It’s a mandate for you to do in office what you said you would do on the campaign trail. And the president has an old-fashioned notion that campaigns ought to be about describing what it is that you hope to achieve and what the principles are by which actions might be guided.
Then there’s Ken Mehlman:
“Given the choice between freedom and fear, between paying any price and cutting and running, between victory and vacillation, the American people lived up to the best traditions of our nation and chose to rally behind our banner of freedom,” Mehlman said in a text of his remarks released by the RNC before the address.
“There’s a word for this kind of victory,” he said. “It’s called a mandate.”
So, top Republicans were certainly calling their victory in 2004 a mandate. If Democrats win back Congress, it seems they are equally justified is saying they have a mandate.
By Former Republican, Monday, 16 October , 2006 @ 4:52 pm
Nobody’s going to get a mandate. There may (or may not) be a massive repudiation of the Republicans. If there is, that’s not a mandate for Democrats.