The Candidates
I have the pleasure of venturing into enemy territory today as I attended the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor (DFL) convention in Rochester, Minnesota with my friend Washington Times columnist Barry Casselman.
Franken made the above claim in his acceptance speech upon defeating St. Thomas college professor Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer for the party’s Senate endorsement.
So here’s my question… Can a case be made that there is a new Progressive majority in America should Barack Obama, the most liberal Democratic nominee in perhaps more than 100 years, win in November? It would seem to me that it could should Barack Obama capture the White House with a coalition of McGovernites, twenty-somethings, and African-Americans.
June 7th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Kavon,
I’ve been arguing for months that Obama, if elected, has the potential to be a realignment President along with FDR and Reagan. Many of the other writers and commenters on this site have argued in turn that even if Obama is elected, once he overreaches then the GOP could sweep back Congress and the White House in one or two election cycles. I think this is too simplistic of a viewpoint.
American politics tends to be dominated by longterm governing coalitions. The current Conservative coalition began in 1968, before that American was governed by the New Deal Coalition which began in 1932 and before that by the Progressive Era which began in 1896, and so on. These coalitions usually last between 32 and 40 years. And just as the New Deal Coalition of FDR and LBJ was splintered and demoralized in 1968, the conservative coalition of Nixon and Reagan is splintered and demoralized in 2008. Given the fact that practically every election indicator is against the GOP this year, McCain only has a chance to win based on personality and gut level trust. Unfortunately, he’s going to have little influence in many downticket races.
In the event that Obama does win though, I think a large part of the GOP’s success in the next several election cycles depends on what lessons the party learns from the defeat. Unfortunately, it seems as if some are already trying to shape the narrative with the exact wrong message. You see it in people like Michelle Malkin, John Hawkins, and a bunch of folks at NRO. They say that John McCain lost the election because he was too much of a moderate, too accommodating to the Democrats when he should have taken a hardline against them. Nevermind that taking this approach would have meant certain electoral defeat at the hands of Obama. No, the real problem that the GOP faces is that it doesn’t offer a practical message that resonates with the American people like it did in 1968, 1980 and 1994. The present day GOP platform amounts to rhetoric about low taxes, small government and hawkish foreign policy (not necessarily a bad thing), but this doesn’t connect with the everyday person. By and large they are, as Dave has pointed out, non ideological and simply want their basic government services performed and to not watch their wallet shrink because of the rising costs of food and oil. Until the GOP re-discovers a way to package and convincingly sell this, we will continue to lose.
My question is, what if Obama doesn’t overreach? What if he wins and brings with him 8 new Senators and 30 new Representatives and he passes immediate laws that end up becoming popular in the country. What if they work? I’m sure that when Nixon was elected, most Democrats thought that he would overreach and they would be back in control of the country in no time, not that they would only win 3 out of the next 10 Presidential elections in the country.
June 7th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
I like to see the new majority rally around someone who has joked about rape and bestiality. The reason the Dems are on the upswing is b/c W has been the most incompetent president since Carter. The problems with the groups that you have listed is that they are neither that large or very powerful. Twenty-somethings tend to be liberal b/c they don’t have a lot of money or a family. When they are in their thirties and forties, have a house and children, suddenly social and economic conservatism make sense. I think McGovernites will always be attractive when wars of convenience are fought awfully–like this one. If Rummy wasn’t SOD and if the McCain plan was adopted four years ago, Hillary would’ve been running as a pro-war Dem this time around. The problems for AAs is that they have put all their eggs in one basket–even the evangelicals haven’t done that. As the Hispanics increase their influence, the AAs risk losing any sort of national narrative that benefits themselves.
June 7th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
I just want to say, Barry Casselman is great on NPR. It’s so neat that you’re friends with him, Kavon.
June 7th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
I have a friend who works for the DFL
Well, I think that will probably happen to some degree or other and an Obama presidency would accelerate those progressive tendencies.
#1, I think you’re right, to some extent. Not everyone who considers him or herself a liberal will continue to be one, and there is a natural tendency toward more conservative attitudes as life changes. But there are some ways (some social issues, an orientation toward problem-solving, bi-partisanship, tolerance, environmental care) in which a progressive change will stick. Of course, many events could transpire to alter this. But I say yes, though not as completely as some would hope.
June 7th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Obama isn’t the nominee because of any progressive ideas. Actual ideas, progressive or not, have yet to be put forth by this nominee. Candidates must have real ideas, not just platitudes, before a movement can be attributed to them. Bill Clinton and George McGovern are two good examples of nominees leading party-changing movements. Obama is not.