I have liked Salena Zito in the past, even though I am mostly unskilled and uninterested in the horse-race aspect of politics. Ann Althouse highlighted the second half of this essay in the Examiner, and it adds up for me. The first part, about the hypocrisy of powerful Democrats, does seem to resonate with others more than it does with me. I expect hypocrisy and entitlement from the powerful, including Republicans.
Instead of listening to the voters, Obama spent his second term going all-in with executive action. Democrats shed their blue-collar and rural voters that had been part of their coalition and went full elite progressive. The 2014 election was the result, an even worse bloodbath for Democrats than 2010.
Two things were missed in the coverage of 2016. First, Trump was never the cause of that election — he was the result of a coalition that had been building for a decade, made up of suburban-educated voters, blue-collar and rural voters, and a growing number of middle-class Hispanic voters.
Hillary Clinton was not going to be a third term of Bill. I grant that she would have been more similar in governance to him than anyone else the Democrats were going to nominate, but she was not the same. She had always pulled him in one direction, but when he kept pointing out to her staff in 2016 that he was the only person in the room who had actually won a national election, they blundered on. The might both have gone to Yale Law and become deep Washington, but in the end his instincts were University of Arkansas and hers were Wellesley, and voters knew that, however distant it had become. Bill could sell the idea "I am the only liberal conservative enough to save you from those really dangerous conservatives," while Hillary was trying to sell "I am the only one moderate enough to save you from those crazy liberals (in the primaries) and those evil conservatives (in the general)." And she could not close the deal.
Obama was, in the end more Chicago and corrupt than he was radical, which is why liberal journalists trying to look oh-so-smart can claim he was center-left or even moderate. He wasn't, but he was about power and enforcing some version of what he liked more than about being True Left. Chicago. Hope and Change. Laughable from the start. Obamacare was a gift to many special interests more than it was to socialists, sure.
I will venture the political analysis that Republicans are in danger of believing that they are winning voters rather than that they are not offending as badly the people that the Democrats are disdaining and throwing away. Republicans are now neither any version of conservative, populist, libertarian, nor Washington-elite-at-a-discount. They are winning by not being crazy. The danger is that each of those groups believes that it is the powerful core that is delivering the victories, and can thus afford to tell the others to kiss off. Well, maybe not the libertarians, who know they are always a minority in the party.
... a coalition that had been building for a decade, made up of suburban-educated voters, blue-collar and rural voters, and a growing number of middle-class Hispanic voters.
ReplyDeleteThis is what matters more than anything else. And it isn't just Hispanics.
Ruy Teixeira and others have been sounding the alarm bells for the Democrats ever since the 2020 election hit the books. The whole 'emerging Democrat majority' of the early aughts was built on the idea that non-white voters would emulate blacks in consistently voting north of 80% in favor of Democrats, with the white working class a diminishing portion of the party but still aligned with it. There is substantial evidence none of this is happening, including the recent results in the Virginia governor's race. Assimilating Hispanic and other non-white voters might still favor Democrats but are emulating their Anglo neighbors in voting patterns, not blacks. If that is coupled with a continuing strong shift of white working class voters, the children and grandchildren of the original 'Regan Democrats' and who still outnumber college-educated whites, towards the Republican Party then the Democrats are in for a world of hurt electorally.
The danger is that each of those groups believes that it is the powerful core that is delivering the victories, and can thus afford to tell the others to kiss off.
Respectfully but that isn't how it works. There's no rule requiring all portions of an electoral coalition to be able to hold hands and sing Kum By Ya together.
Blacks took over constructive leadership of the Democrat Party in the 1960s and 1970s when there were segregationists still active on the DNC and being elected to Congress (and befriending pResident Biden.)
My parents were active in Republican party politics in Iowa from the 1960s through the 1980s (I was a delegate to a 1980 Iowa district convention on their coattails). The fights between the 'Republican grassroots' and the 'Rockefeller Republicans' far pre-date the current spat between the Deplorables and the NeverTrumpers. They didn't stop Regan from winning two landslides, and more importantly didn't stop Newt from capturing the House in 1994, as the children of the 'Regan Democrats' started to vote for Republican Congressmen, when it looked like Democrat control of that body could be permanent.
Presidential politics have been dominated by personality since at least FDR. Watch the House races, even with 'gerrymandering'. The GOP picked up House seats in 2020 *even with Trump at the top of the ticket and losing*, and prior to redistricting. Biden had no coattails (and the internal GOP debacle in Georgia doesn't count.) Does that really point to a GOP collapse in 2022 or 2024?
'Twas ever thus. Successful political parties are machines for assembling winning coalitions. Candidates and party leaders must play the demographic and policy hands they are dealt. Usually this means catering to disparate and often conflicting regional and other constituencies. From the mature voter's perspective it usually means voting for bad candidates because the alternatives are worse. The sausage factory is normal and much to be preferred over crusades and purity tests.
ReplyDeleteI gave up in disappointment some time ago imagining that the purpose of elections was to serve the people, when it comes to about 90% of career politicians. It's a two-stage process: Craft an image that is sufficiently bland, sufficiently attractive to appeal to a base of voters. Supplement the base with some measure of electioneering and polling-place attention, as required. Once elected, proceed directly into the main work, insider enrichment schemes with occasional dabbling in legislation to sustain the illusion of dedication and progress. The recent election with candidate MacAuliffe is a beautifully naked example of this process in action. MacAuliffe lost because he's poor at election mummery.
ReplyDeleteOne wonders why Blacks vote for Democrats, the party of slavery...
ReplyDeleteSam L: One wonders why Blacks vote for Democrats, the party of slavery..
ReplyDeleteWhen the facts contradict your preconceptions, perhaps you should reexamine your preconceptions.
Oh, Zack!
ReplyDelete"I expect hypocrisy and entitlement from the powerful, including Republicans." WHAT???????????????? Republicans are "powerful"? Coulda fooled ME!! As I see them, the GOP is the "GO ALONG to GET ALONG with the Dems" Party.
ReplyDelete