The Democrats' Realignment Opportunity

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 08:51:23 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The Democratic Strategist is publishing a series of white papers on Democratic electoral goals in the near future. Ed Kilgore (PDF) discusses the prospects for 2010. It is a good piece but, imo, buries the lede:

The “reaction versus realignment” debate over the implications of this year’s Democratic victory continues to percolate through the mainstream media and the blogosphere. For the record, I agree with Paul Starr’s assessment that it represents a “realignment opportunity” that could either succeed, fail, or hang in suspended animation, depending in no small part on the Obama administration’s governing ability (in conjunction with a Democratic Congress).

(Emphasis supplied.) No small part? Kilgore is the master of understatement here. It is, in my view, almost entirely dependent on the performance of the Obama Administration and the Democratic Congress. Obama will either be FDR or Jimmy Carter politically, imo. I doubt there is a middle ground. More . . .

Kilgore concludes his piece correctly in my view:

Ultimately, of course, Democratic governance, in Washington, and around the country, will have at least as much of an effect on Democratic performance in 2010 as any set of strategic goals, however well thought out and pursued. And it’s too early to tell if the positive results of the 2006 and 2008 campaigns strengthened or accelerated favorable demographic trends that will be resistant to political adversity. With George W. Bush and Republican control of Congress finally gone, however, and with the full burdens of governing on the shoulders of Democrats, nothing will come easily. .We won’t have the option of subsuming our strategic shortcomings or disagreements under a simple message urging rejection of the status quo. It’s time for Democrats to think strategically, and give the 2010 elections the extraordinary efforts they will demand.

(Emphasis supplied.) My take on how to think about 2010 strategically is govern well and sell that governance well. The Democratic brand depends upon it. It is for this reason that discussion of Obama Administration policy is imperative now. Policy success will dictate political success for the Democrats now.

Speaking for me only

< Report: Iraq Criminal Justice System Failures | Monday Morning Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The Democrats' Realignment Opportunity | 31 comments (31 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

It's beyond silly to even ... (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by Robot Porter on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 09:21:53 AM EST

talk about realignment in the wake of one election. Or even two, if you count the '06 midterm election.

One was a reaction to a hugely unpopular war and president. The other was all that plus a financial crisis.

When we start winning a few elections based on performance then maybe some crowing is in order.

But, for the health of the party and the nation, it is probably wise to view all elections as fluid.

First of all (none / 0) (#3)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 09:29:30 AM EST

Two elections - 2006 and 2008.

The realignment OPPORTUNITY comes in 2010 and 2012.


: I mentioned both elections ... (none / 0) (#6)
by Robot Porter on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 09:43:56 AM EST

above.

: It'll depend on how... (none / 0) (#21)
by Salo on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 11:45:26 AM EST

Successful he is on healthcare reform for him to have any legacy at all.

Agreed. The New Deal coalition (none / 0) (#8)
by Cream City on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 10:07:58 AM EST

and realignment was not solid until until 1936, although signs were there as soon as the 1930 midterms. But after the '32 election, the '34 midterms did not go well for Dems -- and even after the '36 election, followed by the '37 recession that led to a lot of losses for Dems in the '38 midterms.

A real realignment means a lasting change, even with setbacks in midterms. And heck, Dems hoped they were seeing signs of a realignment in the '90s, when despite the '94 midterms, they won again in '96.

Obama will be in his mid-'50s, at the least, before it could be clear that the country has finally emerged from the conservative revolution.


You've got the '34 midterms wrong (none / 0) (#9)
by andgarden on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 10:14:05 AM EST

Dems picked up 9 seats in the Senate and as many in the House.

And actually, there was a realignment in the 1990s. Consider what the Republican majority looked like in 1995 and compare it to 2005.


: Correct, sorry -- I was recalling (none / 0) (#12)
by Cream City on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 10:37:28 AM EST

expectations vs. results.

This is incorrect (none / 0) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 10:23:25 AM EST

If you consider the realignment period to have begun in 1930, when the GOP lost 52 seats in the House (eventually, by the time Congress convened, the GOP lost its majority) and 8 in the Senate, then a 2012 Democratic victory could be comparable to the NEw Deal realigment.

Amazing stat - the Dem gained 172 House seats and 37 Senate seats between 1930 and 1936.

Never in the hisotry of the Nation has one Party held as large a majority as the Democrats did after 1936. It was so large that it took, in essence, 60 years to wrest control of the Congress from the Democratic Party.


Then we're agreed -- 2012 is the test. (none / 0) (#13)
by Cream City on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 10:38:25 AM EST

It is indeed (none / 0) (#14)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 10:39:33 AM EST

I think it can be 1936 or 1980.


Yeh, but I don't like to think about 1980 (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by Cream City on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 11:11:49 AM EST

Not that I can remember 1936, personally. . . .

But I can remember 1980 all too well, as I lived in a county that had been reformist but was overrun by white flighters and went rabidly fundamentalist. I simply had nothing in common with my neighbors anymore and had to go sort of underground.

It took me a few years to get out, but I reversed the trend and fled back to the city to be one of "those people," as we are called by the rabid fundies there who made it the fourth-reddest county in the country.

I well can recall being on Reagan's mailing list, even getting Christmas cards, just because of being in that zipcode: 53186 (now split into two zips, with the continued white flight. . . ). Ugh.


Jimmy Carter doesn't deserve the position (none / 0) (#22)
by Don in Seattle on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 11:48:27 AM EST

you're assigning him -- that of the "anti-FDR". Yes, I understand Carter was not re-elected. But Reagan was a much more formidable candidate than Alf Landon. Carter faced a hugely debilitating primary challenge from Ted Kennedy; there was no Democrat egotistical enough to pose an analogous challenge to FDR in 1936. What's more, FDR faced no embarrassing foreign policy challenge in 1935 -- nothing remotely like the 1979 Iran hostage crisis.

It is true that the U.S. economy wasn't in good shape by 1980, but of course that goes double for 1936. And it is Carter's appointee, Paul Volcker, who should get most of the credit for finally stemming the inflation of the 70s and early 80s.


: In the thirties (none / 0) (#24)
by Salo on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 11:56:11 AM EST

The us wasn't a global policeman either, and the public was isolationist for the most part. Btd is refering to the polital longevity of fdr as much as the more revolutionary aspects of his tenure

Democrats gained in 1934 (none / 0) (#16)
by cal1942 on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 10:56:25 AM EST

the '34 midterms did not go well for Dems

In Congressional races Democrats gained in both houses that year.

Gained 9 seats in the House, from 313 to 322. Gained 10 seats in the Senate, from 59 to 69.


: Yes, see cx above (none / 0) (#19)
by Cream City on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 11:12:21 AM EST

re expectations vs. results.

The way to convince people to vote Dem (5.00 / 3) (#5)
by ruffian on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 09:41:55 AM EST

is to prove it works for the country. No lasting realignment will happen if this experiment of Dem POTUS and Dem Congress fails.

I think BTD's FDR or Carter choice is about right. No amount of theorizing is going to change people's minds if the situation on the ground does not improve for people.

: if the right reform... (none / 0) (#23)
by Salo on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 11:49:45 AM EST

Is shoved through by Obama and daschle on a single issue it will not matter if the GOP get back into power. They'll have been hamstrung and transformed into a euro conservative party

: Another factor about FDR other (none / 0) (#29)
by hairspray on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 01:49:33 PM EST

than international alliances, was that Roosevelt was not hampered by term limits. Obama will be termed out in 8 years and if the probems we face today are only marginally addressed (various reasons) the Democrats may lose the show again. One of the advantages to have had a Clinton/Obama ticket and then an Obama/? ticket after 2016 was to really cement the realignment.

The victories (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by lentinel on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 09:50:13 AM EST

For me the victories of the Democrats in 2006 and 2008 can be summed up as follows:

In 2006 it was a way for the electorate to express that they wanted an immediate end to the war in Iraq. We all know how that turned out.

In 2008, the economy tanked just in time to eclipse any other issues. The electorate voted to throw out the incumbents.

Whether Obama chooses to act as a leader on progressive issues such as an end to the wars, a restoration of the civil rights lost during the Bush years, and a progressive system of taxation, remains to be seen. Anything is possible, but I don't think it very likely.

The bottom line (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by Steve M on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 10:33:23 AM EST

Both the 2006 and 2008 congressional elections were won by default. In both cases, the Democrats simply relied upon the public's animus towards Republicans and coasted to victory.

And you could see it in the way the Dems basically punted on every controversial measure leading up to those elections. Recall the Military Commissions Act in 2006, or the FISA bill this year.

Clearly, though, the time has come to put up or shut up. As BTD says, the onus is on Obama and the Democrats to govern well, plain and simple. I'm sure Obama gets this, but I'm less clear on whether the Democrats in Congress really understand that bold action will be necessary, and that it's no longer sufficient simply to be non-Republicans.

The Republicans (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by KeysDan on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 10:49:12 AM EST

are continuing to do more than their share toward the realignment. Even Bill Kristol (today's NYT op-ed) fears that the Republicans, given their stance on the Detroit auto industry, will be portrayed as 'Marie Antoinettes with Southern accents. And, this may well be a first for Kristol--in getting something right.

And the most important (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by cal1942 on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 11:07:39 AM EST

performance measure is the economy.

Governing well is indispensable (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by Radiowalla on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 11:35:29 AM EST

but it isn't the only ingredient in the mix.

If realignment is going to occur, the Democrats are going to need a well-honed media operation to counteract the right-wing noise machine. Before the inauguration has taken place, we have already experienced the fake outrage and guilt by association tactics that have served the conservatives so well in this last decade.

We can't let them drive the debate and tarnish our leaders with fake accusations and innuendo.

I wish he'd manage to do... (none / 0) (#25)
by Salo on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 12:01:13 PM EST

As much as labour in 1945 in four years than drag it out for 8 and do sod all


: Sod all!!!! (none / 0) (#31)
by Radiowalla on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 08:18:59 PM EST

Wonderful! I love that term!

There is only one FDR (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by koshembos on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 12:16:53 PM EST

It's beyond me why people try to pin labels to a president-elect. Potentially he'll be excellent or terrible. No two presidents serve under the same conditions, in particular 1930's are not the 21 century.

If one looks at the cabinet nominations so far, excellence does not come to mind; the picture is of an administration that has some good ideas and some very weak ones. There is, however, no need to rush to judgment.

Realignment is smoke; it's a idea that doesn't describe anything in reality. For instance, Reagan won over blue collar workers because the Democrats basically gave up on theme (still couldn't care less about them). It lasted during his reign and then Clinton came and won many of them over.

Put simply, people will stick with you as long as you appeal to their interests, fears and culture (see the South and the GOP), once you stop to care about them, bye bye.

Governing well isn't enough (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by oldpro on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 01:18:24 PM EST

as Clinton/Gore proved.

And how 'governing well' is defined and sold to the public is, as always, the most important factor. (See Gingrich, Newt).

It's not only the federal government now to be run by Democrats in both executive and legislative branches...it's also the states. This coming year, states like mine with a Dem governor and majorities in house and senate are staring a nighmare economy and huge state budget deficits in the face. How they govern effectively without alienating nearly everyone is a mystery to me. State cuts will be huge for every Dem constitueny.

: I predict now... (none / 0) (#30)
by Salo on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 04:10:57 PM EST

...and potential GOP tsunami. With a couple pof years of forgetting the electorate will turn back to them in a dramatic fashion.
However if Obama is brave about single payer or UHC it won't matter if they get back into power. They will have been neutered.

Absolutely agree (none / 0) (#1)
by andgarden on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 09:09:30 AM EST

It's tempting to compare to (none / 0) (#4)
by andgarden on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 09:37:27 AM EST

the Eisenhower administration. One compelling difference is that the Dems will have much more control of the Senate, whereas the Republicans had a bare majority. (I'm hearing rumblings that Franken could win his recount.)

There seem to be several options . . . (none / 0) (#27)
by wurman on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 01:15:33 PM EST

I think the Obama admin. can make a great deal of political hay simply by "undoing" the nonsense put forth by Bu$hInc. There are some indications of this in Pres.Elect Obama's comments about going through the budget line-by-line, reviewing the signing orders, & evaluating the presidential directives issued by Bu$h xliii (something about discerning both constitutionality & legality). This is what seems like the "Augean Stables" set of tasks for Mr. Obama's team. Getting almost all of these things completed could move many middle-of-the-road folks into the Democratic Party.

As several people noted, the healthcare reform process may become the centerpiece of a NEW direction. This change could permanently re-align US politics toward the Democrats.

However, even the objectives established to reach the goal of total extraction from Iraq can create some far-reaching perceptions in the electorate. If the regiments get out as generally described by Mr. Obama, then it will appear to the public that expectations have been fulfilled. Many commenters raise the alarm of troops being sent to Afghanistan as an extension of "war into the foreseeable future," but the key may well be how the monthly costs change. If the Iraq costs go from $11 billion a month to $500 million, and the Afghanistan costs go from $2.4 billion to $3 billion, then the $10 billion per month "savings" will seem stupendous to most people. If done in 15 or 16 months, the impact would be profound.

It also seems to me that Mr. Obama can use his press conference skills to "sell" up a negative view of ALL the Bu$hInc failures. During the campaign he insisted several times that the financial meltdown was a total bankruptcy of Republican ideas--utterly failed policies that need to be obliterated. If he can force the lame stream media to contradict such things as Cheney's idiotic "Reagan taught us that deficits don't matter," or "a rising tide raises all boats," or Bu$h's ridiculous "ownership society," then those GOP ghosts might be permanently laid in their graves with liberal silver stakes in their hearts. That might lead to a re-evaluation of how the middle class will view their own self interests & bring about a long-term Democratic majority.