A partisan, not ideological shift
by David Benzion · 11/10/2006 6:16 amYou can always count on Krauthammer to cut to the quick:
This is not realignment. As has been the case for decades, American politics continues to be fought between the 40-yard lines. The Europeans fight goal line to goal line, from socialist left to ultra-nationalist right. On the American political spectrum, these extremes are negligible. American elections are fought on much narrower ideological grounds. In this election the Democrats carried the ball from their own 45-yard line to the Republican 45-yard line.
The fact that the Democrats crossed midfield does not make this election a great anti-conservative swing. Republican losses included a massacre of moderate Republicans in the Northeast and Midwest. And Democratic gains included the addition of many conservative Democrats, brilliantly recruited by Rep. Rahm Emanuel with classic Clintonian triangulation. Hence Heath Shuler of North Carolina, antiabortion, pro-gun, anti-tax — and now a Democratic House member.
The result is that both parties have moved to the right. The Republicans have shed the last vestiges of their centrist past, the Rockefeller Republicans. And the Democrats have widened their tent to bring in a new crop of blue-dog conservatives.
In case you aren’t fully aware of the type of “blue-dog conservative Democrat” he’s talking about, here’s a good overview of some of them.
For the sake of our country, I hope these new voices successfully influence the direction of the Democratic party.
For the sake of the GOP, it’s hard not to hope that the lefty-liberal Old Guard on capitol hill goes bonkers, over-reaches, and ends up returning a re-energized and reformed Republican party to power in Congress in 2008.
Filed Under Uncategorized ·
Comments
10 Responses to “A partisan, not ideological shift”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...LST Book Club
-
Defending Identity: Its Indispensable Role in Protecting Democracy
by Natan Sharansky -
Fear No Evil
by Natan Sharansky -
The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror
by Anatoly Shcharansky -
The Jewish State: The Struggle for Israel's Soul
by Yoram Hazony -
Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There
by David Brooks -
Snobbery: The American Version
by Joseph Epstein -
A Conflict of Visions: Idealogical Origins of Political Struggles
by Thomas Sowell
First!
Just a comment on the election:
HaHaHaHaHaHa…..
That article actually makes me feel much better. If we can run more real conservatives in two years along witha viable Pres & VP combo we may survive. Now, if they will just turn on Pelosi & Reid. such drivel.
Now we’ll get to watch the Democrats squabble as the moderates/conservatives of the Democrat Party, who got them into power, fight with the ultra left wing wackos over the direction of the party. Like the Republicans who got in on conservative values and let their party drift to the center or left of center, the Democrats will probably forget who got them there. Just look who will be in charge, Nancy and Harry!!!!!!
This article as all I have read insists that the reason republicans lost was the Iraq war. This is not correct. Republicans refused to lead and became corupt and scandle filled. It had nothing to do with Iraq. It was a lack of leadership!
Republicans need to learn - lead or get out of the way.
Thay are now “out of the way”
What scares me is the election of moderate Dems to get wild-eyed Liberals elected to leadership positions! Since the Republicans coudln’t govern as conservatives (too many give-aways including prescriptions and citizenship) I can’t belive that “conservative” Dems can govern as such.
At least we have the opportunity to GET THE MESSAGE TO OUR PARTY LEADERS and run more conservatively in 2008!
Let’s not make the mistake from the past and come back more moderately (Goldwater to Nixon). PLEASE!
This may well be the Death of Liberalism. right now, the only Democrats with enough seniority on congress to run things are those from places with corrupt machines or idiot voters who put guys like Ted Kennedy into office with 69% of the vote—and they are all Liberals. All the r4est of the Liberals in states taht have a mjority of people who lean conservative have been gone a long,. long, time. But,they think the rest of the country voted for the new guys because they wanted Liberal Politicians to run the show.
What will be fun to watch is these new guys who got elected as “Jesus Loving, Gun toting, Anti-tax, Pro-Life” Democrats go along with them, and face the possibility of being voted out of office on the next go-round.
If the Demomcrats want to keep the power they now have, they are going to have to prosecute an agenda that will keep those voters voting for those people.
I was really great to listen to Ed on Wed. after the election as he ran down the results. The numerical analysis was extremely insightful. When offices are lost by less than 4,000 votes the newspaper article blacks, Latinos and Catholics abandon conservatives doesn’t hold water. But Friday was really a work of art as he told the politicians one by one that called in wanting to spin the loss exactly why they lost and you could tell it was not what they wanted to hear. He also told one of them that if they didn’t supply some tax relief more would be headed out the door - definitely not what the politician wanted to hear. I get the feeling that the Austin spin doctors won’t make much head way with Ed now if Dan will get back on track and quite moving to the huggy-kissy center the Voice will be worth listening to more than just the mornings except on Friday as the politically correct amigos need some help.
As far the loss of LST will be sad but a business which doesn’t manage its income to meet its out go won’t go very far for very long - reduce expenses or get a part-time job. Sorry but in 1986 I lost my job and survived for 2 plus years doing whatever until a job came along. Good luck and if you have an auction I will be happy to bid on whatever for whatever.
Passing graveyard: check, start whistling: check. Please, Please, continue to think that the last election was not a repudiation of the conservative movement. Insist that Republicans run on even more conservative issues. I would love to see the process where the Republic Party is confined to permanent minority status with its base in a few southern states started as soon as possible. As for “Blue Dog” John Tester refered to in the Times article, here is a run down on the issues he campaigned on:
Supporting renewable and alternative energy sources (biofuels)
Raising automobile mileage
Pro-choice
Protecting public lands
Country of origin labels for food imports
Affordable health care
Enforcing immigration laws for immigrants and employers
gun rights
A plan to end the war in Iraq
Increasing the minimum wage
Repealing the Patriot Act
Changing Medicare D to allow price negotiation with drug companies
No to social security privatization
Pro stem cell research
Middle class tax relief
A couple of these are identified more strongly with conservatism, and a couple of them are “conservative” or “liberal” depending on the details, but if these are the new “conservative” democratic issues, they are OK with old liberal me.
http://www.testerforsenate.com/issues
#9
Pelosi and the “left extreme” are in the positions of power. These new conservative Dems are going to toe the line (as they should) in order to be re-elected. The Dems play politics better than the Repubs. They knew they could not win in certain races with a candidate in the “Kennedy/Kerry/Clinton” mold. So, they ran conservative Dems but Pelosi will call the shots. This means that you can start referring to Hillary as “Madame President”.
Combine all that with the true conservatives sitting on the sidelines in addition to the religious-zealots setting the agenda (stem cell research, abortion, etc) and you have Tuesday’s election results.
The Repubs need to get back to low taxes, small govt, reform (taxes, immigration, SS), and fixing a botched Iraq War policy. Leave the stem cell and other right-to-life issues alone.