Posted 4:50 PM by Todd
A Response to Patrick & The New Republic Boys:
The Future of American Politics

I wanted to add my perspective to a new debate that is creating waves in the blogosphere. Last week, I read a new article in the New Republic, entitled, "The Coming Democratic Dominance" by John Judis and Ruy Teixera. I forwarded the article to my former AEI colleague "Patrick Ruffini" who posted a long rebuttal on his own website, disputing the merits of the TNR article. Later, I promised Patrick and myself that I would issue my own interpretation of the data. And here it is:

I think that for the most part, Patrick is right in disputing Teixera and Judis’s prophecy of an era of Democratic dominance– but not necessarily for the reasons that he articulates. All three of them are focusing too much on demographics and are neglecting the essential role of ideas as creators of political alignment. Is Teixera and Judis correct that the flood of Democratic-voting Hispanic immigrants into this country over the past two decades will give the Ass Party (a.k.a. the Democrats) a leg-up in future elections? Well, yes, for the most part. Is Patrick correct in asserting that because religious white people reproduce at a higher rate than secular white people, the G.O.P. will be at an advantage? Well, yes. And thus, the demographic waves cancel each other out.

So am I predicting a continuation of “Parity Politics,” i.e. the trend of the past two elections in which the Democratic and Republican vote (for both Congress and the Presidency) break even? Well, yes. But not necessarily. In fact, there could be a return to a party majority sometime in the next decade. But not because of demographics, but because of ideas. The ideas are relatively fixed: We are living in an era that is marked by four key ideological dynamics: On social issues we have become a nation that is personally tolerant (edge Democrats), but morally wary (edge Republicans) and on economic issues, fiscally responsible (toss-up at the moment, but traditionally a Republican advantage) but also craving for security (edge Democrats).

Whichever party that embraces this agenda wholeheartedly should dominate. But at the moment, neither party can. In the 1990s, Bill Clinton did a terrific imitation, providing a ideological model that enabled the Democrats to hold the White House for eight years (and probably twelve if Al Gore had followed his ideological mantle). Economically, Clinton tackled the budget deficits of the Reagan era while also keeping mum on issues like Social Security and Medicare reform. Socially, he embraced feminism, gay rights, blacks and Hispanics while also demanding public responsibility (welfare reform, death penalty, etc.) Clinton was a political genius, but the Congressional Democrats were not. They clung on to a 1960s version of liberalism (remaining popular for their defense of entitlement programs and commitment to civil rights, but drawing ire because of their reckless spending and cowardice in the face of moral laxity) and they were booted out in 1994. In the late 1990s, the Congressional Republicans did slightly better but their reputation for mean-spiritedness (on economic issues like school lunches and social issues like affirmative actions) doomed them to defeat in any public squabble with President Clinton.

Constitutionally, Clinton was forced into retirement in 2001 and was replaced by Republican George W. Bush, who more so than any other leader in America right now, embraces the four components of the “New American Ideology.” Bush has been politically smart to make Hispanics a top electoral target and equally smart to keep quiet on Social Security reform. He has also been even better than Clinton on the “personal responsibility” ethic but at the moment, not up to par on the fiscal responsibility mantra.

Anyway, either party could make the “New American Ideology” into their permanent political agenda, and thus dominate the next twenty years. But they probably won’t, mainly because of ignorance, custom, and the strangelhold of their respective interest groups. With foreign policy re-emerging as a top issue, we’re likely to see a reverse of the Clinton-era political alignment (Democratic President, Republican Congress) and a return to the Cold War-era alignment (Republican President, Democratic Congress) starting in January 2003 with the new Congress. But of course anything can happen.

And while politically speaking it matters (as a Republican, I wish my party success), philosophically speaking it doesn’t matter because the agenda is set (Clinton followed it, Bush is pursuing it, and his successor, whether Republican or Democrat will surely continue it as well.)

Demographics are certainly important, but so are ideas. The 1990s saw the rise of a new ideological synthesis that took the best strands of 1950s New Deal liberalism, 1960s “liberationalism”, 1970s evangelical reactionism, and 1980s materialism, and combined them. The voter that exemplifies this creed is the “Bobo,” as described by "David Brooks." The 2000s will see the maturation of this philosophy and whether it takes place under the Republican Party or the Democratic Party is, for all intents and purposes, irrelevant.

The era of “Parity Politics” is likely to continue.

-Todd