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

Posted 4:46 PM by Todd
RESPONSE TO DAN

Dan, we both know what you'll be doing on November 14th but I don't want to embarass you in front of the world. Let's just say it involves a german shepherd, a bed, and a whole lot of affection :)

-Todd

Posted 10:19 AM by Daniel
Fun With Predictions

Okay, Nostradamus Weiner, let's see what you can do with this one:

Last night, while working at Pizza Hut, I slipped and injured my ankle. As I sat at the manager's desk waiting for him to return, I began scanning the 2002 calendar (spelling?). At the time, it was 2040 hours (8:40 PM) on Wednesday, July 31, 2002. I happened to close my eyes and point to a random date, Thursday, November 14, 2002. So I ask you this. What will Dan be doing at 2040 hours on Thursday the 14th of November of this year?

Ha

Dan

Posted 7:13 PM by Todd
THOUGHT OF THE DAY -- FROM TEHRAN

In November of 1953, the Prime Minister of Iran, Mohammed Mossadegh, was toppled from power and replaced by the Shah Reza Palavi. In January of 1979, the Shah himself was toppled from power and replaced by the Ayatollah Khomeini.

It took the Iranian people twenty-five years and three months to throw off the yoke of the shah. If you assume that the even more despotic mullocracy can not possibly survive an even longer period, you come to the revolutionary month of April 2004 (that would be exactly twenty-five years and three months after the shah's exile).

Of course, revolution in Iran could come at any time. It could come tomorrow. It could never come (although that seems highly unlikely). The point, though, is that this generation of Iranians has a rendevous with destiny. In my "Dangerous Decade Primer" below, I set December 2002 as the date of confrontation between the mullahs and the Iranian people.

Of course, in my original scenario, the mullahs hang on to power. I had assumed - and still assume - that the mullahs would have more backbone than the Eastern European communists (who for the most part voluntarily conceded power in 1989) and unleash a Tiennaman-like bloodbath.

But what if that's incorrect? What if the Iranian resistance is TOO tough and mullahs DO get toppled? In that case, let's look at how events might play out...

February 2003: After months of violent protests, including a particularly bloody assualt in December, the Iranian regime is overthrown. Many government leaders go into hiding, others are arrested, while a few notorious officials are killed in mob violence.

March 2003: A provisional, American-friendly government is set up, promising free elections in November.

April 2003: Iraqi generals attempt to pre-empt an American assault by killing Saddam Hussein in his presidential palace. The assassination succeeds. The new self-appointed Iraqi dictator appears on Iraqi televsion to explain the situation. Bush administraton says it is "encouraged" and promises to lift economic sanctions. But events race ahead of Bush and the new Iraqi leaders as the Iraqi people riot. They do not simply want another "friendlier" dictatorship and take to the streets to protest. The new regime is toppled within days. Iraqi National Congress President Ahmed Chalabi flied to Baghdad in hopes of setting up a transitional government.

May 2003: Outside of Baghdad, Shiites in the south and Kurds in the north sense an opportunity to assert their independence. The new Iranian government says it supports a new, independent Shiite-majority state carved out of southern Iraq.

June 2003: New Iraqi President Chalabi says he will not allow Iraq to be dismembered. He invites Kurdish and Shiites leaders to a conference in October to arrange a new constitutional arrangement with limited autonomy for both the north and the south.

October-November 2003: Iranian elections endorse the new democratic, Western-friendly regime. Meanwhile, in Iraq the constitutional convention breaks off without agreement.

2004: Iraq falls into civil war as Shiites in the south and Kurds in the north begin an ultimately successful quest for independence. Turkey says it will not tolerate an independent Kurdistan and may intervene military while the new Iranian government surprisingly rebukes the U.S. for denying the Shiite South its right to self-determination. Bush adminstration, despite calls for U.S. military intervention, says it will butt out - even as the region descends into unpredictable chaos.

OK, once again, I'm just having fun here. I'm not saying that all of this will happen, per se. But it's amusing to speculate. And it certainly is plausible. Let me know what you think.

-Todd

Posted 4:01 PM by Todd
LET ME INTRODUCE YOU TO MY NEW ROOMATE

His name is Randy and - wouldn't you know it - he has his own blog. It's called"Life After Cal." Check it out.

-Todd

Posted 11:28 AM by Todd
I GOT A LINK FROM INSTAPUNDIT

The world famous "Instapundit" linked to my story about the political implications of the impending baseball strike - although regrettably, he misspelled my name. Oh well, I guess you can't win them all.

-Todd

Posted 10:49 AM by Daniel
Baseball Strike, by Dan

All I can say is that if there is indeed a baseball strike, I will be one VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY unhappy boy. The Twins are 14 games ahead in the AL Central Division. They are on course to get into the post-season for the first time in ELEVEN YEARS. If the Union and the al-Selig brigades can't get this settled and a strike ensues, that will be the end of baseball in Minnesota. We'll have had it.

I'd just like to know why these goofballs can't settle this issue during the off-season? Oh, because the players can't use striking as a bargaining chip during the off-season? I see.

They're all thugs. I just want my team to win the World Series. Is that so wrong?

Dan

Posted 10:48 PM by Todd
BASEBALL AND THE MIDTERM ELECTIONS

I just had a very disturbing thought: With a "baseball strike" appearing imminent, the time is ripe to evaluate the political consequences of this impending fiasco.

What do I mean the political consequences?

Well, specifically, the last time we had a baseball strike that wiped out the World Series was in 1994. We all know what happened that year. The incumbent party, the Democrats, were destroyed in the midterm elections, losing control of the House and Senate in a Republican rout. What is especially intriguing is that, according to public opinion analysts, the lurch to the G.O.P. that year was a by-product of the shifting allegiances of "angry white men." In other words, it was Democratic and independent men, fed up with the status quo, who caused this political earthquake.

Perhaps the cancellation of the World Series had something to do with their anger and frustration?

Could a similar dynamic be at play in 2002? Could the baseball strike become a symbol to swing voters (especially sports fans) that the country is headed in the wrong direction - and that a shake-up in political leadership is required? In that case, President Bush and his Republic party is in BIG trouble.

If there is no strike, I'd say the Republican's odds of holding the House are about 50-50. If there is a strike, I'd put them at about 25%. Yes, a lot is at stake.

Fear the wrath of the "Angry White Man" Part II.

-Todd