That's about right. I'm still betting against the Republicans getting their act together by 2016, but expecting it to happen by 2020.
That raises another question: if Obama achieves a mediocre second-term, and the Republicans stay in the wilderness, who would be the Democratic heir in 2016? Hillary? -- Ernie P. On Jan 23, 2013, at 9:50 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > NYTimes > > Ross Douthat > > January 22, 2013 > The Liberal Hour > > I naturally preferred my own version of President Obama’s second inaugural to > the speech he actually delivered yesterday, but the substance of the two was > roughly similar. The president clearly feels that his re-election both > reflects and ratifies a larger leftward shift in American politics: His > address reached backward to ground this new progressive era in the American > past, offered explicit nods to the demographic groups and constituencies > whose present-day growth has made it possible, and then sketched out an > agenda suited to a more left-of-center future — climate change legislation > and green industrial policy, a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants, > the universalization of gay marriage, new gun control laws, etc. It was not a > speech designed to co-opt opponents of this agenda, to put it mildly — > particularly those opponents whose control of the House of Representatives > will make this agenda difficult to implement. But those of us who watched his > negative, joyless re-election campaign and assumed that this president would > begin his second term as a lame duck were only half-right. While there’s > still good reason to think that Obama’s biggest legislative accomplishments > are in the rearview mirror, the fact that he could win a clean victory > despite the grim economic backdrop seems to have given him more confidence in > the staying power of his coalition, and the continuing short-term impediments > to his agenda in Washington seem to have liberated him to play for the longer > term instead. > > If his first four years were about the inside game, then — leveraging the > Democratic majorities of 2009-2010 to pass major legislation, even when doing > so risked voter backlash — his second term seems likely to be more about the > bully pulpit, the court of public opinion, and the elections of 2014 and > 2016. America may not be quite as liberal as its president, but so long as > the Republican Party remains unable to offer a coherent alternative to > progressivism there’s an opportunity to continue pushing the American center > leftward. And on the evidence of his second inaugural (and, indeed, his > entire post-re-election political approach), that’s an opportunity Obama is > determined to exploit. > > For now, there are good reasons to think he will succeed. Liberalism’s > majority is real, its demographic base is growing, its opposition is in > disarray. The current confidence of liberal pundits is less jaunty than it > was after the sweep of 2008, but perhaps more justified. Indeed, it’s quite > possible that we’ll look back and see the conservative backlash of 2010 as > the new progressive era’s greatest test, a brush with death which it has now > successfully survived. > > But let me briefly play the auriga at a Roman triumph, whispering “memento > mori” in the conqueror’s ear. Liberalism’s prospects may indeed be as bright > as they look today. But as a counterpoint to the inauguration hoopla, here > are three reasons why Obama might not be remembered as the kind of “liberal > Reagan” that he seems to be today. > > 1) Obama’s political victories are clearer than his policy accomplishments. > The question of whether Obamacare will be implemented has been answered; the > question of whether it can survive its own design flaws has not. The question > of whether Obamanomics would be rejected by the public in the short run has > been answered; the question of whether it can produce the kind of longer-run > growth that previous generations of Americans took for granted has not. (The > sluggish economic recovery barely figured into the second inaugural, and the > president talked more about green industrial policy than about the plight of > the unemployed.) The question of whether Obama’s foreign policy would avoid > major disasters and be an asset in his re-election bid has been answered; the > question of whether his navigation of the Arab Spring and his attempts to > contain Iran will look skillful in hindsight has not. Obama plainly turned > the social issues to his party’s advantage last year (with a major assist > from Todd Akin). But a tentative and ambiguous pro-choice trend in public > opinion after a long period of pro-life gains does not mean that liberals > have won the abortion wars, especially given that the main policy shift of > the Obama era has been an uptick in state-level abortion restriction. And > even on gay marriage, where most observers — myself included — assume that > the Obama era will be remembered as genuinely transformational, that > transformation has only actually been achieved in nine of the fifty states. > > None of this means that Obama won’t ultimately being remembered for policy > triumphs as clear the victory over stagflation or the successful resolution > of the Cold War, or that his presidency won’t cast a long, Reagan-like shadow > over subsequent policy debates. But we don’t know that yet: The current > recovery is no Reagan boom, it will be years before we can tell if the > Affordable Care Act lives up its name, and plenty of surprises may await in > the next four years. And remember — if passing major legislation, building a > stable-seeming coalition, presiding over okay-but-not-great growth and > winning a hard-fought re-election were enough to earn a spot on Rushmore, > George W. Bush’s face would be being chiseled there right now. > > 2) Liberalism, no less than conservatism, is riven by internal > contradictions. The Obama majority does indeed reflect the diversity of > twenty-first America, just as its enthusiastic boosters claim: It’s the party > of Silicon Valley billionaires and immigrants who work at Wal-Mart, of public > sector employees and affluent dual-earner professionals, of the secular > academy and the black church, of the multiracial Southwest and white New > England. But for political parties as well as human societies, diversity is > as often a weakness as a strength, and it’s easy enough to imagine scenarios > where the Democratic Party of the near-future fractures along lines of race > or geography, class or culture. > > These crack-ups could happen over issues where the party seems superficially > united at the moment, like guns and immigration and environmentalism, or they > could happen over issues where the divisions are already there for everyone > to see, like Medicare and Social Security. They could divide the party’s > shrinking-but-still-large pool of white voters from its minority > constituents, or they could divide minority voters from each other on one or > more of the many issues where the interests of all Hispanics, all > African-Americans or all Asians do not obviously align. Above all, they could > force Democrats to choose, decisively and disruptively, between their > traditional identity as the party of middle-class entitlements and their > current identity as the party of low taxes on everyone except the richest of > the rich — a choice that the Obama administration has thus far deliberately > postponed. > > 3) The Republican Party is, in fact, capable of change. These potential > fissures within liberalism won’t matter if the G.O.P. remains as hapless as > it is today. And there’s a increasingly popular strain of opinion on the left > that holds that Republicans are now structurally incapable of moderation, > reform and self-correction — that the grip of ideology is too strong, the > demands of the base too intense, the party’s distance of twenty-first America > too great. If this view is right, the G.O.P. is almost irrelevant to > liberalism’s fortunes, and Obama’s political legacy is really only threatened > by “black swan” events like suitcase nukes and 2008-style financial panics. > > But just because the G.O.P. looks like it could spend a generation in the > wilderness doesn’t meant that it actually will. National parties exist to win > national elections, and that incentive alone often suffices to drive changes > that the party’s interest groups and ideological enforcers dislike. For every > case like the Republicans of the 1930s and the 1940s, the > Carter-Mondale-Dukakis Democrats, or the British Tories between John Major > and David Cameron, there’s another case where a party that seems to have lost > its way completely turns out to be one successful campaign, one appealing > nominee or one change of circumstances away from a comeback. In modern G.O.P. > history alone, the Goldwater rout was swiftly succeeded by the Nixon > realignment, and the various Gingrich-era debacles by the rise of George W. > Bush’s “compassionate conservatism.” We are only one presidential term > removed from the latter rebranding, and the idea that it cannot happen again > (albeit hopefully along somewhat different lines) seems ahistorical and > naive. Yes, obviously, the Republican Party might remain a mess for years to > come. But liberals who expect that continuing conservative dysfunction will > help cement Obama’s legacy are betting on a trend, not counting on a > certainty. > > I’ll end where I ended one of last week’s posts, with two numbers: 51 and 23. > The first is the percentage of Americans who told Gallup they were “very > satisfied” with the country’s direction in the first year of Ronald Reagan’s > second term; the second is the average who said the same last month. > Liberalism’s current ascendance is undeniable, and the president’s goal of a > transformational presidency is plainly within his reach. But until the second > number rises closer to the first one, those transformations will remain at > least partially reversible, and Obama’s quest to become liberalism’s Reagan > will be incomplete. > > > -- > Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community > <[email protected]> > Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism > Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
