The Ominous Parallels
John Fund at the Wall Street Journal writes of the increasing likelihood that the Republicans will face their 1994 this November:
Democrats must be pinching themselves about their good fortune. Last week, the Republican Congress saw deals on budget reform, immigration reform and extending the Bush tax cuts all collapse within 24 hours.
House and Senate members went home empty-handed to face an increasingly surly electorate, nearly 70% of which now thinks the country is heading in the wrong direction. Both parties are viewed negatively by voters, but it’s Republicans who are in charge and stand to lose the most in November elections. Some GOP strategists are making comparisons to how the Democrats appeared to come unglued just prior to their losing Congress in 1994.
…It is becoming increasingly clear that the GOP majority is losing its team spirit, and many in Congress are going their own way as they eye a tough re-election climate. Back in 1994, that kind of behavior over a crime bill that failed to garner enough Democratic votes to pass on the floor was an early indicator that Democrats were in serious political trouble. They wound up losing control of both houses of Congress that year.
No one quite expects a tsunami of those proportions this year. Incumbent-protection devices and gerrymandered districts are likely to minimize GOP losses. But Republican strategists are now openly talking about the parallels between 1994 and 2006. “Democrats had the health-care debacle; we have our base demoralized on spending,” says a top GOP strategist who was intimately involved in promoting the Contract with America. “Democrats had corruption issues. Both parties now have them, but it’s the GOP that’s getting the headlines. And finally, hatred of Bush on the left is at least as intense as hatred of Clinton was on the right in 1994.” In both years, the economy was in decent shape, but that didn’t prevent many disillusioned voters of the party in power from staying home. “My firm conviction is that Republicans are going to show up at a lower rate” this November, Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia, told Investor’s Business Daily.
Of course, 2006 has been compared to 1994 since at least Katrina, but two things are new: (1) It’s not just the Democrats and their surrogates (think Eleanor Clift) doing the talking now, and (2) the Republican talking point that a 1994 is impossible because of gerrymandering and other incumbency protection ‘rules’ is sounding increasingly unconvincing…
After the ways the republicans have been acting, getting “their own 1994″ will be a lot better than getting their own Nuremburg trials (which is what they deserve).
I have to second that, at least where the house is concerned (the Senate still looks out of reach for the Dems). Although the gerrymandering will prevent the Dems to make the same level of gains the Republicans made in 1994, they are starting from a much stronger position (202 house seats vs. 178 for the Reps in 94).
Here’s the silver lining: Assuming they do win, I think you’ll see the Republican Party move closer to McCain and embrace his general agenda, while the Democrats will likely lurch leftward, taking Hillary with them, in much the same way the Republican takeover in 1994 pushed Dole to the right. Both tactical moves will benefit the Republican Party in 2008.
Woah, didn’t know Alan was going to post a parallell universe Bush is Worse than Hitler screed right before I did. My post was directed to Mark’s only. I wouldn’t second one word of Alan’s inanity.
“the Republican talking point that a 1994 is impossible because of gerrymandering and other incumbency protection ‘rules’ is sounding increasingly unconvincing… ”
You on the right must be so proud that one of your ‘talking points’ is to take pride that gerrymandering provides you a safety net.
Yes, it does, and that should be a point of shame for you, but it’s not.
I heard of an analysis that if the country split 50-50 on the vote, there would be 50 more House seats with the republicans than the democrats.
The problem is, that the ‘power tends to corrupt’ saying applies to few more than it applies to the republicans. Ends justify the means and all that.
For shame. Where are the republicans who stand up for right against bad leadership? The Nelson Rockefeller types who are moderate?
It’s a harmful, evil ideology who has taken power in a mess of groups from the far right religious to the corporate think tanks, aiming for 50.1% of the vote.
The ‘tyranny of the majority’ isn’t an unfortunate side effect for them, it’s what they’re all about – undermine democracy by pandering to just enough people.
Yes, Craig, and the Democrats never, ever gerrymandered – funny how you read some sort of moral approval into my quite neutral post – projection, anyone?
Don’t worry, Sean, we knew you wouldn’t be seconding that disgusting Hitler comparison garbage – if anyone should be ashamed on this thread, it’s Alan…
Bad leadership has certainly plagued the Republican party, but I would venture that such is the case because GOP leaders are far TOO moderate in their willingness to compromise on the immigration, judicial appointees, budget, pork, etc. issues. This notion on the left, like in Craig’s post, that the moderates Republicans need to stand up to their leadership is ridiculous when it’s moderation from the GOP platform (e.g. big spending from the party of less government) that got them into their mess in the first place.
So too is the idea of “undermin[ing] democracy by pandering to just enough people”. Hello! That’s what a voting democracy IS! I suppose Craig would prefer some kind of super democracy that requires two-thirds support for candidates. He would probably also insist that football games be won by at least two touchdowns. I doubt he’ll be arguing his point if the Democrats gain a one or two seat advantage in the House and Senate this fall.
Never said democrats never gerrymandered; they have.
The republicans are worse about it, taking it from moderate to extreme, and the idea of bragging about doing it in ‘talking points’, well that’s a new low too.
I think the expectations of doom for the GOP are (regrettably) off the mark, because they fail to take into account the enormous advantage which the GOP (and incumbents in general) have in raising cash to support campaign advertising.
In addition, I don’t think there is a clear parallel between a throw-the-bums-out mentality and actually voting against your Congressman. Voters often feel differently about their Congressman than about the party he represents.
Craig: The republicans are worse about it, taking it from moderate to extreme, and the idea of bragging about doing it in ‘talking points’, well that’s a new low too.”
I would suggest you read “Honest Graft” which documents Tony Cohello’s rise to Majority Whip, and subsequent fall from grace. Cohello was the one responsible for making sure the Democrats didn’t lose control of the House after the 1980 debacle. Not only did he use any and every means at their disposal to do so, but he even bragged about it.
Sean, I don’t care what opinion is.
And taking low grade morons like John Fund or the Wall Street Journal seriously is as willfully ignorant as lending credence to people like Chrales Krauthammer or Richard Perle.
Peter is right. Between gerrymandering and local politics I’m not sure Democrats will win back the Senate or the House, which is unfortunate. However, seats are obviously going to swing their way and I think they might sweep in 2008. Honestly, that might be the best outcome for the Democrats. They can keep riding the same horse for two more years and not get tainted with any responsibility for Iraq because, at this point, anybody who takes over is screwed on that issue.
The Democrats have certainly gerrymandered and worse. One might recall the 322 dead American Indians who voted for Mayor Daley in alphabetical order, or the 1960 Presidential election (in the words of Joe Kennedy: “I’ll be damned if I’m going to pay for a landslide.”). Hence I’m inclined to believe that, if the shoe were on the other foot, the Democrats would do as much damage to the principle of one man, one vote as they could get away with.
I think that Democrats are, by and large, right about the issues, but I wouldn’t ascribe a position of moral superiority to them.
Alan, sorry, you take back the Nazi quip, and maybe we’ll take you seriously – nope, scratch that, too late…
Peter, I think you misunderstoood me. I’m not saying it’s angels vs. devils. By a slight margin I would ascribe moral superiority to them but that is probably based on personal biases. I’ll take the cowards (Democrats) over the bullies (Republicans). I’m generalizing based on the leadership of the two parties though and I believe that both sides do have good people within them.
My post wasn’t about which side the good guys are on though. I was simply commenting on what might happen and the political ramifications thereof.
Should I happen to be correct, I think it there would be a benefit for the American people too. The best chance for any reform is right after a new party comes to power — or an old one regains power. It’s part political necessity to show the voters that you’re backing up what you said, and it’s part honest reform. After all, if power corrupts, it needs time to do so.
Fair enough, thanks –
Mark, what is it that scares conservatives so much about being held accountable in a court of law?
“The issue isn’t whether or not we are the same as the Nazis, the issue is that we aren’t different enough.”
Avi Schlaim
Israeli historian, on the issue of comparisons to Nazi Germany (in this instance referring to Israeli government and military leaders, but the parallel works here as well).
You’re setting up straw men…the Nuremburg trials were just any court of law – it’s a Nazi comparison, and I’m giving you more space than you deserve coming around here with that kind of crap – read up a little on the Holocaust and then see if you can figure out why that’s an odious statement to make…
Yes, well, Avi Schlaim is entitled to his opinion, however wrong it may be…and you’re entitled to yours – but truthfully, can the Nazi crap, okay? It’s not helpful…