A New National Political Realignment?

The prolonged spectacle of the Obama-Clinton contest in 2008 may seem finally to be a caricature of the former first family's incorrigible attempt to regain executive power.

I suggest that it may also signal an imminent political realignment of U.S. presidential politics.

At the outset of this campaign, virtually all political commentators, myself included, were thinking in terms of the now established paradigm of the so-called "red" and "blue" states. This color code seemed operative for 2008, and the election seemed certain, as it had been in 2000 and 2004, to be determined by s handful of Midwestern and Border states.

Recently, my friend Michael Barone has offered a canny analysis suggesting that Democratic voters may be partially divided into "academics" (educated white collar liberals) and "Jacksonians," (blue collar workers and moderates), with the former inclined to vote for Senator Obama and the latter to support Senator Clinton. He also points out that demographically the academics live mostly in a few areas of each state, those areas most intensely urban and suburban. There is much meat in Mr. Barone's analysis that I will not discuss here, but if accurate, it has significant consequences for how the various states will vote in 2008. Since the election is determined by the electoral college vote, which is by state, it is much more useful to focus on this than the popular vote (and thus national polls).

In the recent past, the Democratic Party has been composed of a coalition of the academics and Jacksonians, as well as black voters. That was the New Deal coalition. Republicans came to win the presidency much more often, beginning in 1952, when their presidential candidates began to attract independent and centrist voters with the candidacies of Eisenhower and Nixon. In 1980, Ronald Reagan began also to draw conservative blue collar workers from the Democratic Party. President Bill Clinton won two terms by coaxing back many straying Democrats.

In 2000, GOP strategist Karl Rove fashioned a presidential campaign that won electoral votes throughout the South, West and Midwest in what became popularly known as "red" states, conceding the West Coast and the Northeastern states, popularly known as "blue" states to Al Gore. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000, but won a majority of votes in 2004 against John Kerry. The electoral college map was very similar in both 2000 and 2004.

John McCain is a maverck Republican, and associated with several reform issues that have upset the more conservative base of his party. This has caused a conservative revolt that has been critical of McCain, and explicitly has threatened to sit out the election, as many did in 2006.

McCain's appeal to independents and conservative Democrats, however, became apparent in the primaries this year.

The right wing revolt, and McCain's reform/maverick appeal to the political center, enables the Arizona senator to run, if necessary, an unorthodox campaign in 2008, one that can win even if the far right of his party stays home. For example, Pennsylvania and New Jersey and some other past blues states are now in play, while Ohio, Texas and Florida seem more secure.

The prolonged and bitter campaign between Obama and Clinton could enhance such a McCain strategy if a relatively small number of disappointed Clinton voters, including women over 50, decide to vote for McCain, as more than 20% (in polls) now threaten to do. I don't think that many will defect, but even 5-10% would probably balance off the conservative defection from McCain, and make him a winner in November (with the help of independent and centrist voters).

The irony of this is that voters have, in the primaries, given strong evidence of their desire to elect a Democratic president in 2008.

Republican voters, however, selected the one person in their party who could win this year, and the Democrats are divided roughly in two. "Jacksonian" Democrats, especially because of foreign affairs and national security issues, might desert the Democratic nominee.

The Republican Party, at least for the time being, could become a national center-right party.

All of this, of course, is speculative.

But the ingredients are already there. The nation is tired of war, but wary of letting down its guard in the face of continued threats from Islamofascist terrorism.. The nation is worried about the economy, but wary of raising taxes and spending as a solution to its economic problems. The nation wants health care, energy and education reform, but knows it must somehow pay for them.

A national centrist party almost came about once before. Weary of war, still wary of the Depression, America faced a presidential election in 1944. Very ill, President Roosevelt wanted to retire. He met with Wendell Willkie, who had been his surprise opponent in 1940. Willkie lost that election, but was planning to run again in 1944. At their meeting, they outlined forming a new centrist party. But early in 1944, Willkie died. Roosevelt then dumped his leftist vice president, Henry Wallace, and picked Harry Truman to take his place. Only months after the 1944 election, and merely days after his fourth
inauguration, Roosevelt also died.

We know the rest of that story.

______________________________________________________

-This article first appeared in The Washington Times on April 11, 2008.

Second Thoughts or Buyer's Remorse?

Senator Barack Obama came very close to closing the deal on the Democratic presidential nomination on Tuesday, as his momentum, after the Wisconsin primary and following primaries/caucuses, seemed to be peaking at just the right moment.

But with results in from Texas and Ohio, it appears that at least some Democratic voters are having second-thoughts. Senator Hillary Clinton, as many have pointed out, has a difficult math problem to solve in the delegate count, even with these recent victories. Nontheless, the contest is not over, and six weeks of hard, if not brutal, campaigning are ahead before the critical Pennsylvania primary on April 22.

Senator Obama¹s sudden rise to overtake Senator Clinton as the Democratic frontrunner was perhaps unprecedented, but it was not an accident. He figured out early that he could not match his more well-known and experienced rivals with his resume, nor with his relatively tiny record in public office. His strategy, in contrast to their chest-pounding and inevitable stridency against the Republican administration, was to sound a theme of hope and change, with as little detail as possible, and to employ his communication skills to break out from the pack. Knowing that the Democratic base urgently wanted to pull the U.S. out of the Iraq war, he took the most stark position for immediate withdrawal. When he and Mrs. Clinton became the finalists for the nomination after the early primaries, each of them offered a potential historic first, he the first black nominee, she the first woman nominee. But Mr. Obama emphasized an appeal to the broader voter interest in optimism and reform without rancorous partisanship.

At the same time, he proved to be a prodigious fundraiser and a shrewd campaign organizer. While the media increasingly reported his "cult" following, behind the scenes he raised enough money to match and exceed Mrs. Clinton¹s resources, and he organized grass roots efforts in virtually every state, large and small. His mostly young volunteers turned out to be resourceful and disciplined. Fair or not, Mrs. Clinton¹s organization was often reported to be overstaffed, underperforming, and not living by modest means. Her frontrunner status became so ingrained in the media that it seemed that Mrs. Clinton was taking her press notices seriously, even as the Obama campaign was quietly organizing a campaign that would upset her plans.

Her political reverie came to an abrupt halt with Mr. Obama¹s upset victory in Iowa. She came back with a win in New Hampshire, but in subsequent primaries and caucuses she always seemed on the defensive. In this process, her campaign was revealed to be unprepared for Mr. Obama¹s challenge, and her reputation (and her husband¹s) for political acuity was shattered.

Nontheless, Mrs. Clinton was able to stay reasonably close in committed delegate strength to Mr. Obama¹s totals until the Wisconsin primary seemed to propel him into an unassailable lead.

But Mr. Obama, in spite of all the media attention to his candidacy, had not really been truly vetted as the putative Democratic nominee for president. Mrs. Clinton and her husband complained about this, but it did not seem to matter until they went very negative in recent weeks, and Mr. Obama's image suffered some blows as revelations of his real estate dealings in Chicago, the views of some advisors, and his own apparent dissembling on trade with Canada became well-known. His honeymoon with an "adoring" press has also seen bracing change, with more and more reporters asking him tough questions.

There is a big difference between second thoughts and buyer¹s remorse. The former occurs before a purchase or deal is made. The latter occurs afterwards, when it is too late to return the merchandise.

In spite of all the numbers crunchers who continue to say Mrs. Clinton cannot now beat Mr. Obama, it is quite possible for that to happen if he does not regain his composure in the remaining primaries. Mrs. Clinton now seems willing to go all the way to the convention if he does not. The existence of superdelegates provides the means for her to win in Denver.

The Republicans, in spite of that party's most conservative wing, have nominated their strongest candidate for 2008. Senator McCain has his own problems and shortcomings, but he will have the next eight months both to persuade recalictrant conservatives to vote for him, and to steer his national campaign to the political center where victory awaits.

The Democrats, by all signs the clear favorites to win in 2008 until now, have created a dilemma for themselves. If Mr. Obama wins in Denver, some Clinton partisans, particularly older women, may stay home (and a few might even vote for Mr. McCain). If Mrs. Clinton wins, some Obama partisans, particularly young voters and some of the most liberal Democrats, may also stay home. The ill-feeling that may result from a bitter Democratic contest, compounded by a protracted appeal by both candidates to the party's more liberal base, could result in leaving the critical political center all to Mr. McCain.

Then we would witness ia buyer¹s remorse in the Democratic Party as we have not seen before.

A New Life

They say again it is a new world
bringing with it new orders, new procedures, new personalities,
and, inevitably, new truth.

But each day everything is renewed, always,
whether it is what we think we wanted or not;
the alleged new world is justly only a new explanation
for something that will be replaced tomorrow,
and in turn replaced, again and again,
as long as we breathe in this curious world
taking our part of it,
our little part of it.

But each day is a different world,
no matter how precedent and history, like parents,
try to insist on modeling it, and us,
in genetic repetitions on the earth and sea,
wherever we go.

A truth is something which changes in time,
a falsehood is fixed in its moment, deceiving us
because it does not change.

As I write this, the world opens up yet another occasions,
as it will do beyond anything we can imagine,
so much greater than our tiny interval in it,
and we must decide how we will live in it as one more life
always contained in our lamented limitations.

Our disappointments are like splinters in our fingers,
painful until we remove them, and heal them,
find a way past them, riding over and through the world
as if it were a railroad with passengers
which requires us to go and stop and go again,
boarding and deboarding, visiting and adventuring,
punctuated by sleep and the dark dreams we use
to prepare ourselves, again and again, for a constant new life.

A Dilemma For Both Parties

The protracted, almost unendurable, 2008 campaign season for the national Republican Party began in the extreme pain of its losses in the 2006 elections, and under the historical precedents that few parties in the past six decades have won more than two presidential elections in a row.

After a period of controlling the White House and the Congress, the GOP now faces the prospect of controlling none of them, and having their significant recent gains wiped out.

To make matters worse, large numbers of their veteran members of Congress have decided to retire, and not a few of those, previously safe Republican seats, will now be competitive. The likely GOP nominee for president, Senator John McCain, faces an insurrection in his own party among some who feel his long record in Congress is not conservative enough, and threaten to bolt the party in November. Finally, Republican turnout in the primaries and caucuses so far has been far less than the Democratic turnout in most cases, indicating a relative lack of GOP enthusiasm for the 2008 campaign.

On its face, it does not seem it could get worse than this.

But beneath the face of these circumstances is another set of circumstances.

The catalysts for Republican defeat in 2006, the war in Iraq and political scandals at home, have faded from primary public controversy. A military surge in Iraq, initiated by President Bush, but vitally encouraged and supported by Senator McCain, seems to be working. A mood of national defeat has been transformed to a mood of some optimism. The Democratic Party, initially expected to settle early on its presidential candidate, has been stalemated with its two top contenders in a campaign likely to
approach if not reach its national convention before being resolved. The Democratically-controlled Congress is led by unattractive, ineffective figures, and the Congress has become even more unpopular than the outgoing president.

With John McCain as its candidate for president, the Republican party goes into unchartered seas for this election. The GOP has no reasonable prospects to regain control of either the Senate or the House. It is likely to lose seats in both bodies. Although Senator McCain is, by any definition I know, a
political conservative, he appears to be alienated from a considerable portion of the GOP conservative base. Should Hillary Clinton be nominated by the Democrats to run against him, most of that unhappy base will ultimately vote for him, but there will be noticeable defections by the far right, cheered on by social conservative spokespersons and some radio talk show hosts, no matter who the Democrats choose.

Political conversation now turns to his expected efforts to make some kind of peace with unhappy conservatives, and with his choice for vice president. Conventional wisdom argues that he will move quite to the right in both tasks.

John McCain has been, throughout this political season, the only Republican with a reasonable prospect of winning the 2008 election.But he is not only a maverick, he is a crusty and often unpleasant one in his political relationships. His appeal to independents and conservative/moderate Democrats has been demonstrated repeatedly in the primary/caucus season. What he and his advisors must now decide is how much an abrupt tilt to the right will cost him in the general election in November. If conservative hardliners will not compromise, then there is little to be gained in chasing their political ghostly figures.

Just as Mr. McCain has serious problems in the conservative base, Mrs.Clinton has serious problems outside her political base. These are "poll negatives" that do not seem to go away. If she defeats Mr..Obama for the nomination, most of his vote will easily fall in behind her. Most partisan Democrats intensely want to win the presidency in 2008, and will support either candidate enthusiastically against Mr. McCain. Mrs. Clinton's nomination,however, would create a particular opportunity for the GOP nominee in the political center where he is already credible. It is unlikely that Mrs. Clinton's negative swill simply go away. They are grounded in her political history and her political personality.

Independent and centrist voters may no longer support President Bush, and may now oppose many of his policies, but there is no evidence that most of them feel the anger and intensity that partisan
liberal Democrats do. The dilemma for the Democrats is that it is these voters who will determine the outcome of the 2008 election. The dilemma for John McCain is that he cannot afford to alienate the political center as he tries to bring unity to his own party.

This political year has seen more turns, twists and surprises than any in memory. There is no reason to think, having come this far, and with the agonizing choices facing both party's campaigns in the eight months before election day, that more shocks and surprises do not lie ahead.

_____________________________________________________

-This article was first published in The Washington Times on February 8, 2008.

Fred in Hunt for Red November?

The 2008 presidential nominating contests are going to be remembered as a cycle of political "musical chairs." The subtitle of this show might be a variant of Andy Warhol's famous dictum, i.e., "Everyone gets fifteen minutes as the frontrunner."

So far, Hillary Clinton has been the long-time Democratic frontrunner, and then Barack Obama got it for a few days by winning an upset in Iowa. As of now, following Mrs. Clinton's surprise win in New Hampshire, no one on that side is the frontrunner. But soon enough, there will be one again.

John McCain was the original Republican frontrunner, but he was soon superceded by Rudy Giuliani who held that status for most of the summer and autumn. Leading in early polls in both Iowa and New Hampshire, Mitt Romney was then arguably a frontrunner, but when Mike Huckabee won an upset in Iowa, he was briefly the frontrunner. John McCain won convincingly in New Hampshire, and now he is the frontrunner once again. If he wins in Michigan this week, he will firm up his standing as the leader of the pack.

But then the national focus turns to South Carolina, the fourth leg of the newly-created official early caucus-primary season. Here we may discover that the voters are graciously determined to have all the major candidates enjoy at least a brief moment in the spotlight. John Edwards, in fact, has to win here or face near certain elimination.

Fred Thompson also must either win here, or come in a very strong second, to revive his flagging campaign. And he might just do that. This is a state which is made for the low-key but solid conservative credentials of the lawyer-actor-senator-turned actor back again. Judging by his debate performance at the South Carolina GOP debate, Thompson has finally figured out how to campaign for president.

"The Hunt for Red October" is probably my favorite movie of the past twenty years, and I do not tire of the brilliantly constructed suspense of its story line even though I know exactly how the movie will turn out. Fred Thompson was not the major star of the movie, but he was one of the co-stars as the rear admiral. Similarly, he did not have that much camera time on the hit TV show "Law & Order," but he has played his role as the district attorney with consummate laid-back finesse, something which is natural to his style.

Republican voters, like their Democratic counterparts, are taking their time picking their nominee, This infuriates the media and many of its pundits who want their polls and theories to produce a quick conclusion, and not be embarrassed when each primary produces a surprising result that few if anyone predicted.

With that in mind, I want to make it clear that I am not predicting a Thompson upset in South Carolina (which is what it would be if he won or came in close second, trailing as he does now most of his rivals). But I do want to point out that South Carolina is just the place for Thompson to draw a line in the sand and make his biggest stand.

The Republicans are in the hunt for a "red November" this year, unlikely as that outcome has seemed to be over the past spring, summer and autumn. They need a candidate who can keep the conservative GOP base and still attract moderates and independents and perhaps some unhappy Democrats, too. For the moment, the most likely candidate seems to be John McCain. Messrs. Romney, Huckabee and Giuliani seem more
associated with the various wings of their party, and might have more difficulty in uniting it for November, although any one of them could win the nomination.

Thus it is Thompson's moment of opportunity if he can convince South Carolina GOP voters he has both the conservatism they require (he does have the endorsement of the National Right To Life organization), the independent spirit of a John McCain and the charm of a Mike Huckabee. We have seen brief flashes of these qualities during the campaign up to now, but nothing has been sustained, and his rivals have outperformed him.

His small part as a lawyer in Watergate, his ervice as a U.S.senator, and his stardom in movies and TV were perhaps only a rehearsal for what he is now doing this week. He could still turn out as a bit player in 2008, or after his South Carolina tryout, he might well end up with his biggest part of all.

____________________________________________________________

-This article first appeared in Real Clear Politics on January 14th, 2008.