Post
by Ian » Thu May 12, 2011 4:15 pm
I’ve mentioned this theory elsewhere, but this is the thread where it belongs. It's meant as something to chew on in the coming year-and-a-half: a little bit of electoral history coupled with a big-picture forecasting of the 2012 election. The font color will shift slightly as history shifts to prediction:
Despite the closeness of the 1960 election, the Kennedy/Johnson administrations spent much of their eight years in office moving the politics of the country substantially leftwards. Attempts to warm relations with the Soviets, the passage of the Civil Rights Act and Medicare, etc… all of this expended a lot of political capital. Added together with their oversight of an increasingly unpopular war, and the Democrats paid dearly in the 1966 midterm elections.
By the time the 1968 elections rolled around, the outgoing President wasn’t too popular even within his own party. That year, both parties nominated some relatively centrist candidates to succeed him, resulting in a fairly close but still decisive election. The Republican (Nixon) won, in part because in 1968 he faced a Democratic party that was dispirited, discredited and ideologically split between pragmatists and an emerging far left, who felt that the previous Democratic administration actually hadn’t gone far enough – compromising their cherished progressive principles for the sake of reaching legislative accommodation with Republicans.
After the Republicans took back the White House, these left-wing ideologues (acting through an assortment of political action groups popularly referred to as the “New Left”) were the ones who started taking over the Democratic Party, state by state, at a grassroots level. They vilified the new Republican President, and they had the luxury of being in a position to criticize him without having to directly deal with him much. Nixon himself, in efforts to make progress on some significant issues (lowering troop levels in Vietnam, détente with Russia, some center-left economic policies, etc.) seemed to have lost significant support from his conservative base. Though the New Left annoyed and even replaced some members of the old Democratic establishment, they were nevertheless instrumental in dealing the new President’s party a blow in the 1970 midterm elections. Energized by such victories and their new clout within the Democratic Party, in the 1972 primaries the New Left surprised several establishment Democratic candidates (i.e. accomodationists) when they helped nominate George McGovern, possibly the most left-of-the-bell-curve candidate ever to secure the nomination for President on a major party ticket.
In November, McGovern was crushed in the general election. So resolute were his supporters’ ideals that they blinded these steadfast liberals to some demographic realities: though the politics of the country may have been moved to the left for some time prior to the current administration, and though the current President enjoyed only modest popularity, most people wanted nothing to do with a far-left ideologue candidate. The New Left was very vocal, but they overestimated the reach of their movement. They failed to appreciate the rise of the Sun Belt, the growing power of the religious right, etc., and in 1972 they paid a high price for nominating a politically immoderate Democrat to challenge a moderate incumbent Republican President who had spent the last couple years seizing control of the political center. Voter turnout in 1972 was less than it had been four years earlier, but that didn’t matter: in the end, the President was re-elected by a huge electoral majority, and the zeal of the New Left’s “no compromises” movement was lost for decades. In the meantime the wheel of the Democratic Party was wrested from their control and returned to the political middle. The Democrats nominated a thoroughly centrist Presidential candidate in 1976.
Fast forward forty years for a mirror image…
Despite the closeness of the 2000 election, the Bush administration spent much of its eight years in office moving the politics of the country substantially rightwards. The passage of major tax cuts, huge increases in defense spending, attempts to overhaul Social Security, etc… all of this expended a lot of political capital. Added together with their oversight of an increasingly unpopular war, and the Republicans paid dearly in the 2006 midterm elections.
By the time the 2008 elections rolled around, the outgoing President wasn’t too popular even within his own party. That year, both parties nominated some relatively centrist candidates to succeed him, resulting in a fairly close but still decisive election. The Democrat (Obama) won, in part because in 2008 he faced a Republican party that was dispirited, discredited and ideologically split between pragmatists and an emerging far right, who felt that the previous Republican administration actually hadn’t gone far enough – compromising their cherished conservative principles for the sake of reaching legislative accommodation with Democrats.
After the Democrats took back the White House, these right-wing ideologues (acting through an assortment of political action groups popularly referred to as the “Tea Party”) were the ones who started taking over the Republican Party, state by state, at a grassroots level. They vilified the new Democratic President, and they had the luxury of being in a position to criticize him without having to directly deal with him much. Obama himself, in efforts to make progress on some significant issues (increasing troop levels in Afghanistan, compromised passage of major health care reforms, extending the Bush tax cuts through 2012, etc.) seemed to have lost significant support from his liberal base. Though the Tea Party annoyed and even replaced some members of the old Republican establishment, they were nevertheless instrumental in dealing the new President’s party a blow in the 2010 midterm elections. Energized by such victories and their new clout within the Republican Party, in the 2012 primaries the Tea Party surprised several establishment Republican candidates (i.e. accomodationists) when they helped nominate *Candidate X* (either a Tea Party type himself or else someone who will have to, happily or not, rhetorically kneel and kiss the Tea Party’s ring in order to prevail in the primaries), possibly the most right-of-the-bell-curve candidate ever to secure the nomination for President on a major party ticket.
In November, *Candidate X* was crushed in the general election. So resolute were his supporters’ ideals that they blinded these steadfast conservatives to some demographic realities: though the politics of the country may have been moved to the right for some time prior to the current administration, and though the current President enjoyed only modest popularity, most people wanted nothing to do with a far-right ideologue candidate. The Tea Party was very vocal, but they overestimated the reach of their movement. They failed to appreciate the rise of the Millennials, the growing power of the Hispanic vote, etc., and in 2012 they paid a high price for nominating a politically immoderate Republican to challenge a moderate incumbent Democratic President who had spent the last couple years seizing control of the political center. Voter turnout in 2012 was less than it had been four years earlier, but that didn’t matter: in the end, the President was re-elected by a huge electoral majority, and the zeal of the Tea Party’s “no compromises” movement was lost for decades. In the meantime the wheel of the Republican Party was wrested from their control and returned to the political middle. The Republicans nominated a thoroughly centrist Presidential candidate in 2016.
Of course there are a million details to help explain each of these things, and there are no perfect historical comparisons. Many points can be brought up for discussion. But this is a macro-political analysis, a point about how pendulums swing in a center-dominated democracy. The details aren’t supposed to matter too much. History never actually repeats itself, but it often rhymes. I think 2012 will rhyme with 1972.
