October 21, 2004
IF HE'S SO STUPID HOW COMES HE GETS TO WORK THE GUILLOTINE?:
Last chance for the Democrats?: The presidential election says a lot about the unequal state of America's two parties (Lexington, Oct 14th 2004, The Economist)
It is generally agreed that the big prize this year will go to whichever party does the better job of getting its supporters to the polls. To this end, the Republicans have reinvented the traditional political party for the age of suburban sprawl. The party boasts an elaborate hierarchy of activists—state chairmen, county chairmen, precinct captains, local volunteers—who all have a pre-assigned role in a plan laid down in the Bush-Cheney headquarters in Arlington, Virginia. By contrast, the Democrats—ironically, given their opposition to outsourcing—have handed over most of the grunt work of registering and mobilising voters to independent groups such as MoveOn.org and America Coming Together.This difference is partly a function of campaign-finance law: the Democrats have been much busier exploiting loopholes in the McCain-Feingold legislation to form nominally independent organisations, known as 527s (after part of the tax code). But it has much deeper roots: the Republicans are now much more interested than the Democrats in building up their party.
Mr Bush is one of the most enthusiastic party-builders to have occupied the White House. Several earlier presidents deliberately snubbed their parties: Richard Nixon pursued a strategy of “lonely victory” in 1972, while Bill Clinton adopted a policy of “triangulation”, adopting whatever Republican ideas seemed likely to win votes. George Bush senior didn't so much snub his party as ignore it. But his son threw all the prestige of his post-September 11th presidency behind campaigning for congressional Republicans in 2002. He has worked closely with other party-builders on Capitol Hill, particularly Dennis Hastert and Tom DeLay in the House and Bill Frist in the Senate.
Meanwhile, the Democrats' party organisation is fraying. For decades the labour unions have provided both shoe leather and organisational glue for the Democrats. But the proportion of the workforce belonging to unions has shrunk from 30% in 1950 to 13% today. Trial lawyers have replaced trade unionists as the party's main paymasters, but they are too few in number (and too busy) to hold the party together in the same way. Women and black groups are also too focused on their own interests. The party was losing ground to single-issue pressure groups even before the 527s came along. [...]
[One] reason why the Republicans have more to gain from a victory in November is that they think they can use a second Bush term to turn themselves into America's de facto ruling party. Grover Norquist, the head of Americans for Tax Reform, may be exaggerating when he says that “the Democratic Party is toast” if Mr Bush wins. But the Republicans have put emasculating the Democrats at the very heart of their second-term agenda. They plan to reduce its footsoldiers by contracting out hundreds of thousands of federal jobs, to reduce its income through tort reform (which may slim down the lawyers' wallets) and right-to-work laws (which will allow workers to opt out of union dues). And they plan to boost the number of people who own shares—and hence a stake in the success of the capitalist system—by beginning to privatise Social Security.
The Republican aim is to do to the Democrats what Mr Blair has so successfully done to the Tories in Britain: marginalise them so completely that they degenerate into a parody of a political party. No wonder the Democrats are fighting so hard this year. And no wonder they hate the party-builder in the White House with such a furious passion.
What makes all this even more remarkable is how open the President and Karl Rove have been about their intention to do just such epochal things with this presidency and how little attention most on the Left or the far Right have paid until the past few weeks.
Heck, there are still folks who haven't figured out that the Democrats got sandbagged on No Child Left Behind.
Posted by Orrin Judd at October 21, 2004 11:39 PMIt's more fun to complain that the President has yet to veto a bill than to realize exactly why he has not, and just how effective he's been at building the party into a future juggernaut.
Posted by: kevin whited at October 22, 2004 12:59 AMNixon should be considered a Democratic liberal. (Eisenhower, the same?, maybe) Reagan could have done alot better than he did, but he was looking out for NO. 1.
If Nixon had stuck with conservatives, he wouldn't have had to resign.
My favorite bit: "Republicans...think they can use a second Bush term to turn themselves into America's de facto ruling party."
"Think"?
Posted by: Tom at October 22, 2004 5:34 PM