Why would a permanent majority party be a good thing for a pluralistic democracy?

Still happy with Senator McCain's deal, OJ?

Majorities have a tendency toward self-immolation. The fumes of power tend to kill brain cells, it's a lot like sniffing glue. I just hadn't expected it this soon in the Republican's ascendancy.

Gotta love the way the Stupid Party will roll over and play doglet for the Democrats on all the Dems' pet issues and how they've learned the joys of dispensing Pork so quickly, but most of all, how quickly can they find their spines (or other organs) when they have to confront the President of their own party. (Then again, all the noise seems to be coming from people who've never even tried to get elected, or joke candidates like Pat Buchanan.)

"Why would a permanent majority party be a good thing for a pluralistic democracy?"

And why would the Dems as presently constituted be good for the Republic?

Every 70 years, like clockwork.

David:

More than ever. It'll be Democrats and the Gang who put her and Alberto over the top.

Anon:

Because it's needed to get anything done at all in our system and we need a long period of restructuring to follow the New Deal/Great Society.

And that's good because ... ?

If he is stiffed by the attack dogs of the Rabid Right, I would hope that Bush make Republicans the permanent minority by nominating Gonzales.

Indignent outrage at being called elitist continues to be a major complaint of those yelling the loudest against Miers, combined with multiple "Ah ha!" moments when each new piece of information comes up. Yet, eight days into the battle, as they complain about Bush lacking a spine, they still haven't explained where the 6-8 GOP Senate moderates were going to get theirs, after forcing Bush into a recess appointment of John Bolton because they wilted under the pressure of that media onslaught, for a position at an organization most Americans view as a corrupt, ineffective mess desperately in need of reform.

If the pundits would at least come out and say they would have preferred Bush repeated butt his head against the Senate door and send up nominee after nominee from the approved list until someone is confirmed, even if it takes half a year or longer, I'd respect them more, since I think Bush in the end could have worn down the Democrats and gotten one of those people on the Court. But they seem to believe all they have to say is "Withdraw Miers and nominate X to the Court", and candidate X will autmatically be confirmed by Thanksgiving, with the GOP half of the "Gang of 14" leading the charge to kill the fillibuster rule.

OJ, Isn't the New Deal/Great Society and example of what happens when one party has too much power and permanence?

Raoul, Who said anything about making the Dems a permanent party?

Anon:

No, it's an example of what happens when the dominant party is wrong. We'd have reverted back to natural GOP dominance but for the Cold War and things would have been fine.

Reading things I didn't say, I see.

If the GOP isn't going to be the permanent party, then there needs to be a rational, believable alternative ready to step in. The real problem right now is that even if the GOP stumbles, that alternative doesn't exist. So it's going to take a Watergate like collapse for the Dems to have a real chance (and that's why so many on the Left pine for "scandals" to remove the people they themselves can't take out.) And even if they get their hoped-for scandal, it won't last, especially if the Dems revert to form like they did in 1993/94.

See also this posting from the weekend which talks about how having a permanent majority party seems to be quite common in Western Democracies since the 1950s. The Dems had an opportunity at being our Permanent Majority but chose to MoveOn™ instead. (Then again, if you do believe in the numerology of 70 year cycles, there's nothing they could have done.)

David:

Because we'll win.

OJ, The vast majority of Americans believe that the New Deal was just fine. At least they haven't ever elected anyone to completely dismantle these programs (even Reagan merely cut thr rate of growth of non-military domestic government spending). The current New Dealer in the White House is engaged in Keynesian deficit spending at a level that would make FDR blanche. Nobody, Republican or Democrat, has significantly attacked the New Deal.

If the American people feel the New Deal is evil, why then is it still in place and larger than ever?

Raoul, I misunderstood you. Other democracies based on the parliamentary system actually need ruling majorities or at least coalitions in order to function. Our presidential system which is based on the ideal of using "ambition to check ambition" requires a strong opposition to prevent dangerous accumulation of power.

As for a second party, the GOP is about to split into theocrats and libertarians. Both were united under Reagan by their common hatred of Communism (the first opposing its atheism, the second opposing its socialism). With the fall of the Wall the two halves of the GOP haven't really had anything in common for quite sometime. The Miers nomination exposes this split. Bioethical issues such as stem cell research will increase the split.

A divided GOP won't win the next presidential election. The GOP is going to get clobbered in next year's congressional races (though it will keep control of the Senate).

Anon:

Democrats and the press have told people that the GOP wants to return us to the pre-New Deal era for twenty five years of unrelenting GOP victories.

The GOP needn't attack the New Deal--it's easy enough to privatize it out of existence as is happening everywhere in the Anglosphere, except Canada.

But has the GOP privatized out the New Deal or significantly reduced it in any way. The Federal government under Bush is larger than its ever been as measured by any metric.

BTW, do you consider the Clinton presidency to be part of that 25 years of unrelenting GOP victories? Granted, as measured by reducing government debt and defecit spending and reforming welfare, Clinton was a better "Republican" than Bush II. But still...

Aside from Margaret Thatcher breaking the hold of the trade unions and otherwise ending old style British socialism (which was as far beyond relatively mild New Deal policies as fascism is from mere conservatism) what other Anglosphere countries have actually reduced the role of government in real terms? Not just reduced its growth rate compared to economic growth, but actually CUT back inreal terms on government programs and spending.

Anon:

By the only coherent metric -- % of GDP -- it's fairly small, but especially small given that we're at war. Government is going to get smaller, control is just going to shift from bureaucracies to citizens.

Yes, Bill Clinton was this era's Grover Cleveland and once he had a GOP Congress was a very conservative president.

The GOP has to have sixty seats in the Senate in order to privatize SS--that'll require a McCain or Giuliani landslide in '08. W could have gotten there but for the war.

In the meantime, they've reformed and are reforming Welfare, Education, Medicare, etc.