Sean Wilentz speculates on the transitional state of American politics in The New Republic:
The age of Reagan, born out of the center’s
collapse in the ’60s and ’70s, has, thanks to George W. Bush, finally
lost its relevance, except as a nostalgic touchstone of bygone
Republican glory. In one sense, it has been the victim of its own
successes, having outlasted the Soviet Union, fundamentally altered the
nation’s political economy, and pushed the center of the nation’s
political gravity to the right. In another sense, it has owed its
remarkable longevity to a confused and divided opposition, and to the
persisting tenuousness of centrist politics. But what a new centrist
politics might look like–whether Republican or Democratic,
conservative or liberal–is as yet difficult to envisage. We are, for
the moment, caught between two political eras, the one dead, the other
struggling mightily to be born.
My own take, with political scientist Jerry Mayer, on the current transition period and possible trajectories, here.
May 1st, 2008 at 10:31 am
Poor Ronald Reagan would be turning in his grave if he were aware of the distortion between what he actually stood for and that which he’s been equated. To be sure neither Bush effected the policies of Reagan. People forget that Bush Sr. mocked Reagan and served as his VP under political pressure. But let’s leave that for the historians…
To understand where we’re headed politically, we should look to our past and the days of Hamiltonian federalism/capitalism. A strong national finance system (and a national bank would be appealing too). And then to Teddy Roosevelt, champion of national parks, the Renaissance man concept, and merit-based advances. And a foreign policy based upon the big stick that remains in the closet.
We’re entering a new post-partisan era that will re-shuffle politics completely. Look for more elected party independents defined by themselves and their associations rather than a politics of red vs blue.
May 4th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
RF – I must say that your take on which path the state of U.S. politics make take as we, uhh, progress, is fascinating: Scenario one lays the groundwork for “Stars Aligning,” scenario two explains how the United States could enter a period of “Cultural Polarization” and scenario three details how the U.S. could become “Fortress America.” This is truly stuff that deserves more attention from the U.S. political machine. As a relative newcomer to this blog, I did not know how interested you were in politics.
Speaking of U.S. political machines, let’s have some fun and see what Karl Rove’s been up to this past week! Hang on…. last Wednesday, April 30, Rove published “Getting To Know John McCain” in The Wall Street Journal.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120951606847454685.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
In this article, Rove says: “When it comes to choosing a president, the American people want to know more about a candidate than policy positions. They want to know about character, the values ingrained in his heart. For Mr. McCain, that means they will want to know more about him personally than he has been willing to reveal.”
Oddly enough, I think that one of the reasons that McCain holds such wide appeal is because he is a private person. What’s wrong with that? Rove has been stoking this sort of “values politics” for most of his career. The conservative movement has had a values conversation in this country for the past 50 years; hopefully this trend is ending.
And bonus! In this week’s issue of Newsweek; the Monday, May 5 issue, Rove published advice to Barack Obama in an article titled “Dear Senator Obama….”
http://www.newsweek.com/id/134322
In this article, Rove says to Obama: “You have talent, intelligence and tapped into something powerful early in your campaign. But running for president is unlike anything you’ve ever done. You’re making mistakes and making people worry that you’re an elitist. So while you’ll almost certainly win the nomination, Democrats are nervous about the fall. You’ve given them reasons to be.”
This article also contains six suggestions that Karl Rove thinks Barack Obama should take in order to win the Presidency, but I will not give them away. Will Obama take Rove’s suggestions? This will be interesting….
I may be preaching to the choir, but still, it’s good to know that Karl Rove, who once seemed to think of himself as Mr. Omnipotence, now has to publish his ludicrous opinions in newspapers and magazines instead of whispering them into the ear of George W. Bush. Karl Rove has been the master of getting people to vote on values and against their own interest. Part of this stems from the fact that liberals are hesitant to trash conservatives the way it always happens vice-a-versa. We can’t forget that this behavior has always been part of politics. I risk being too philosophical here, but political divisions are an inherent part of the U.S. Constitution: It doesn’t specify that the country have two different political parties, but it does specify that we have three different branches of government, instead of just one big one. What happens after that is up to us.
May 4th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
“Part of this stems from the fact that liberals are hesitant to trash conservatives the way it always happens vice-a-versa.”
The WSJ had a study several months ago that found that the right is more tolerant than the left. Maybe so, maybe not; they’re close to par. Michael Moore? Hollywood? The elite media?? Huffington Post?? Etc, etc.
Obama is leading because of his post-partisan appeal, eloquence, innate intelligence and compelling narrative; and promise to be a problem-solver instead of being divisive. But his association with people like Rev. Wrong, probably necessary to get him elected in urban Chicago as a Democrat in big-blue-land, has now become his Achilles heel– and he probably never like or approved of him anyway. Talk about chickens coming home to roost.
The sooner we move away from red-blue politics, the better. As for Rove, anyone who thinks that a political consultant wears only one color uniform is probably color-blind. They’re equal opportunity mercenaries.
May 4th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
“Part of this stems from the fact that liberals are hesitant to trash conservatives the way it always happens vice-a-versa.”
The WSJ had a study several months ago that found that the right is more tolerant than the left. Maybe so, maybe not; they’re close to par. Michael Moore? Hollywood? The elite media?? Huffington Post?? Etc, etc.
Obama is leading because of his post-partisan appeal, eloquence, innate intelligence and compelling narrative; and promise to be a problem-solver instead of being divisive. But his association with people like Rev. Wrong, probably necessary to get him elected in urban Chicago as a Democrat in big-blue-land, has now become his Achilles heel– and he probably never like or approved of him anyway. Talk about chickens coming home to roost.
The sooner we move away from red-blue politics, the better. As for Rove, anyone who thinks that a political consultant wears only one color uniform is probably color-blind. They’re equal opportunity mercenaries.
May 4th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
“Part of this stems from the fact that liberals are hesitant to trash conservatives the way it always happens vice-a-versa.”
The WSJ had a study several months ago that found that the right is more tolerant than the left. Maybe so, maybe not; they’re close to par. Michael Moore? Hollywood? The elite media?? Huffington Post?? Etc, etc.
Obama is leading because of his post-partisan appeal, eloquence, innate intelligence and compelling narrative; and promise to be a problem-solver instead of being divisive. But his association with people like Rev. Wrong, probably necessary to get him elected in urban Chicago as a Democrat in big-blue-land, has now become his Achilles heel– and he probably never like or approved of him anyway. Talk about chickens coming home to roost.
The sooner we move away from red-blue politics, the better. As for Rove, anyone who thinks that a political consultant wears only one color uniform is probably color-blind. They’re equal opportunity mercenaries.
May 5th, 2008 at 12:20 am
Hayden Fisher – Posting the same comment three times (!) will not stop Hillary Clinton from beating Obama. The cover of the most recent issue (May 7) of The New Republic mocks Clinton perfectly. A picture of Clinton (Hillary, not Bill, thank you very much) shows her in a yellow pant-suit with her right hand held high and a caption coming from her wide-open mouth that says: “You’ll take away this nomination from my cold, dead hands!”
I read Sean Wilentz’s article, “Sunset In America” in the same May 7 issue and agree with his assessment: “We are, for the moment, caught between two political eras, the one dead, the other struggling mightily to be born.” Wilentz says it better than I ever could have. It is sad that people like Karl Rove have put an end to one of the most interesting times in the history of the United States. It is good that people like Karl Rove will not have much of a say in defining what the next political era will look like.
Bill Clinton didn’t get a lot of things done he wanted too. One thing his eight years in office did not accomplish was ushering in a progressive era for the 21st century. Both Bill and Hillary wanted to do this badly, but they didn’t get it done. Now, they have another chance to change things, and they are not taking attempts to derail their quite amazing grasp on power lightly. Hillary Clinton’s 2008 run for President has been called Macevellian…. I don’t really care what people call it.
May 5th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
I think we could have 3 parties by this time next year, the R’s have marginalized themselves and the D’s are sitting on a trembling fault line with fire and storm brewing down below. I agree that Hillary will not go quietly into the night under any circumstance, nor will Barack’s supporters.