K
Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names
Guest
Karl Rove's grandest aspiration was to create a Republican majority
that would dominate American politics for a generation or more. But as
the effects of his distinctive brand of fear-mongering fade, it's the
Democrats who are poised to become the country's majority party -- and
perhaps for a long time to come.
Many conservatives have insisted that the Democrats' wins in the 2006
midterm elections, as well as their recent pickups in some 2007 races,
were mere blips. They wish. Political, ideological, demographic and
economic trends are all leading toward durable Democratic majorities
in Congress, control of most statehouses and, very possibly, the end
of the decades-old GOP hammerlock on the electoral college.
This sea change is the result of the electorate's disenchantment with
conservative Republicans, beginning in the 1990s. The old conservative
majority, as given voice by Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich, sought to
cut federal regulation, to privatize government operations and to
slash social spending. But by late in Bill Clinton's presidency, broad
public majorities had come to back environmental and consumer
regulation, as well as significant new government spending on health
care and education. As President Bush discovered in 2005, the public
also disliked attempts to gut Social Security.
Moreover, much of the electorate had grown leery of the GOP's fervent
identification with the religious right. As early as 1992, mainstream
voters were turned off by Pat Buchanan's nasty, divisive "culture war"
speech at the Republican National Convention. Attempts by religious
conservatives to stop teaching evolution and funding human stem-cell
research spurred a widespread backlash, even in states such as Kansas,
which Democrats had given up for dead.
This dramatic shift in the public's outlook carried with it a change
in the political makeup of the Republican and Democratic coalitions --
in a way that decisively helps Democrats. Even in conservatism's
heyday, Democrats received the support of African Americans, Hispanics
and a residual group of white working-class voters (especially union
members) who had not switched parties in the 1980s and become "Reagan
Democrats." That was fine for a base, but not enough to win the White
House or to keep Congress. But over the past two decades, two new
groups have migrated to the Democratic Party -- and provided the basis
for an enduring majority coalition.
First, there are women, who used to vote disproportionately
Republican. (In 1960, for instance, women backed the Republican
Richard M. Nixon, with his 5 o'clock shadow, over the dashing Democrat
John F. Kennedy.) But in the 1990s, troubled by the Republicans' ardor
for the religious right and opposition to social spending, they began
voting disproportionately Democratic -- especially single women,
working women and college-educated women. In the 2000 congressional
elections, single women backed Democrats over Republicans by a
whopping 63 percent to 35. Even better news for Democrats: Women are
more likely to vote than men.
Second, there are professionals, once the most Republican of all
occupational groups. In 1960, they backed Nixon over JFK by 61 percent
to 38. But as professionals -- including nurses, teachers and actors
as well as doctors, scientists and engineers -- have become a larger
proportion of the workforce (about 7 percent in the 1950s, and about
17 percent today), they have turned decidedly blue. In the four
presidential elections from 1988 to 2000, professionals backed
Democrats by an average of 52 percent to 40 percent. The reason:
Professionals typically used to see themselves as pro-business
entrepreneurs, but by the 1990s, most had become salaried workers,
wary of big corporations and the untrammeled free market. Moreover, as
members of the post-1960s college generation, the new professionals
grew up celebrating Earth Day and Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday
and admiring the (pre-2000) Ralph Nader.
So if the electorate is swinging Democratic, why does the GOP still
hold the White House? The reason is 9/11, which revived the
Republicans' Reagan-era advantage as the party of national security,
an edge that had grown irrelevant since the Soviet Union collapsed.
The nation was badly rattled, and the voters who were most worried
about new terrorist attacks backed Bush's Republicans in the first two
post-9/11 elections, 2002 and 2004.
The attacks gave Republicans another political bonus: As often happens
during national crises, Americans reverted to more traditional views
of life and family. Opposition to abortion, for example, rose
temporarily after the 2001 attacks, with the percentage of voters who
said they believe that abortion should be "illegal in all
circumstances" rising from 17 percent in 2000 to 20 percent in 2002,
based on Gallup Poll annual averages. The more Americans turned
inward, the more they feared social innovation and experimentation.
Rove's Republicans exploited these fears in 2002 and 2004, using them
to suppress the trends pushing toward a Democratic majority.
But after Bush's victory in 2004, the spell cast by 9/11 began to
lift. The quagmire in Iraq undermined the Republicans' reputation for
national security competence and toughness. And in the absence of new
al-Qaeda attacks at home, Americans resumed their slow, steady
movement toward a less traditional, more libertarian society -- one in
which unmarried men and women now head the majority of households. The
more the aura of 9/11 faded, the more the trends that began in the
1990s surged to the fore.
In 2006, the new Democratic coalition -- women, professionals and
minorities, augmented by disillusioned Reagan Democrats -- retook
Congress. In 2008, it's poised to do even better. Just look at the
map.
The old conservative Republican majority was built on white voters in
the Sunbelt and Reagan Democrats in Northern suburbs. By 1992, this
coalition had already begun to collapse: The Far West (including
California), much of the Midwest and the Middle Atlantic (including
Pennsylvania and New Jersey) defected to the Democratic Party in the
presidential election.
Since Bill Clinton's triumph, states such as California, Illinois and
New Jersey have turned bluer and bluer. Meanwhile, the Democrats have
consolidated their hold on the Northeast and have begun to make
inroads in the Rocky Mountain states -- and even in some Southern
border states. Virginia, once a Republican bastion, has elected two
Democratic governors in a row and seems poised to make both of its
U.S. senators Democratic. In the Southwest, where Rove dreamed of
capturing the Mexican American vote, Democrats have been doing
strikingly well, backed by Latinos alienated by Republican anti-
immigration tirades, sagebrush libertarians fed up with the religious
right and moderate transplants from states such as California. In
Barry Goldwater's Arizona, a Democratic governor is in her second
term, and Democrats now control half of the state's congressional
seats.
Or consider Colorado. In 2000, Bush carried the state by nine
percentage points, and in 2002, Republican Sen. Wayne Allard easily
won reelection. But in 2004, Bush won the state by just five points,
Democrats took control of both chambers of the state legislature, and
Democrat Ken Salazar won a marquee Senate race. In 2006, Democrats
expanded their control of the state legislature and elected Bill
Ritter Jr. governor by a landslide. They have an excellent chance of
picking up the other Senate seat next year.
Against this blue tide, only the deep South and some sparsely
populated prairie and mountain states remain dependably Republican.
But the GOP can't take any state for granted anymore. In Republican
Kansas, the governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general are
Democrats.
One key to this shift has been the development of post-industrial
metropolitan areas -- places that combine city and suburb, that are
devoted to the production of ideas and services, and that act as
powerful magnets for precisely the professionals and minorities who
are most likely to vote Democratic. These areas include greater Los
Angeles (which now employs more entertainment workers than aerospace
ones), Seattle, Chicago, Boston and even Austin in Bush's home state.
Call them ideopolises, and color them bright blue. The Democratic vote
in the post-industrial Northern Virginia suburbs, for instance, is the
main reason why Democrats have rebounded so dramatically in the Old
Dominion.
True, Democrats' growing advantage doesn't necessarily translate into
voter registration. In many states, the fastest growing group of
voters is independents. But many of these voters have the same center
or center-left sensibility as the Democrats -- maybe with an added
emphasis on good government and fiscal responsibility. The leftward
tilt of independents has only been intensified by dismay about the war
in Iraq and by Republican scandals. In 2006, independents nationwide
voted Democratic by a margin of 57 percent to 39 percent.
These trends should give Democrats a striking political advantage over
the next decade, and perhaps longer. This edge won't necessarily
entail thumping, New Deal-style congressional majorities or certain
victory in presidential elections. Presidents are chosen for their
(presumed) character and leadership abilities, not just for their
political program and party. So the United States may well have a
Democratic Congress and a Republican president in 2009. But it isn't
likely. Republicans, who grew fat and happy during Bush's first term,
anticipating decades of rule, face some lean years ahead.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.../12/21/AR2007122101415.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
that would dominate American politics for a generation or more. But as
the effects of his distinctive brand of fear-mongering fade, it's the
Democrats who are poised to become the country's majority party -- and
perhaps for a long time to come.
Many conservatives have insisted that the Democrats' wins in the 2006
midterm elections, as well as their recent pickups in some 2007 races,
were mere blips. They wish. Political, ideological, demographic and
economic trends are all leading toward durable Democratic majorities
in Congress, control of most statehouses and, very possibly, the end
of the decades-old GOP hammerlock on the electoral college.
This sea change is the result of the electorate's disenchantment with
conservative Republicans, beginning in the 1990s. The old conservative
majority, as given voice by Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich, sought to
cut federal regulation, to privatize government operations and to
slash social spending. But by late in Bill Clinton's presidency, broad
public majorities had come to back environmental and consumer
regulation, as well as significant new government spending on health
care and education. As President Bush discovered in 2005, the public
also disliked attempts to gut Social Security.
Moreover, much of the electorate had grown leery of the GOP's fervent
identification with the religious right. As early as 1992, mainstream
voters were turned off by Pat Buchanan's nasty, divisive "culture war"
speech at the Republican National Convention. Attempts by religious
conservatives to stop teaching evolution and funding human stem-cell
research spurred a widespread backlash, even in states such as Kansas,
which Democrats had given up for dead.
This dramatic shift in the public's outlook carried with it a change
in the political makeup of the Republican and Democratic coalitions --
in a way that decisively helps Democrats. Even in conservatism's
heyday, Democrats received the support of African Americans, Hispanics
and a residual group of white working-class voters (especially union
members) who had not switched parties in the 1980s and become "Reagan
Democrats." That was fine for a base, but not enough to win the White
House or to keep Congress. But over the past two decades, two new
groups have migrated to the Democratic Party -- and provided the basis
for an enduring majority coalition.
First, there are women, who used to vote disproportionately
Republican. (In 1960, for instance, women backed the Republican
Richard M. Nixon, with his 5 o'clock shadow, over the dashing Democrat
John F. Kennedy.) But in the 1990s, troubled by the Republicans' ardor
for the religious right and opposition to social spending, they began
voting disproportionately Democratic -- especially single women,
working women and college-educated women. In the 2000 congressional
elections, single women backed Democrats over Republicans by a
whopping 63 percent to 35. Even better news for Democrats: Women are
more likely to vote than men.
Second, there are professionals, once the most Republican of all
occupational groups. In 1960, they backed Nixon over JFK by 61 percent
to 38. But as professionals -- including nurses, teachers and actors
as well as doctors, scientists and engineers -- have become a larger
proportion of the workforce (about 7 percent in the 1950s, and about
17 percent today), they have turned decidedly blue. In the four
presidential elections from 1988 to 2000, professionals backed
Democrats by an average of 52 percent to 40 percent. The reason:
Professionals typically used to see themselves as pro-business
entrepreneurs, but by the 1990s, most had become salaried workers,
wary of big corporations and the untrammeled free market. Moreover, as
members of the post-1960s college generation, the new professionals
grew up celebrating Earth Day and Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday
and admiring the (pre-2000) Ralph Nader.
So if the electorate is swinging Democratic, why does the GOP still
hold the White House? The reason is 9/11, which revived the
Republicans' Reagan-era advantage as the party of national security,
an edge that had grown irrelevant since the Soviet Union collapsed.
The nation was badly rattled, and the voters who were most worried
about new terrorist attacks backed Bush's Republicans in the first two
post-9/11 elections, 2002 and 2004.
The attacks gave Republicans another political bonus: As often happens
during national crises, Americans reverted to more traditional views
of life and family. Opposition to abortion, for example, rose
temporarily after the 2001 attacks, with the percentage of voters who
said they believe that abortion should be "illegal in all
circumstances" rising from 17 percent in 2000 to 20 percent in 2002,
based on Gallup Poll annual averages. The more Americans turned
inward, the more they feared social innovation and experimentation.
Rove's Republicans exploited these fears in 2002 and 2004, using them
to suppress the trends pushing toward a Democratic majority.
But after Bush's victory in 2004, the spell cast by 9/11 began to
lift. The quagmire in Iraq undermined the Republicans' reputation for
national security competence and toughness. And in the absence of new
al-Qaeda attacks at home, Americans resumed their slow, steady
movement toward a less traditional, more libertarian society -- one in
which unmarried men and women now head the majority of households. The
more the aura of 9/11 faded, the more the trends that began in the
1990s surged to the fore.
In 2006, the new Democratic coalition -- women, professionals and
minorities, augmented by disillusioned Reagan Democrats -- retook
Congress. In 2008, it's poised to do even better. Just look at the
map.
The old conservative Republican majority was built on white voters in
the Sunbelt and Reagan Democrats in Northern suburbs. By 1992, this
coalition had already begun to collapse: The Far West (including
California), much of the Midwest and the Middle Atlantic (including
Pennsylvania and New Jersey) defected to the Democratic Party in the
presidential election.
Since Bill Clinton's triumph, states such as California, Illinois and
New Jersey have turned bluer and bluer. Meanwhile, the Democrats have
consolidated their hold on the Northeast and have begun to make
inroads in the Rocky Mountain states -- and even in some Southern
border states. Virginia, once a Republican bastion, has elected two
Democratic governors in a row and seems poised to make both of its
U.S. senators Democratic. In the Southwest, where Rove dreamed of
capturing the Mexican American vote, Democrats have been doing
strikingly well, backed by Latinos alienated by Republican anti-
immigration tirades, sagebrush libertarians fed up with the religious
right and moderate transplants from states such as California. In
Barry Goldwater's Arizona, a Democratic governor is in her second
term, and Democrats now control half of the state's congressional
seats.
Or consider Colorado. In 2000, Bush carried the state by nine
percentage points, and in 2002, Republican Sen. Wayne Allard easily
won reelection. But in 2004, Bush won the state by just five points,
Democrats took control of both chambers of the state legislature, and
Democrat Ken Salazar won a marquee Senate race. In 2006, Democrats
expanded their control of the state legislature and elected Bill
Ritter Jr. governor by a landslide. They have an excellent chance of
picking up the other Senate seat next year.
Against this blue tide, only the deep South and some sparsely
populated prairie and mountain states remain dependably Republican.
But the GOP can't take any state for granted anymore. In Republican
Kansas, the governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general are
Democrats.
One key to this shift has been the development of post-industrial
metropolitan areas -- places that combine city and suburb, that are
devoted to the production of ideas and services, and that act as
powerful magnets for precisely the professionals and minorities who
are most likely to vote Democratic. These areas include greater Los
Angeles (which now employs more entertainment workers than aerospace
ones), Seattle, Chicago, Boston and even Austin in Bush's home state.
Call them ideopolises, and color them bright blue. The Democratic vote
in the post-industrial Northern Virginia suburbs, for instance, is the
main reason why Democrats have rebounded so dramatically in the Old
Dominion.
True, Democrats' growing advantage doesn't necessarily translate into
voter registration. In many states, the fastest growing group of
voters is independents. But many of these voters have the same center
or center-left sensibility as the Democrats -- maybe with an added
emphasis on good government and fiscal responsibility. The leftward
tilt of independents has only been intensified by dismay about the war
in Iraq and by Republican scandals. In 2006, independents nationwide
voted Democratic by a margin of 57 percent to 39 percent.
These trends should give Democrats a striking political advantage over
the next decade, and perhaps longer. This edge won't necessarily
entail thumping, New Deal-style congressional majorities or certain
victory in presidential elections. Presidents are chosen for their
(presumed) character and leadership abilities, not just for their
political program and party. So the United States may well have a
Democratic Congress and a Republican president in 2009. But it isn't
likely. Republicans, who grew fat and happy during Bush's first term,
anticipating decades of rule, face some lean years ahead.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.../12/21/AR2007122101415.html?hpid=opinionsbox1