Michael Tomasky thinks modern (neo) conservativism has failed so thoroughly that we're seeing a political realignment thanks, in part, to Karl Rove.
In view of the results in 2002 and 2004, Karl Rove used to speak of a "rolling realignment," predicting that today's Republicans would accomplish over three or four elections what the 1932 Democrats and the 1896 Republicans pulled off in one. This was mostly spin, but for a time, it had the look of spin that might just become reality, and a credulous press bought into it. After last November, Rove's dream is in ashes.
We're on the campaign trail early this time around. There's no knowing what horror will be dug up about our favorite candidate or who will be the target of particularly effective swift-boating. Hillary is getting pummelled; Edwards' hair still bothers some; Barack is too good to be true, perhaps too much of a "rock star."
I'm into beating up Hillary and I noticed this morning, on New York's call-in show, the Brian Lehrer show, that Hillary gets into trouble for being associated with Bill's sleaze. "He knew what was at stake; he knew the right was out to get him; he should have told Monica to get out of the White House." Agreed.
But we're talking about Hillary and for me it comes down to her proximity to the roaches and toads inhabiting the Democratic Right. "No more Clintons, please," seems to be the cry coming from many Democrats.
John Edwards is making a whole lot of good sense. On the same show this morning, he acquitted himself very nicely, was quite specific and informed about the kind of leadership he could provide. I wanted to ask him to break down his plan for "compulsory preventive health care," but apart from a certain absence of humor in John Edwards The Candidate, I would give him my vote.
Barack Obama has started to do the Dean thing -- he's begun a drive to raise funds from the net. That's smart, because what's a little troubling about him is his current funding. He has some serious $$$ coming in from big corporations. If that's balanced by a multitude of small donations, he'll look a lot better.
A more thoughtful look at these three candidates and possible political realignments comes from Michael Tomasky's review of recent books on the Democrats.
Which one wins the nomination will do more, far more than anything Congress does, to suggest how the party will try to create the "lasting Democratic majority" of which Schumer spoke. Clinton will hew closest to Schumer's prescriptions, for example trying to win over parents with talk about the need to reduce the violence of video games, a subject she has frequently discussed as a senator. Halperin and Harris, in The Way to Win, devote fully sixty pages to discussing Clinton's career and speculating how she will run for president. Harris is the editor of the new Web/ print publication The Politico, and Halperin is the creator of "The Note," ABC.com's influential daily round-up of political coverage. Halperin in particular is a zealous guardian of the conventional wisdom in Washington, and so it's no surprise that the authors speculate darkly that Clinton would probably gravitate more toward "Bush politics" than "Clinton politics" (meaning Bill)—drawing stark ideological distinctions between herself and her opponents in order to vanquish them. But the early evidence suggests that this forecast is completely incorrect and that Clinton will stick to the safe middle ground, advocating smaller-scale initiatives on questions such as health care so as to inoculate herself against the charge of being "liberal."
Instead, it is Edwards who seems intent on making stark distinctions. His will be the most avowedly liberal campaign run by a candidate with a serious chance at the nomination in many years. He clearly believes that a lasting majority can be formed by appealing to the nation's conscience about the need for universal health care and the disgrace of poverty, and he is more forthright about their costs than the other major candidates, saying that he will raise taxes on incomes over $200,000 to finance his health care plan. If he becomes president, Schumer, Clinton, and the Democratic Leadership Council will have to reconsider much of their program.
Obama has announced few clear proposals but he evidently believes it possible to arrive at a Democratic majority not by blurring or accentuating distinctions between different political tendencies but through somehow rendering them anachronistic. The language of civic engagement and asking citizens to be a part of something larger than themselves comes naturally to him. It's my sense that this, more than Clinton's centrism or Edwards's populism (or Schumer's agenda for the Baileys), is the appropriate language for the times. But Obama has yet to say, in any clearly explained way, just what it is that he will ask citizens to engage themselves in. In his February 10 announcement speech, he suggested that energy independence, universal health care, and fighting terrorism differently would be priorities. Edwards and Clinton are both well ahead of him when it comes to specifics.
The current moment is without precedent. Until Bush, most Americans had not seen modern conservatism fail them and the country so completely. It is, for now, only a moment. But it's the kind of moment on which realignments are built. It might turn out that Karl Rove has broken the national stalemate after all.
