I can't agree with your assessment of the divide as being between urban and rural voters.
It's a purple country
Posted on 11/04/2004 10:50:50 AM PST by Hank All-American
A few thoughts I wanted to share.
Long-time Democratic Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill once made the oft-quoted observation that "all politics is local." That understanding informed a Democratic political strategy that allowed the party to dominate nationally for decades by appealing to different constituencies in different geographic areas. They ran conservatives in the South, liberals in the Northeast, and populists in the West. They ran radicals in left-wing districts who talked about racial justice and redistributing wealth; they ran good-ole' boys in rural communities who talked about church and family and hunting. Most of the electorate had no clue how far left the party's national platform was. On some issues, Democrats like Lloyd Bentson did not seem to be from the same planet, let alone the same party, as unapologetically anti-American leftists like Ron Dellums. But they were.
That ability of Democrats to politically cross-dress without consequence changed in the early 1990s following the growth of talk radio. While talk radio was too new to prevent Clinton from narrowly winning a plurality in 1992, it came into its own during the first two years of his presidency. In 1994, Republicans ran as a virtual block, organizing under a set of goals and principles they called the "Contract with America," and wrested control of both houses of congress from the Democrats in an overwhelming sweep. Dissatisfaction with the unexpectedly liberal tilt of the Clinton Administration weighed heavily in the Republican victories, but talk radio (i.e., Rush Limbaugh) was instrumental in managing to persuade a large number of people that Clinton was only doing what democrats expected him to do all along, and that the idea of a conservative democrat was a myth that the party used to fleece voters. Republicans have controlled both houses of congress ever since, except for a brief hiccup in the senate following a party defection in 2001.
Cut to 2004. The emergence of the internet combined with alternative news outlets such as Fox News has once again resulted in a change to the political landscape. Now, it is no longer enough to say that national-office politics is not local, party affiliation is now an inescapable ideological badge that candidates must wear. Even moderate democrats are rare and growing rarer. The simple reason for this is the scrutiny the national parties receive by the new media, and the impact of the transmission of information gleaned from that scrutiny to a large segment of the population. A candidate can certainly still be to the center, at odd on certain issues with the base of his party (witness Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rudy Giulianni), but no longer can he or she hope voters won't know where his or her party actually stands on certain issues. No longer can a candidate hope the actions and agendas of the rest of his party won't be relevant to his campaign. No amount of purple hearts could have allowed Kerry to overcome his party's oppositional posturing to the War on Terror, to the Patriot Act, and on other national security issues. In 1992, Clinton supporters were able to openly assure democrats with a wink and a nod that the candidate was only pretending to be conservative. In 2004, even with a complicit media and a choreographed military background to hide behind, Kerry could not successfully pretend he was a hawk amidst the storm of information-dissemination taking place on talk radio, cable news shows, and, of course, the blogosphere. Never before have the news media been so overtly engaged in a campaign to destroy one candidate and prop up another. Never before have they failed so spectacularly.
Just one more example of better living through technology.
Excellent article. Right on the money. The media allowed them to cross-dress for too long.
The phrase "news media" is misleading and confusing in your context. What you mean are TV networks and big-city newspapers. News media also includes talk radio, cable-news, and the blogosphere.
If you know what I mean, how can it be confusing and misleading?
Vorsprung durch Technik
Yo Hank!
I don't know who the hell you are but you sure know how to write a good essay.
Let me know when you start a ping list.
Uhh, yes, of course ...
Thanks. I'll even try to avoid typos next time!
"Never before have the news media been so overtly engaged in a campaign to destroy one candidate and prop up another."
I was shocked at the level of bias that the MSM displayed in this election. Usually, they try to hide their bias to some degree, but this election it was very blatant. After this election, anyone who does not think there is a liberal bias in the MSM is either an idiot or a lier.
I totally agree. They dispensed with all pretense of objectivity. It was as if the presence of alternative media outlets made them feel no obligation whatsoever to hide their partiality.
Code phrases are coin of the realm in politics so that people can speak to each other about unacceptable ideas without having to deal with controversy. An example would be foreign leaders' support for American candidates.
In this case, the election has made clear the divide in America is largely rural vs. urban...and the media you are complaining about are those which represent dominant urban views. Saying so makes it easier to discuss the issues.
If you must know, I meant to say "mainstream news media." Satisfied? And I wasn't "preaching." I was opining. Besides, I can't agree with your assessment of the divide as being between urban and rural voters. I think it is just as much a divide between urban and suburban voters, married women and single women, christians and secularists, the business class and the government class, libertarians and statists, and American loyalists and internationalists.
Hank,
Excellent read of the tea leaves. The dims are like dinosaurs wondering how it got so cold.
Egg
Dominant urban views ... not any more bucko!
I can't agree with your assessment of the divide as being between urban and rural voters.
It's a purple country
Amazing. I'm sure those at the DailyKos would have been equally quick to point out that Clinton's 42.6% of the popular vote in 92 meant no mandate, or that his 49 percent of the popular vote in 96 meant no mandate, or that Carter's 50.001% of the popular vote against Ford meant no mandate.
A county by county map of the election (which appears in many other threads) shows clearly that blue votes came overwhelmingly from urban areas. Almost exclusively infact - the only exceptions being areas dominated by high recent Latino immigration or other minorities.
It is amazing...and it makes understanding what is going on really hard. I like the county by county analysis best.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.