Posted on 10/13/2006 6:04:27 AM PDT by Dark Skies
Predicting what will happen if the Democrats win control in one or both houses of Congress next month is a burgeoning cottage industry. It is, however, both more interesting and probably more useful to consider what will happen if they dont.
If Democrats win they will crow and bray and make nuisances of themselves with frivolous, ankle-biting investigations. They may even connive with the White House and some foolish Republican legislators to enact comprehensive immigration reform. If they do, the principal effect will be to turn our illegal immigration problem into a crisis, creating a major political opportunity for the next generation of GOP leaders. Aside from that, very little will change.
Democrats are too conflicted and too politically timid to force any significant change in the Bush administrations foreign and defense policies. They frittered away their dominant position in American politics by procuring the Ford administrations surrender in Vietnam. Ever since, they have been crippled by the widespread (and entirely accurate) perception that they are not to be trusted with our national security. They may belong, body and soul, to the lunatic left, but most of them are not about to step over the same cliff twice.
In any case, having stepped over that cliff in the 70s, the Democrats are very unlikely to win either house of Congress in 2006. The American people may loathe the Republican Party every bit as much as the Washington Post thinks they do, but nothing in our history suggests that a majority of American voters is crazy enough to trust Democrats with significant power during a war.
The headlines of the moment are orchestrated to create the appearance that a Democrat restoration is at hand. After the news industry has prepared them for victory in the run up to three consecutive electoral defeats, the Democrats should be wary. Many, probably most, of them are not. They have made the mistake of believing their own propaganda yet again.
In the likely event that Democrats wake up on the Wednesday after the first Tuesday in November and find that the federal government is firmly in Republican hands for another two years how will they react? After licking their wounds by dabbling in deranged conspiracy theories about election fraud, they will fall to fighting among themselves like starving sled dogs. There will be casualties. Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will all have trouble keeping their jobs in the wake of yet another failure.
In the ensuing succession struggles the deep divisions in the Democrat Party will be laid bare. Some Democrats will claim that the party must take the war more seriously and appear more moderate to win. Others will argue that the party must be true to its ideological roots on the far left so that it may win a majority by the power of passion and persuasion. Neither side of this debate will grasp the true nature of the Democrat dilemma.
The would-be moderates dont understand that Democrats cant win without the left. The ideological purists dont understand that Democrats cant win with it.
If the Democrats ceased to be the leftist party they would lose their all-important propaganda apparatus in the heirloom media. They would lose all their intellectual firepower (such as it is) in the universities and all the cachet of Hollywood. Their fundraising base would disappear. They would become a me-too party relegated to winning elections in most of the country only when the Republican candidate got caught in bed with either a live boy or a dead girl.
As essential as the left is to Democrats, it cant muster anything approaching a nationwide majority. This is hardly surprising. The left is anti-American and most Americans arent.
The left is defined by its loyalty to a trans-national ideal. Nation states in general and the United States in particular are obstacles to the realization of that ideal. Whenever the interests of the United States and the ideological purposes of the left conflict, which is often, American leftists work against their own country.
Consider, for example, the grotesque foolishness of Kyoto and the lefts determined efforts to undermine our ongoing war for national survival. Even the dimmest voter can smell the contempt leftists have for ordinary people and for everything they hold dear. The more voters understand that Democrats are the political wing of the American left, the fewer votes they will cast for Democrats.
Professional Democrats have tried for years to have their cake and eat it too. They have tried to keep the loyalty of the left without getting identified with it. That worked during the ersatz peace of the Clinton years when they were still winning, at least sometimes.
The pressure of war and defeat has made it much more difficult for Democrats to have it both ways. They have tried desperately to straddle the divide between those who want to defend America from our deadly enemies and those who dont. John Kerry made an ass out of himself trying to bridge that gap and then discovered that Americans dont really want an ass in the White House.
Since Kerry went down in flames, canny Democrats have tried to say very little about the war but to say it as indignantly as possible. They have been in tune with the lefts anger without overtly adopting its politically poisonous defeatism. This tightrope act isnt likely to work for them any better than Kerrys contortions did.
After yet another defeat even the Democrats may finally grasp that they cant have it both ways. They can follow Joe Liebermans path and stand for American interests at the price of parting ways with about half their voters. They can also follow Ned Lamont and stand up for the left at the price of losing the other half. Either choice would mean that the Democrat Party could no longer seriously contend for a share of power in national elections.
This isnt the first time a major American political party has been closely divided over a defining issue. The Democrats dilemma in 2006 looks a lot like the Whigs dilemma in 1852. The Whigs depended on support from both slave holders and abolitionists. They tried to straddle the slavery issue but they couldnt. Their party broke apart and disappeared.
The Democrats have much deeper roots than the Whigs, who lasted only 24 years. They are likely to linger in some form for quite some time. But one more unexpected defeat just might tear them apart and prompt a dramatic political realignment.
At some level, Democrats seem aware of this danger. They are fighting the 2006 campaign like the existential struggle which, for them, it may very well be. It smacks of desperation, to choose an example at random, when the party of pederasty attacks Republicans for failing to condemn a homosexual congressman in advance of any evidence that he did anything wrong.
The political game has never been a better spectator sport and the stakes have rarely been higher.
J. Peter Mulhern is an attorney in the Washington, DC area.
The dims will learn nothing if they fail to gain control of the house or senate. Their SOP is political opportunism, that's all they really stand for anymore.
This is simple, the Republicans will move to the left, and a new party will form on the right.
I am a Republican because it is the only balance to the Democrats. Once I am sure the Democrats are no longer a major polictical party, I will find a home in a party that is to the right of the current Republican party.
Mulhern published some of the most insightful pieces about the Clinton impeachment, most of which turned out to be accurate, that I can recall. He doesn't publish much---probably because he's busy actually making money---but he's dead on. The Dems are resembling, more and more, the Federalist Party in 1814, with nowhere to go but into a million little pieces.
Good point, but Mulhern rightly argues that the stage was set before that with the opposition to Vietnam, wherein the Dems lost their ability to defend the country.
There is a lesson here for all of us. To have ideals, to have principles are good. But to put these ideals and principles ahead of all else is bad (in the sense it will keep you from winning elections).
The vast majority of Amerian voters view themselves as being in the middle. They are afraid of both the hard left and the hard right.
When one extreme takes over a political party, they will lose many voters in the middle. This is the danger of those with "one issue" voters. You either believe everything I do, or I will not vote for you.
Polictics is compromise. You want to win elections, convince voters your ideas are not "crazy", convert them to your view.
The Democrats could win this year if they had not fallen under the influence of the far left. If after 9/11 they had fallen behind the President, quit the constant attack on him and his administration, support the war effort, they could be heading towards control of both houses next month.
But "purity" has won over common sense. The desire to destroy President Bush, and fight him on everything, while not offering any alternative, does not give the voters any choice.
They will win the purity vote from the far left. But will they will the average American in the middle support them?
The Democrats claim they never get their "message" out, but I suspect most know what the Democrats stand for. Income distribution via higher taxes, Special rights for the correct minorities, no support for the military, in fact they will "cut and run", abotion on demand, and the destruction of all "middle class values".
If you support those things, you will vote for the Democrats, if not, Republican.
One possible outcome may be RINOs on one side and conservatives on the other. The Libs and Rinos will team up because the RINOs are just libs pretending to be for the people.
Rush prompted this new thinking: What if the dems lose? a couple of days ago. I think there's still something up on his website about it. It was a great monologue.
But this one statement is a highlight for me: "They [the dems] have made the mistake of believing their own propaganda yet again." Some of their propaganda is based on a 11-16% over-weighting of dems in the polling data. This is making it very distorted. But it's asuaging the "kooks" from their party, who foolishly believe it's really true.
This is exactly what the dems did in 2002 and 2004 - remember how Carville put the trashcan on his head when all his predictions ended up in the "trashcan" ..??
The difference with the Democrats is, they actually BELIEVE their own mirage.
Never underestimate the power of evil, ignorance, hate and silliness when it comes to emotional voters who just hate W and the GOP. 15 seats and 6 seats is not a very huge leap. Still, I would love to see some poll or study which actually shows if the GOP can take any Dem seats!!! Now that would be a news story.
It's actually the first Wednesday after the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.
...and, of course, Charlie Wrangler will resign. </sarcasm>
And THEN Dirty Harry Reid turns up with the October surprise(the land deal)..
That even the MsM can't assume the postion and swallow.. after they have sucked with abandon in the past.. Culture of Corruption indeed.. Nancy(Pelosi) do your duty.. Course; if you do, a few you're OWN deals in Mexifornia may come to light..
Democrats in Florida are running as conservatives. Every TV ad claims they are "pro-life, pro-gun, pro-defense". They KNOW they have a boat anchor tied to their ankles pulling them down and are desperate to fool voters.
In your estimation, what are their chances of success?
es
Not since Traficant went to the pokey.
I don't suppose they would allow Reid to run the Senate minority party from his prison cell.
Excellent read, BTW. I've been waiting for this kind of analysis.
Great article and a brilliant analysis.
The Dem Party will not just fade away; it will be replaced and the GOP will still need your support. And a faaaaaaaar right party will NOT have any more of a chance, then, than it does now.
Several good points.
I would add that Rats have continued to depend on the MSM and DBM to conceal their dilemma and shape opinion against Republicans, and it is working less and less as each day goes by. As you say, the rat message has actually gotten out by the MSM, it's just that the average American can now read between the lines, and has alternative media sources.
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.