In 1952, the Republican Party managed to win its biggest electoral victory in 24 years, taking the Senate, the House, and most impressively, the White House. The latter had been under Democratic ownership for twenty straight years, and Dwight Eisenhower had been popularly elected in a landslide. Ike was a fabulously popular figure in the America of the time, and he was probably the last completely sane occupant of the Oval Office. He was a model President, though not a perfect one. He was regarded at the time, and still is to a certain extent, as a do-nothing President, a characterization which is unfair. Aside from keeping us out of about half a dozen wars across the globe and expertly traversing the dangerous political scene of the early Cold War, his legacy lives on here in the highways he built and the peaceful and prosperous America he left us.
Why is this relevant? Because Ike's two terms as President were the only time between 1933 and 1969 that the Republicans found themselves in the White House. Eisenhower interrupted over a quarter-century of Democratic hegemony in this country's leadership, but his popularity couldn't put his unloved successor into office (at least, not immediately) and his legislative majority folded after two years. Of course, those being more reasonable times, he was easily able to work with Democrats on many issues, but there is little doubt that the GOP's brief stretch in power then had nothing to do with what they stood for and everything to do with Ike's popularity.
Fast-forward to the present day. The situation has flipped, and the GOP has now held the Presidency for most of the past forty years. If you ask me, they are more likely than not to keep it in 2008. The Democrats won control of Congress last year on voter resentment on any number of issues, but the big mistake they made was that denouncing Bush made them seem like the answer to the country's ails, instead of the primary opposition to Bushian policies. From the latter standpoint, the Democratic Congress has been exemplary. The Bush agenda has been stopped in its tracks. However, since people evidently expect Congress to be proactive (for reasons surpassing political wisdom or even human comprehension), they have already been judged a failure. I myself did not expect a Democratic Congress to end the Iraq War when I voted to re-elect my Democratic Representative. However, this is beginning to seem less and less like a realignment and more like a hiccup, like 1952 (or 1946), where the opposition party only managed a few years on top before flopping once again.
One could draw worse parallels than the Democrats of today to the GOP of yesteryear. Both parties opposed popular movements, and both parties opposed said movements largely by offering watered-down or triangulated versions of the very same ideas. Both, despite brief slivers of power, frequently found themselves in the minority, defending discredited ideas and insisting that the other side just governs badly. I hate to have to be the one to say it, but effective government is not one of the priorities of the social conservatives behind the GOP these days. They're not going to vote Democrat because Bush exploded the deficit. Now, maybe if he were caught in bed with a Black man, and the GOP were to reverse their positions on abortion, gay marriage, stem cells, and evolution in classrooms...that might change.
The reality is that neither party is firmly grounded in a philosophy of governance at this point. The GOP has lost any credibility it once had as a party, and with its recent history of fiscal irresponsibility, foreign adventures/disasters, and religious sanctimony, it is no surprise that voters no longer trust them on the big issues. Republicans have followed the conservative movement long past its logical conclusion, and the real goal for the last few years has not been to follow conservative principles, but rather just to annoy liberals and rile up conservatives. They proved quite successful at this task, but now the base of the GOP is getting a taste of their own medicine on immigration. The irony, of course, is that the small government immigration solution is the one that these so-called conservatives can't stand.
Democrats have, right now, an historic opportunity--we can stand the political landscape on its head. Right now, the odds of Democrats taking back the White House are quite good, and as the American people seem tired of conservative incompetence, lies and broken promises, it would seem that liberals have an honest-to-God opening at gaining real power. Unfortunately, it does not look as if that transition is going to occur. The media, ever the opportunists, have all but annointed Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee, possibly because she will supply them, via her past, with an endless supply of breaking scandals. Plus, she has her "historic quest" for the presidency. I hate to bring it up, Madam Clinton, but you wouldn't be the first girl in the White House.
Unless we liberal Democrats wake up, we run the risk not only of losing a presidential election, but of losing a transitional moment, the likes of which might not again come for decades. Hillary Clinton, even if elected President, would lose the new Congressional majorities and likely would lose the Presidency in 2012. Not only isn't she a true liberal (she has the same center-right economic plan as her husband, despite a pandering "no" vote on CAFTA, she is a free-trader), she is the worst kind of liberal--the tell-people-how-to-live-their-lives kind. If anything, the Democratic party should be less susceptible to this sort of calculus and not more so, considering the more libertarian bent this party has taken in the past few years, while the GOP has gone in the other direction. Her success is based directly upon her marriage to Bill Clinton, and his popularity was based entirely upon his personality (and a lot of luck with the economy). Hillary has her supporters, largely women and ignoramuses who loved Mr. Clinton in office. And what wasn't there to love? Beween telecom deregulation, welfare reform, NAFTA, DOMA, and Don't Ask, Don't Tell, he had quite a few accomplishments for a Republican. I'll grant that welfare had to be reformed, but the others are inexcusable. Nominating Hillary Clinton will be a move back to our past, all right--the Clinton years of Congressional minorities, constant scandals, symbolic legislation, and gridlock. In other words, business as usual.
That, in a nutshell, is why I'm supporting Barack Obama for President. For one thing, the man doesn't pander. For another, he would actually win. Oh, and he's a liberal, but he's not just a social liberal. He's our best chance, and things might actually change if he gets elected. Not so for Hillary "Rupert Murdoch loves me and me alone" Clinton.
