Matt Yglesias has, on a number of occasions, noted the leftward shift of the Democratic Party as evidence that Republicans will not have to shift too much to get back into power. Matt's smart guy, but this analogy is pretty silly. The Democrats moved to the left on some issues (though more to the center on others) because the DLC-powered Democratic machine simply wasn't working to elect Democrats. In 2000, 2002, and 2004, Democrats ran safe, conservative campaigns and Republicans moved aggressively on their goals. In fact, it wasn't clear what Democrats would have done if they'd acquired power back in those days. There was a movement toward a more progressive stature because what had come before hadn't worked, and Reid and Pelosi came to power because Gephardt and Daschle failed. But before Pelosi and Reid, progressivism was an untapped market. Democrats stayed the hell away for fear of being attacked by Republicans. However, progressivism proved to be fairly popular once adopted. Popular enough to win two consecutive elections, anyway.
What is going on with Republicans right now is that they're doubling down on an already unpopular agenda, and they are refusing to take responsibility for the last eight years--in fact, there's a curious case of amnesia among Republicans when they talk about deficits and spending and a creeping police state. These all happened, to a much greater extent, under Dubya. Couple this with the whole "wrecking the country" business and you have a group that is singularly unappealing to the nation at large, and to the youth in particular. Some reform will no doubt be necessary.
And let's just dispense with the notion that the 2006 Democrats were left-wing compared to earlier Democrats. The difference was that, from the Bill Clinton presidency onward, Democrats staked out a issue profile that stipulated preferences for social liberalism and economic conservatism--at least, the conservatism that existed before the supply-siders took over the GOP. Balanced budgets, low taxes, and less regulation coupled with abortion rights and gay rights. The Pelosi plan was, in essence, to flip those preferences, and to say that economic populism was what really constituted the Democratic Party, with social liberalism coming second. It was a smart move that cleared the way for Democrats taking over congressional delegations in places like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Indiana. But Pelosi, Reid and Howard Dean (let's not short sell him) didn't propose a doubling down on the old, failed 00-04 ideas but rather a series of pivots calculated to make voters in the Heartland more favorably disposed to the Democrats (and it didn't hurt that Bush was destroying the GOP everywhere else). I don't think this says that Republicans won't take power before they adopt responsible policies, though I do think they won't hold power for long until they do.
