Nearly a century ago, Booth Tarkington wrote a series of novels known as the "Growth" trilogy.
It followed a fictional prominent family, the Ambersons, and its prestige and influence in a fictional Midwestern city from the end of the Civil War to the early years of the 20th century — during which time the aristocratic Ambersons' fortunes declined while industrialists thrived.
These industrialists, the novels suggested, did not inherit their power along with their family names, as the Ambersons and other families of the 19th century did. Instead, they acquired their power by "doing things," signaling a great shift in American life.
The middle novel of the trilogy, "The Magnificent Ambersons," won a Pulitzer Prize for Tarkington and served as the basis for Orson Welles' film version.
Although it tells a story of a different time, I think it is a cautionary tale for the Democrats of the early 21st century.
And perhaps the lesson to be learned is summed up best by a line from an Amberson acquaintance. Bewildered by the way things were changing, the unnamed acquaintance said, "Don't you think being things is rather better than doing things?"
That is the sense I am getting from some Democrats these days. It is not so much that they are satisfied to be things. It is more what they claim not to be — Republicans, George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, conservatives, racists, sexists.
It is good that Democrats are none of those things, but perhaps, after resounding victories in 2006 and 2008, many Democrats have become complacent, convinced that merely being Democrats will be enough for them to prevail in a post–Bush, "post–racial" America.
I've heard a lot of talk from Democrats. When asked when the unemployment rate is going to turn around, their response is not what they are doing to encourage job creation but a reliance on "Well, Bush started it."
That is true. But it is also true that Bush is no longer president. The American people voted for a change, and they expect results. And, while many Americans seem prepared to be patient right now, as Barack Obama has urged, how long will that last? Many people are running out of patience along with their unemployment benefits.
Part of that high expectation came from Obama's pledge during the campaign to offer a tax credit for companies that create jobs. At the time, he certainly sounded like he was making job creation a priority.
"We've already lost three–quarters of a million jobs this year, and some experts say that unemployment may rise to 8% [note: it is now 9.5% and may be higher when the next jobless report comes out on Friday] by the end of next year," Obama told an audience in Ohio last October. "We can't wait until then to start creating new jobs. That's why I'm proposing to give our businesses a new American jobs tax credit for each new employee they hire here in the United States over the next two years."
But that was not part of the stimulus package Democrats pushed through in February, and PolitiFact.com now labels it a broken promise.
I don't know how many such broken promises American voters will be willing to accept between now and the midterm elections next year. But polls suggest that voter frustration may well be seen in the gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey that will be decided in a few months.
And this week, Stuart Rothenberg asserted, in a column he wrote for Roll Call, that, looking ahead to 2010, "Democrats no longer have the momentum they once possessed. Even more important, signs of some Democratic vulnerability have appeared, giving the National Republican Senatorial Committee opportunities to shoot at, rather than forcing it to play an entirely defensive game, as it has the past two cycles."
Remember the last "jobless" recovery? It was brought on by the recession that occurred when Bush's father was president. Bill Clinton was elected to deal with it, but his unsuccessful emphasis on health care reform helped Republicans claim control of Congress in 1994.
And in 1982, only two years after defeating President Carter during what was then the worst recession since World War II, Ronald Reagan implored voters to "stay the course" but lost more than two dozen House seats as bumper stickers reading "It's getting harder and harder to blame Carter" began popping up.
When the tide turned against the magnificent Ambersons, observers called it their "comeuppance."
Today's Democrats would be wise to remember the lessons of 1994 and 1982 because history does have a way of repeating itself.
Showing posts with label political power. Show all posts
Showing posts with label political power. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Republican Recriminations
Republican consultant Mike Murphy writes in TIME about the considerable challenge facing Republicans as they seek to return to power in the years ahead.
And, essentially, what he says is that the demographics are against the party.
That can change, of course. As the first decade of the 21st century has clearly shown, political power in America can be lost as easily as it can be won. In the early part of this decade, it was hard to foresee the time when the Republicans would no longer have a grip on power. Following the 2004 elections, the GOP held 55 seats in the Senate (compared to 44 for the Democrats) and 231 seats in the House (compared to 202 for the Democrats). But four years later, by the end of George W. Bush's second term as president, the Democrats had taken a 57–40 advantage in the Senate (with two independent senators who caucus with the Democrats) and a 257–178 lead in the House.
A string of events — the Terri Schiavo affair, Hurricane Katrina, the ill–fated Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers, the increasingly unpopular Iraq War, the economic meltdown — contributed to the reversal of fortune, and many Republicans are no doubt hoping the pendulum will swing back their way.
But those pesky demographics get in the way, Murphy insists. "A GOP ice age is on the way," he writes.
Murphy observes that it was a shock for Republicans when Barack Obama carried Indiana last year. I'm sure it must have been. Obama was only the fifth Democratic presidential nominee to carry the state since 1900. But, as big a shock as that was for the GOP, Murphy makes a valid point when he writes that "[t]he bigger news was how he did it" — with the help of Latino voters.
"Exit polls showed that they provided Obama with a margin of more than 58,000 votes in a state he carried by a slim 26,000 votes," Murphy writes.
I've been telling people for more than 15 years that the Latino segment of the population was growing faster than any other group in America. Once they discovered their political potential, I said, they would be in a position to affect the outcomes of elections from the presidency on down.
Perhaps that was easier to see in Texas, where Hispanic citizens now account for roughly one–third of the population. Hispanic voters in Texas haven't shifted the Lone Star State's political allegiance, but that day may well be coming. Murphy points out that the Hispanic share of the national vote more than quadrupled (from 2% to 9%) from Ronald Reagan's election in 1980 to Obama's election in 2008 "and Obama won that Hispanic vote with a crushing 35–point margin."
The GOP also has a problem with young voters. "Obama won voters under 30 by a record 33 points," Murphy writes. "And the young voters of today, while certainly capable of changing their minds, do become all voters tomorrow."
But in spite of recognizing these demographic trends, Murphy frets that "too many in the GOP are stuck in a swoon of nostalgia" for "the winning ways of Ronald Reagan." Many of those Republicans may be waiting for Obama to alienate these demographic groups so they can step in and fill the void, but that's an iffy strategy for seizing power.
"It is true that attitudes change," Murphy writes, but "[w]aiting and hoping didn't do much for the Whigs."
To appeal to the demographic groups they lost by wide margins last November, Murphy has some recommendations for Republicans.
Indeed, Murphy concedes that "[m]uch of this is still heresy to the party as it stands now." Well, the times they are a–changing. Today's Republicans may look back with fondness at the era of Reagan, but they would be wise to revisit their positions on some issues if they hope to avoid a political ice age.
And, essentially, what he says is that the demographics are against the party.
That can change, of course. As the first decade of the 21st century has clearly shown, political power in America can be lost as easily as it can be won. In the early part of this decade, it was hard to foresee the time when the Republicans would no longer have a grip on power. Following the 2004 elections, the GOP held 55 seats in the Senate (compared to 44 for the Democrats) and 231 seats in the House (compared to 202 for the Democrats). But four years later, by the end of George W. Bush's second term as president, the Democrats had taken a 57–40 advantage in the Senate (with two independent senators who caucus with the Democrats) and a 257–178 lead in the House.A string of events — the Terri Schiavo affair, Hurricane Katrina, the ill–fated Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers, the increasingly unpopular Iraq War, the economic meltdown — contributed to the reversal of fortune, and many Republicans are no doubt hoping the pendulum will swing back their way.
But those pesky demographics get in the way, Murphy insists. "A GOP ice age is on the way," he writes.
Murphy observes that it was a shock for Republicans when Barack Obama carried Indiana last year. I'm sure it must have been. Obama was only the fifth Democratic presidential nominee to carry the state since 1900. But, as big a shock as that was for the GOP, Murphy makes a valid point when he writes that "[t]he bigger news was how he did it" — with the help of Latino voters.
"Exit polls showed that they provided Obama with a margin of more than 58,000 votes in a state he carried by a slim 26,000 votes," Murphy writes.
I've been telling people for more than 15 years that the Latino segment of the population was growing faster than any other group in America. Once they discovered their political potential, I said, they would be in a position to affect the outcomes of elections from the presidency on down.
Perhaps that was easier to see in Texas, where Hispanic citizens now account for roughly one–third of the population. Hispanic voters in Texas haven't shifted the Lone Star State's political allegiance, but that day may well be coming. Murphy points out that the Hispanic share of the national vote more than quadrupled (from 2% to 9%) from Ronald Reagan's election in 1980 to Obama's election in 2008 "and Obama won that Hispanic vote with a crushing 35–point margin."
The GOP also has a problem with young voters. "Obama won voters under 30 by a record 33 points," Murphy writes. "And the young voters of today, while certainly capable of changing their minds, do become all voters tomorrow."
But in spite of recognizing these demographic trends, Murphy frets that "too many in the GOP are stuck in a swoon of nostalgia" for "the winning ways of Ronald Reagan." Many of those Republicans may be waiting for Obama to alienate these demographic groups so they can step in and fill the void, but that's an iffy strategy for seizing power.
"It is true that attitudes change," Murphy writes, but "[w]aiting and hoping didn't do much for the Whigs."
To appeal to the demographic groups they lost by wide margins last November, Murphy has some recommendations for Republicans.
- Young voters need to see a GOP that is more socially libertarian, particularly toward gay rights.
- Latinos need to see a quick end to the Republican congressional jihad on immigration.
Indeed, Murphy concedes that "[m]uch of this is still heresy to the party as it stands now." Well, the times they are a–changing. Today's Republicans may look back with fondness at the era of Reagan, but they would be wise to revisit their positions on some issues if they hope to avoid a political ice age.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
