Krauthammer: Don’t Put The Flowers On Conservatism’s Grave Just Yet
Yet another voice adds itself to the chorus of those who do not see a defeat for conservatism in Tuesday’s results, that of Charles Krauthammer:
… [T]he great Democratic wave of 2006 is nothing remotely like the great structural change some are trumpeting. It was an event-driven election that produced the shift of power one would expect when a finely balanced electorate swings mildly one way or the other.
This is not realignment. As has been the case for decades, American politics continues to be fought between the 40-yard lines. The Europeans fight goal line to goal line, from socialist left to the ultranationalist right. On the American political spectrum, these extremes are negligible. American elections are fought on much narrower ideological grounds. In this election, the Democrats carried the ball from their own 45-yard line to the Republican 45-yard line.
The fact that the Democrats crossed midfield does not make this election a great anti-conservative swing. Republican losses included a massacre of moderate Republicans in the Northeast and Midwest. And Democratic gains included the addition of many conservative Democrats, brilliantly recruited by Rep. Rahm Emanuel with classic Clintonian triangulation. Hence Heath Shuler of North Carolina, anti-abortion, pro-gun, anti-tax — and now a Democratic congressman.
The result is that both parties have moved to the right. The Republicans have shed the last vestiges of their centrist past, the Rockefeller Republican. And the Democrats have widened their tent to bring in a new crop of blue-dog conservatives.
Moreover, ballot initiatives make the claim of a major anti-conservative swing quite problematic. In Michigan, liberal Democrats swept the gubernatorial and senatorial races, yet a ballot initiative to abolish affirmative action passed 58-42. Seven out of eight anti-gay marriage amendments to state constitutions passed. And nine states passed referendums asserting individual property rights against the government’s power of eminent domain.
To muddy even more the supposed ideological significance of this election, consider who is the biggest winner of the night: Joe Lieberman. Just a few months ago, he was scorned by his party and left for dead. Now he returns to the Senate as the Democrats’ 51st seat — and holder of the balance of power. From casualty to kingmaker in three months. Not bad. His Democratic colleagues who abandoned him this summer will now treat him very well.
Lieberman won with a platform that did not trim or hedge about seeking victory in Iraq. And he did it despite having a Republican in the race who siphoned off 10 percent of the pro-war vote. All this in Connecticut, a very blue state.
The public’s views on what we ought to do with the war remain mixed, as do its general ideological inclinations. What happened on Tuesday? The electorate threw the bums out in disgust with corruption and in deep dissatisfaction with current Iraq policy. Reading much more into this election is a symptom of either Republican depression or Democratic wishful thinking.
Both parties moved right…that’s the good news. The bad news is one party moved right and made itself more inclusive, and one party moved right and narrowed its reach. The biggest challenge for conservatives in 2008 will be to win back independents and moderates. If I’ve spent a lot of time talking about the center since the election, there’s a reason. The Rovian tactic of getting out the base was not sufficient to override widespread voter dissatisfaction, nor will it be sufficient in 2008 now that the base has shrunk.
Rudy G., anyone?…
Why don’t you just rename the site ‘Rudy G. ’08′?
Hey, I also like McCain and Huckabee…jury’s still out on Romney, as far as I’m concerned. I just think Rudy looks very, very appealing right now…
One thing that concerns me is the type of judges rudy would appoint. Secondly, I don’t know how electable he really is considering his ugly personal past.
Yeah, his “ugly personal past” is quite a cause for concern for me as well. I mean, look at how clean Clinton’s past was (Gennifer Flowers, TrooperGate, Juanita Broaddrick, draft – dodging) – he had no chance at all for the Presidency. What on earth was he thinking?
Yeah, but you and I both know that the big “R” next to rudy’s name means that his past will receive much much more play by our unbiased media. I like Rudy, but let’s not pretend that Rs and Ds play on the same playing field.
Now that we’ve lost the Senate, we can’t be assured that a fifth conservative could replace JPS (currently 86 years old) if he leaves before 2009. However, Chaffee isn’t really a loss in this regard (voted against Alito). Bob Casey says he’s pro-life, but promises he won’t vote that way (putting us down by 1). I don’t know that much about Brown or McCaskill in general, but I’d assume they’d vote against us (down by 3). Bob Corker has waffled on the issue of abortion, but had he been in the Senate to vote down Alito, he’d have been dead politically in TN, just like the scum governor he worked for back in the late 90′s.
But there were four Democrats who voted in favor of Alito: Conrad, Byrd, Johnson, and Nelson (plus almost a couple dozen more who voted for Roberts). To that list in the future, we could likely add Tester and Webb. And I would be surprised if it took that much to get Landrieu on board, too (she’ll have to move to the right if she expects to survive 2008). Add that to the 49 Republicans in the Senate, and we have 56. Hopefully we can count on the old gangsters — Lieberman, Pryor, Inouye, and Salazr — to at least stop a filibuster.
Anyway, if we get in one more conservative judge before 2009, Rudy’s social views are largely irrelevant. And if we get back a majority in the Senate in 2008, the conservatives there could put more pressure on Rudy to appoint someone more like Roberts.
JB – point taken.
Some dems oppose abortion but want to wholly roll back free trade and initiate UHC, and they’re considered to be moving right. Strange times we’re in.
Rudy’s teflon. And that he knows he’s a scoundrel and isn’t a moral crusader kinda deflect a lot of the impact.
To the commenter above, we’re not gonna get a strict constructionist to replace ANY SCOTUS Justice with a Democratic Senate. So the issue is moot. There is now a firewall against a 5th anti-Roe vote, and there’s nothing we can do about it other than winning back the Senate.
That said, Rudy has basically come out and said that he’ll support as conservative a judge as he can get. He even said Scalia is his ideal. His picks couldn’t be any worse than Bush’s. Who cares what his personal views on social issues are given his judicial positions?