Marching to defeat

If that's the case, the Dems will have to pursuade 88% of Evangelicals who vote Rebublican. John Edwards, in spite of his best efforts, is a catastrophic failure at populism. From an opinion column in the Pittsburgh Tribune-review today: 'Edwards talks about these "two Americas," but how is he able to sell that to voters when he is getting $400 haircuts and going to a spa called Pink Sapphire?
It rings so phony that it has a televangelist quality to it.
While that metrosexual image neuters his poverty position, how do his business dealings affect his pro-union, like-a-rock-pickup-truck-guy image?
Just last week, The Washington Post revealed that Edwards was a consultant for a New York-based hedge-fund firm that enables its partners to defer or avoid paying U.S. taxes through offshore accounts. The firm in question, Fortress, was also Edwards' largest source of monetary support from a single company in the last quarter.
Does anyone in his camp do research? Surely someone could have checked his records last summer before he signed up to be the union-sponsored "Wake Up Wal-Mart" poster boy. Had they just checked his Senate financial records, they would have known he owned stock in Wal-Mart from at least 1999 through 2003.
All of this goes to a character issue that undermines his message and his persona. He is not paying attention to the growing image of himself.
Edwards built his fortune on representing the little guy in court. Can he translate that success into a populist message for low-income Americans and will they buy the messenger?
Up to now, Edwards' biggest media moments have been about personal tragedy or personal excess.
Says one Democrat wag who actually likes him: "I have always thought that Edwards was the guy that was most likely to emerge. I still do. ... I just cannot figure out what his strategy is. ... Right now he is running the least credible, least authentic campaign out there." ' http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/zito/s_505012.html Here's another inconvenient fact: John Edwards didn't even win his own neighborhood in the last election.

Well, that's why I feel so politically homeless. The Dems are out of ideas too, as far as I can see. The only thing they've got going for them is that they aren't Republicans. I wonder what it will take to break the intellectual deadlock gripping both parties. Or am I missing something?

On homelessness, we are in agreement Rod. I think a significant movement of social conservatives has already occured. I think it will continue due to the growing Libertarian presence in the Republican party, which we again agree on. Ms. Bremberg, There will always be those who vote consistently against a culture a death. There will always be those who pragmatically pick their fights on that front. That these two constituencies were aligned in the elections of President Bush should not be seen as a harbinger for the future.

At least as far as I see, the transferees wouldn't be the one's with the constant focus. Think of your typical Reagan Democrat. Why would the Democrats do it? Social conservatives have a pulse, haven't committed a felony, and are over 18. I think the last election (06) saw about as much acquiesence on the issue as you will see from the democrats. Under present circumstances, that's pretty much enough.

Could the Democratic Party could once again become the home of socially conservative populism -- and therefore prove a greater draw for traditionalist conservatives? No. Even to ask this question is to reveal a wild lack of awareness of who runs and finances the Democratic Party. As for libertarians, they make a lot of noise on the internet (my pet theory being that they have more time to do so, because almost none of them have kids). But there simply aren't enough of them to sustain much of a political movement, much less to dominate one of our two national political parties.

I predict that the GOP will go more libertarian, a la Giuliani, because libertarianism is a more natural fit with autonomous individualism...and it offers no significant opposition to corporate interests. Could the Democratic Party could once again become the home of socially conservative populism -- and therefore prove a greater draw for traditionalist conservatives? If the Republican Party Giulianized itself, this could happen. A few random thoughts, since this is something that I've been hoping for and looking for for years. 1) Simon is probably correct that libertarians per se could never truly dictate the shape of a major party; nominating Giuliani surely wouldn't do it, since libertarians are at least as fired up by oppressive law-and-order issues as they are by moral ones, and so such a nomination certainly wouldn't make them flock to the Republican banner. 2) That said, the issues really isn't "libertarians" as such, but socially liberal voters, of which there are many millions. However, these voters are skittish and suspicious of anything that flirts with moralism, even if they see social (to say nothing of economic) positions they like. So, if anything like what you hypothesize were to come about, it would probably have to happen only after white evangelical voters started changing their stripes. So long as white Protestant rural "homelanders" vote Republican, even if numerous Giulianis get nominated on the national level it won't start drawing in social liberals to the Republican party, especially since few Democrats push truly economically populist (and therefore unattractive to free-trading libertarian-types) policies and thus there's not a whole lot on the other side to attract them. So, in short, before the Democrats could become what you suggest, Rod, I think there'd have to be an intermediate step, something that gave socially conservative populists and egalitarian evangelicals someplace to go besides the Republican party, prepatory to or as part of a longer realignment. 3) What will that intermediate step be? Well, the Christian Democratic Union, maybe. Or a new populist party. Or maybe a period of homelessness, as some suggest. In any case, I predict that, while a realignment that truly places autonomous individualism (economic and moral) on one side against conservatism and social concern on the other would be both fine and logical, it will take a while even in the best of circumstances, if only because the Republicans and Democrats have had 150 years to dig down into our voting habits and prejudices.

A lot of this is dependent upon a view of the Democratic party that is a bit aberrational. Typically what has driven the Democrats is localism. It has only been since the Democrats sought to enforce homogeneity that they became a minority party. Before '94, the Democrats had controlled Washington for some 40 years. My personal belief is that the Democratic Party will continue its reversion, being both the party of Tammy Baldwin in Madison, WI, and Jim Webb in Virginia.

Could the Democratic Party could once again become the home of socially conservative populism -- and therefore prove a greater draw for traditionalist conservatives? If they abandoned their slavish support for abortion on demand and for homosexual super-rights, yeah, they could. But pigs'll fly before they do any such thing.

"Could the Democratic Party could once again become the home of socially conservative populism -- and therefore prove a greater draw for traditionalist conservatives? If the Republican Party Giulianized itself, this could happen."
I think it's possible, somewhat, but to become attractive to large numbers of conservatives, it would have to make changes that could well make it lose much of its base. It could be possible for it to make small changes to their own dogma, and attract some conservatives while keeping their current adherents, but it seems unlikely, at least right now. God bless.

How much compromise on abortion would it take for social conservatives to vote for Democrats? Experience shows that negotiating with social conservatives on abortion is next to impossible becuase they will only be happy with overturning Roe v. Wade. That's not compromise, that's a gutting of Democrats principles. A majority of the U.S. supports Roe v. Wade and a majority supports gay marriage or cilvil unions. So why move closer to minority positions just to appeal to a group of voters who have held the GOP hostage and stifled debate in their own party? It doesn't make any sense. That doesn't mean that Democrats can't try to appeal to religious voters. But religious voters and social conservative voters are not the same thing.

Deus Caritas Est seems to lay out a decent argument for the bishops not to condemn specific politicians. Certainly the Church will continue to talk about the issues, but the bishops won't be politicing by issuing censures and excommunications. One of the less commented upon things is that Abp Burke is quieter on specific politicians now. In his own reflection and those of others, there was the general sentiment that the 'denial of communion' was poor strategy. ~~~ I have seen at least 3 folks claim that abortion and homosexual rights will be the defining issues to keep folks from voting for democrats. I'm just not convinced, particularly given the '06 election where democrats part marginally pro-life candidates in districts that demanded candidates be marginally pro-life. I certainly hope social conservatism's greatest concerns aren't what John and John in Massachuesetts call their relationship and what some gal in another state is going to do with her baby. I don't have a problem with the latter two positions, but I don't think they define social conservatism.

I think the hysterical overreaction on the Left to the recent partial birth abortion decision should answer your questions about the Democratic party becoming attractive for social conservatives.

The parties weren't split along ideological lines the way they are not until after the 1960s when the long process of realignment began. For a long time each major party had its conservative and liberal wings. Strom Thurmond was the first, but soon a mass exodus of southern Dems (the party's conservative wing, and the most conservative wing of either parties) swarmed into the GOP and eventually took it over. I thought Zell Miller was the last to remain with the Dems. I guess there is still at least one more in Mississippi. But I don't think that points to the future realignment. The future realignment is economic, and it's happening already. The conservatives had a field day raking in labor votes after militant students and black nationalists alienated them in the late 60s. George Wallace attracted a large labor coalition. They became the 'Reagan Democrats' twelve years later. That coalition is *gone*. With all the jobs going to Mexico and China and with WalMart paying poverty wages, the old McGovern tent of a few effete snobs is growing into a big tent full of burly displaced laborers. It looks much different now and sounds much different Listen to the Ed Schultz Show. The number of former Republicans calling in to the program speaks volumes. And the presence of conservatives like Pat Buchanan and Lou Dobbs point to realignment based on issues not discussed adequately in decades. Stay tuned.

Let's see how important one's definition of when life begins and whether certain people choose to live together become when enough voters live out on the streets and can't put "food on their family".

"Could the Democratic Party could once again become the home of socially conservative populism -- and therefore prove a greater draw for traditionalist conservatives?" I don't see this happening any time soon. Pretty nearly the entire Democratic Congress would need to be replaced before that party would be even remotely acceptable to this social conservative. And even then, a big government social conservative party wouldn't be particularly appealing to me. For one thing, big gov't and social conservatism aren't compatible, and a party that tries to engage in both will find that the religion of statism will eat away at the social conservatism in short order. No, if the GOP becomes "Guilianized" (meaning, goes libertarian), I'll be partyless for a while. Frankly, I think it would be about the biggest disaster that could befall this country. We need a social conservative force to hold back the Democrats' most fevered dreams. With a Guiliani party, it would be the party of moral relativists vs the party of more passionate moral relativists. And also, libertarianism is too full of internal contradictions to ever work as a real government policy. It doesn't have a coherent underlying philosophy, and will itself fall to statism in short order.

I remember well back in 1984 when a "socially conservative" Baptist woman was absolutely certain that if Reagan wasn't re-elected that year, the country was finished. We were communists. The Russians have won. I've learned since that day to take all predictions with a grain of salt.

The GOP may undergo a realignment (Guiliani) or a more "traditional" Republican (such as Fred Thompson, currently considering running) may emerge as a frontrunner. Regardless, I don't see conservative voters who consider abortion and homosexuality issues as vital to vote for Democrats in their current form.

Regardless, I don't see conservative voters who consider abortion and homosexuality issues as vital to vote for Democrats in their current form. I believe that any voter who sees abortion or homosexuality as the be-all, end-all to the point where all will, talent and ability to govern become moot points deserve all the marginalization the rest of the country an muster. And that goes for *both* sides.

Where's the Christian Democratic party (in the European sense) when you need it? Where are the Wilhelm Roepkes? As attractive as that option might be, the two party system (first-past-the-post elections) makes that a practical impossibility.
With two, broad-based parties that of necessity are made up of diverse coalitions, the choice for any idealistic voter will always be the lesser of two evils.

"The politics of that one break heavily in favor of the GOP, which is why you don't see even socially liberal Republicans championing gay marriage." When civil unions are added the mix, a majority of people support either gay marriage or civil unions. I don't think Democrats are going to run on that issue, but the issue is trending Democrat and therefore trying to appease Focus on the Family or Opus Dei members is not good politics.

"Unless it's actually on the ballot in front of them, in which case they heavily oppose both." Not in Arizona. And increasingly, as anti-gay marriage zealots overreach the margin of victory is much lower when they also attempt to ban civil unions or some other legal recognition. Less than 60 percent in the last election and that's with the word "marriage" on the ballot. "If civil unions for gays were any kind of net political winner, the Democrats would be shouting from the rooftops about it." I agree. It's an emerging issue that's trending for the Democrats. Thus, capitulating to appease social conservatives doesn't make sense.

It's a gloomy time for the GOP, and the polling Rod cites is depressing. I'm a Bush Conservative myself -- pause for guffaws -- but I recognize that Bush Conservatism has hurt the party as long as the war goes badly. If the war in Iraq miraculously turns around, or if we're victimized by another terrorism attack on these shores, look for those numbers to turn around. But that's not likely, and even if we did suffer another hit, Bush would take some (not nearly most) of the blame. Anyway, what all these poll numbers don't really explain is the top-of-ticket strength of the GOP. Say what you will about an underlying collapse in voter affiliation with traditional Republican issues, but the head-to-head match-ups at the top of the ticket still look like GOP strengths to me, no matter who gets the GOP nomination. Why? Because the Dem nom is going to go to Hillary Clinton -- as polarizing a figure as GW Bush. If Obama wins the nom, that, sadly, means a likely white GOP nominee versus a black Democrat, and I don't think all things are equal in such competitions. As people gravitate toward the GOP at the top of ticket, are they really going to vote the other way down-ticket?
Look, I realize that the GOP faces a potential cratering in public races, and that a bad loss in 2008 will lead to upheaval within GOP ranks like I haven't seen in my lifetime (I'm 36 years old). But -- call me a head-in-the-sand GOPer if you like -- I don't think Hillary or Obama will win in 2008.
If I'm wrong, it won't be the end of the world. But just as surely as that polling data points to a GOP freefall, past evidence suggests that strongly opinionated women and black folks don't get elected president. I'm not saying that's a good thing, just that it's a simple reality. The past is prologue, of course. But let's not discount the obvious truths about the chances of a woman or a minority beating out a white male, *especially* if that white male is a well liked actor who appeals to women.

I don't think either Hillary or Obama is an extremely strong candidate. I've never thought Hillary as strong as many apparently do--I just don't think the number of people who could ever be positive supporters is all that large. And I think the bloom will be off Obama long before the election. Hillary and Obama, though, could be a different story. He's more likeable, she's more experienced. They might have to let him make most of the speeches, though.

Meh - let me say that differently. Abortion *is* a big winner for you guys, except the politicians you elect refuse to do jack or squat about it. So which is worse - an issue that everyone says they support but doesn't draw people to the polls, or one that draws people to the polls but doesn't actually accomplish anything?

I think anyone hoping that new ideas on Iraq or other national problems will come from the major political parties is waiting in vain. Political parties don't helm major developments in the conservative or liberal movements; their job is to get Democrats and Republicans elected. New ideas come from individuals, not entrenchaed party beaurocracies.

"justices with those who have at least a modicum of respect for the actual Constitution" Guess that's another way to put it. :-)

As someone who was driven into the capital "L" libertarian wilderness of the 90s, due to my opposition to Gulf War 1, I agree with your take on the GOP's for-the-wrong-reasons drift towards libertarianism, as it sits well with corporate interests, and it plays to the situational-ethics of the media culture. That said, I still identify with the Libertarians, if only for my support of Ron Paul, and my general dislike of statism. I now stress the conservative over the libertarian in my politics, though. BTW: I recomended your book to a Tory faction of "liberal concervatives" in the UK; they said they hadn't heard of it, but would persue it via Amazon...I hope it takes root!