A provocative NYT opinion piece today by former George W. Bush speechwriter and Romney staffer Peter Wehner (in other words, a member of one of the least popular presidential administrations in U.S. history, and a losing national campaign, but I digress):
One can also plausibly argue that the Republican Party is the governing party in America. After two enormous losses by Democrats in the 2010 and 2014 midterm elections, Republicans control the Senate and the House of Representatives. There are currently 31 Republican governors compared with 18 for Democrats. Republicans control 68 of 98 state legislative chambers and the most state legislative seats since the 1920s. Nearly half of Americans now live in states under total Republican control. The Obama years have been politically good for Mr. Obama; they have been disastrous for his party. That is a problematic legacy for a man who envisioned himself as a Franklin Delano Roosevelt-like transformational political figure.
Those who insist that the Democratic Party’s march to the left carries no political risks might consider the fate of the British Labour Party earlier this month. Ed Miliband, its leader, ran hard to the left. The result? The Conservative Party under David Cameron won its first outright majority in Parliament since 1992. Before the election, the former Labour prime minister Tony Blair warned his party against letting the election become one in which “a traditional left-wing party competes with a traditional right-wing party, with the traditional result.”
Mr. Clinton acted on a lesson Democrats learned the hard way, and moved his party more to the center on fiscal policy, welfare, crime, the culture and foreign policy. Progressive figures like Senator Elizabeth Warren and Mayor Bill de Blasio are the politicians who electrify the Democratic base.
For demographic reasons, many Democrats believe that they are riding a tide of presidential inevitability. They may want to rethink that. They are placing a very risky bet that there are virtually no limits to how far left they can go.
Was the Revolution fought for naught: are our politics still those of England? Is Elizabeth Warren leading the national party to ruin?
Your thoughts, preferably supported by evidence other than the Senator’s 2012 demolition of GOP poster boy Scott Brown?
SomervilleTom says
The historically low opinion of government, especially at the national level, is at least one piece of evidence that winning elections is different from governing.
I’m willing to stipulate that the GOP is winning most elections today. I would hope so — they own the primary information source for a majority of Americans (Fox News), they’ve corrupted the courts and DOJ (the evidence that the Bush administration intentionally filled the DOJ with partisan GOP hacks was ignored by the incoming Obama administration and the 2008 Democratic House and Senate in the spirit of “bipartisanship”), and they’ve used those tools to disenfranchise minority voters at a scale unheard of since the Jim Crow era. Barack Obama has aligned himself dramatically to the right of those who elected him, and would be described as a Republican in any modern pre-Reagan era.
The proof is in the pudding — Americans DESPISE the current national government. Most federal programs are in disarray, and eight years of bi-annual or annual GOP brinksmanship has destroyed any semblance of placing the national interest above the GOP dogma-du-jour.
The list of federal issues that face urgent and impending catastrophic collapse (infrastructure, climate change, energy policy, student debt, the collapse of the middle class, etc) is overwhelmingly larger than the list of federal issues that the government is handling well.
Today’s governance SUCKS — and that is largely the fault of the GOP role in today’s government.
Christopher says
…Republicans campaign on the idea that government is dysfunctional, then get elected to prove it!:)
scott12mass says
For me my low opinion of our government is equal whether it’s national or local.
SomervilleTom says
At the local level, our politicians win by claiming to be “Democrat” when they are actually much closer to the historical stance of the GOP.
Still, even at the local level, our politicians are better at winning than governing. Bob DeLeo plays the political and power game very well — he now seems to be Speaker-For-Life. The painful and agonizing perpetual dysfunction of our state government demonstrates his incompetence at governing. He is, after all, the most powerful individual in Massachusetts politics today — he worked hard and successfully to make that happen.
Personal responsibility for the resulting myriad of state government failures comes with that vaunted role.
jcohn88 says
Ed did not run “hard” to the left. A party that sold mugs engraved with “Controls on Immigration” is not running a hard-left campaign. A party that plans to match the Tories “cut for cut” is not running a left-wing campaign. A party whose benefits minister said that the party did not want to represent the unemployed is not running a left-wing campaign.
Labour’s loss to the SNP was because Labour had moved too far to the right: one of the main attractions of the SNP was that it was an anti-austerity party. The Greens also did well (vote-wise, not seat-wise) compared to their historical performance. The increase in vote gained by the Greens and the SNP was just barely smaller than the Tory-Labour vote.
So, please, spare me the “Labour ran too hard to the left” bullocks.
jconway says
The Tories, while sadly stuck in Thatcherism on economics, are significantly more moderate than America’s GOP. As David Frum pointed out, it’s laughable for Brooks and this guy to compare the US GOP to the Tories. The Tories are pro-gun control, pro-gay rights, pro-abortion rights, pro-environment, and largely pro-single payer healthcare (yes they seek to introduce a private option, but they are far more comfortable with the NHS than our right wing would be, and this still puts them to the left of our public option fearing President).
And Labour has an aging white working class issue as well, and lost a decent chunk of it’s English vote to UKIP, so the immigration controls was a response to populist trouble on it’s right flank which our center-left party doesn’t have to contend with (anymore). Maybe not the correct response, but not an ideological indicator. The more economically centrist Blair and Brown were to Miliband’s left on immigration controls. The Blue Labour strategy was an intriguing one, one that failed as badly as the Red Tory model did for Cameron.
The Greens hardly drew enough of Labours’ vote share to make a decisive impact, and the fact that all three main parties were wiped out by the SNP shows that Scottish independence, not the economy, were the primary reason for it’s support. The Economist shows the SNP is about as left wing as labour. Like the Bloc Quebecois up North, it will cause mischief and then flame out as independence passion flames out. Murdoch is an SNP supporter, and it’s origin was as the party for Scottish oil tycoons.
jcohn88 says
The Tories are not pro-gay rights. 45% of the Tories who were in attendance for the vote on marriage equality legislation voted against it: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/interactive/2013/feb/06/gay-marriage-vote-map-mp#party. By all means, that puts them ahead of the GOP, but they are not “pro-gay rights.”
The Tories are not pro-abortion rights: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/6cd2d124-1804-11df-91d2-00144feab49a.html. It’s also difficult to talk about abortion rights in US vs. Europe given that abortion laws in Europe are generally more restrictive.
Gun control isn’t much of an issue in the UK because they have very restrictive laws.
It’s also wrong to describe the Tories as pro-single payer. Were a Tory to come to the US, that Tory would strongly oppose moving to Medicare for All most likely. However, NHS exists becuase of Labour’s post-war victories, and it is so popular that the Tories cannot outright privatize it (although they, of course, would love to). They will chip away at it and privatize pieces of it, but they know that it would be political suicide to privatize the NHS.
It is also wrong to say that the Tories are pro-environment. They are more pro-environment than the GOP, but that’s not saying very much at all.
Perhaps the best analog would be to say that Tories are New England Republicans as opposed to Southern, Plains, or Western Republicans. Not good on any issue, but not as bad as their peers elsewhere.
The Scottish version of the Sun supported the SNP because Murdoch hates Labour. (He liked Blair, but not Labour–especially not Miliband.) He wanted to see SNP take seats from Labour, plain and simple.
jconway says
I believe that is what I was arguing. They are pro-‘x social policy’ relative to our Republicans.. I wouldn’t have voted for them in that campaign or their last one. I was just pointing out it’s laughable for any American conservative to claim the Tories as their own when they are significantly further to the right than the Tories.
jcohn88 says
Yeah, the Tories probably pick up that demographic of affluent suburbanites whose main concern is not paying more taxes, rather than any culture war battles. An elite form of conservatism that wants to control the behavior of the poor but doesn’t mind what other elites do.
Just wanted to correct an error in my piece: Tories voted against the marriage equality bill 136 to 127. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2013/feb/05/gay-marriage-debate-politics-live-blog. So that’s 51%, not 45%.
jconway says
I guess it was a free vote and not one he whipped on, figuring Labour and the Lib Dems had his back. And I agree about health care, I was just pointing out that practically they want to chip away at an existing single payer infrastructure while our supposed progressives are deathly afraid at even an optional means of chipping away at our privatized system.
bolson says
The Republican hold on the House and the Senate is a side effect of gerrymandering and cannot be taken as a mandate. The popular vote in both is much closer to 50/50, with Dems frequently winning the total popular vote.
merrimackguy says
Hard to gerrymander entire states. If your point is there’s lots of states with only a few people, and they get two Senators. I would agree. Tough thing to change.
I think we need federal law to limit gerrymandering for the House.
ChiliPepr says
Since we invented it.
merrimackguy says
Once swing districts were eliminated the number of centrists were reduced, as well as the incentive for Reps to support (or at least not oppose) a popular President. If it’s all about getting re-elected then just pander to the base and let them carry you.
Peter Porcupine says
….when Democrats lost control of too many state legislatures and governorships.
Until then it was the grass roots will of the people electing those who share their values and ideals, who will then create districts that reflect comunity identity.
jconway says
Gerrymandering was a big deal when Delay did it, and progressive groups called out Madigan and Pelosi for pushing it in their states. The grassroots have always been against the powerbrokers on this one. I was there for the push to put non partisan redistricting on the ballot in Illinois and we were stymied by a conservative Democrat, but the grassroots definitely did not want more gerrymandering. Like CMD, you are confusing political hacks with progressive activists on this one.
Mark L. Bail says
Republicans can’t make useful or informative statements, but why would Red Sox make a game plan based on the Yankee’s advice? They are different teams with different players and fans. And they are also rivals.
There’s a whole sub-genre of editorial conservative commentary giving Democrats advice. I don’t think the same could be said for our side of the spectrum. Why would we agree with them or listen to them? Democrats are going too far left because… England!
merrimackguy says
As far as the official media though, I think you’re right.
I love all the people telling Sec. Clinton what to do. The 2016 race is hers to lose and all she has to do is not really screw it up. So far I think she’s running a great race.
jconway says
Basically, the Times columnist is perpetuating the fantasy that the Democrats have lurched far to the left while denying the reality his party has moved far to the right. Many of us would argue the party is currently far too centrist, and this is apparent with the continued embrace of disastrous free trade policies. I would agree though, that most liberal prescriptions for the GOPs ailments are basically, become more liberal, and that is a vapid exercise many of us have been guilty of.
I will add that all Baker needs to do is not screw up to get re-elected easily, and so far he is also doing a great job. He has kept the wing nuts at bay while appearing far more in charge than Deval ever did. From a policy standpoint, he has certainly failed on transit and education, but I can’t help but admire his political chops and pity our 2018 nominee.
jconway says
What a crock of shit.
Fellow conservative and American Enterprise Scholar Norm Ornstein places the blame on extremism squarely on the GOP moving to the far right.
Bernie Sanders has been roundly marginalized and derided by the mainstream press for espousing the same tax rate on the wealthy supported by Republican Dwight David Eisenhower back in the 50s.
An openly socialist candidate, Bernie Sanders was winning over white working class conservatives in droves during his CSPAN appearance. Apparently being against outsourcing, while ‘far to the left’ is incredibly popular with the GOPs supposed base.
stomv says
1. non-Presidential November elections historically swing away from the party of the President. It’s not ironclad, but it’s quite consistent.
2. This happened in 2010, which gave the GOP control of a large number of redistricting opportunities, particularly in “purple” states.
3. The GOP did just this, resulting in really strong results both at the state legislative level and the House.
4. In a number of states, the GOP also took advantage of the ability to change the rules about voter eligibility and vote rules, and thereby changed the population of voters in their favor.
5. Let us not forget the SCOTUS decision on the Voting Rights Act
6. Remember (1)? Most gubernatorial races are held on non-POTUS election years.
7. Remember (1)? Check out the 2016 US Senate map. The Dems have to defend Colorado with an incumbent and Nevada with a challenger; the GOP has to defend Florida with a challenger and Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Iowa and Wisconsin with incumbents. There’s no question that the map favors the Dems; if Mrs. Clinton runs a strong campaign the Dems could easily pick up five US Senate seats and gain the majority.
Methinks the specifics of the election cycles (and, in Appalachia, the President’s skin tone) have far more to do with the current political map than the specific Democratic or Republican policies. I find that unfortunate, but it seems to me that the rules of the game have an awfully big impact on the outcome.
Christopher says
The GOP tends to hold fast to their beliefs whereas Dems ran from Obama as fast as they could despite his strong economic record in 2014 and balked at defending the ACA in 2010.
johntmay says
American Democratic voters want someone to vote for, not someone to vote against. When Democrats run weak “middle of the road, let’s not offend anyone” candidates, we get low turnout and we wind up with a Republican in office. Republicans, it seems to me, are happy to vote against someone or for someone. At least that explains their reliable voter turnout while we Democrats have to beat feet to GOTV.
Running in the center, running on “jobs and the economy” is just handing the election to the Republicans.
So no, we’re not too far to the left. We’re too invisible in the center.
necturus says
He’s friendly to Wall Street. He copied “Obamacare” from Mitt Romney. He’s perpetuating George W. Bush’s foreign policy. He’s pushing the GOP’s “free trade” agenda. He’s calling for a renewal of the Patriot Act.
The American people may have voted left in 2008, but what they have is a President to the right of Richard Nixon.
As for running on “jobs and the economy”, that’s what Democrats should do: support jobs, not “free trade”; crack down on Wall Street speculation; abolish corporate personhood; support collective bargaining; tax the wealthy. Oh, and call for working Americans of all faiths, races, genders, and backgrounds to unite in their common interest, regardless of their disagreements on guns, abortion, religion, or any other distraction. If Marx were alive today he’d see the “culture wars” as a distraction that plays into the hands of big money and divides working Americans when they need to unite.
Christopher says
His rhetoric was all about bringing people together going back to his 2004 convention speech. He was seen as the liberal candidate solely on the basis of opposing the Iraq war.
sabutai says
First, it’s tough to argue with success. And aside from the 2012 presidential race, the Republicans have been more successful on balance starting in 2009. Special elections, state level, congressional…they’re winning most of them. I think it’s silly to argue otherwise.
However, saying it’s because the Democrats aren’t centrist enough is questionable. I always think back to how stupid pundits said Karl Rove was for going to the right in 2004…and it worked. He picked up the disaffected rather than the disorganized.
What I think is a right sticky wicket is that I have trouble seeing how to convert disaffected leftists into reliable voters. Rove was right in thinking that he could pursue and entrance the angry right who stayed home in 2000, and get them to vote. And they have continued to vote. However, Obama got the left’s version of those same people in 2008, and many of them seem to have stayed home since.
I’ve always thought it’s easier to change the mind of a participant who doesn’t agree with you, then to engage someone who agrees with you but doesn’t participate. It’s easier to change someone’s political identification than it is someone’s societal habits (accepting the legitimacy of the modern American political system, or just voting). Not saying I have the answer, but I think the differing circumstances of the two parties means that while going to the wings might work for the GOP, not sure it works for the Democrats as easily or surely.
historian says
Like others peddling this “analysis,” Wehner seems to treat climate change as irrelevant–much like our current governor who was smart enough to sound marginally reasonable during the campaign under the assumption that he would not be pressed on the issue by what remains of the media afterwards.
ryepower12 says
The House doesn’t have a big Republican majority because Democrats are too liberal, it has a huge Republican majority because Republicans have gerrymandered to ridiculous, unprecedented degrees.
The Senate has a relatively small Republican majority, despite the fact that small states have an enormously large footprint in the US Senate relative to their population, which mostly benefits Republicans.
If anything, Democrats haven’t gone nearly far enough to the left. Obama’s centrist policies and legislative failures have disappointed/turned off millions of democratic-leaning voters, particularly young voters who had so much hope for him in 2008, and that’s had a big impact on voter turnout.
Elizabeth Warren was unapologetic running to the left, beating an strong incumbent candidate in Scott Brown. She is the answer for our party, not the problem. When we speak to the problems facing everyday families, the kind of issues that are crushing “Main Street,” we win.
jconway says
Whether it’s right or left, populism wins elections. From Sanders on CSPAN getting praised by Republican callers to Warren being the most popular politican across the political spectrum according to a Times focus group, populists win campaigns. It’s all about having peoples backs so they feel empowered against the entrenched interests making them powerless. As one of the all time great Democrats put it