The best of the worst of all possible realities

Has there ever been a time in American political history when both major parties were as fragmented as they are now?

Maybe there has been, but I don't remember ever seeing anything quite like this. True, I have seen unpopular presidents and many scandals come and go. LBJ was much hated by the left because of the war, and this led to the ascendancy of McGovern Democrats -- ultimately fueling the rise of the supposedly dead Richard Nixon, who in turn was much hated, and ultimately nailed by the people who hated him. Having a president resign in the face of certain impeachment could be expected to send his party into a tailspin, and there was dissension and a struggle between the moderate wing and the conservative wing. The former lost to Jimmy Carter, while the latter bided its time while Ronald Reagan waited in the wings and did what he called the "mashed potato circuit."

But throughout these periods, there was always a sense -- in both parties -- of not so much agreeing, but at least knowing. Knowing who the candidates were supposed to be, and where each party stood.

So far in this election cycle, the only feature which both parties have in common is fragmentation. Because of the sheer number of candidates (none of whom has a lock on anything), it's worse in the GOP. Occcasionally I'll flip through the radio dial to hear the various conservative talk shows, in the hope of getting a fix on just where the party is here and now. There is no "fix" to get. Every show host, every caller, has a completely different view of not only who the candidate should be, but what the GOP should be. If there's a heart and soul -- a "base," whatever you might call it -- within the GOP, I'm not clear on what it is. I'm not even sure the idea of smaller government is a given any more, much less leaving people alone in their personal lives. There's everything from free market conservatives to radical isolationists, Christian conservatives, anti-Mormon paranoids, pro-war and anti-war factions, pro-Bush, anti-Bush, and more. (In an unfortunate blow to political surrealists, the Laura Bush for President campaign -- announced here -- never got off the ground....)

Worst of all -- and what renders rational analysis next to impossible -- is the psychological split between Defeat Strategists and Victory Strategists. The former tend to believe (whether they acknowledge it or not) that it's the GOP's turn to lose, while the latter believe that the Democrats will be easy to beat. That this makes rational consideration of which candidate to support fraught with obvious difficulties is an understatement, and that is because it is contaminated not only by thoughts of who you want to lose to on the Democratic side, but by who you think should be offered up as the GOP sacrificial victim.

If, for example, you're a social conservative, you might want a more liberal Republican on Hillary's chopping block. But wait! What if it's Obama's chopping block? Who do we most/least want to see holding the high office? A cold shrewish feminist woman? Or a black man who's being painted as a race-baiting, stealth Muslim candidate? So "who do you want to win" -- and all thoughts about "the base," the "heart and soul" etc. -- are contaminated by "who do you want to lose?" and "to whom?" And who will triangulate the triangulators?

No wonder it's a mess. I can't even begin to figure it out.

Until Obama came along, I'd have said that the Democrats were unified as never before, but Obama has done more than rallied the party's left; he has touched a nerve. The more Hillary screams about "change," the more she highlights the fact that she represents exactly the opposite. So she has had to resort to crying and race baiting by proxy in order to get her way. Whether her turnaround will last remains to be seen. The question on the minds of many is which of the two leading candidates would most be able to appeal to middle America. Hillary would have seemed to have that covered, but playing the race card is a dangerous move, because people are sick of it, and they might be disinclined to support a candidate who did it.

Meanwhile, Obama is too smart to get pulled under. Quite the opposite; he's shrewd enough to know that he can even triangulate Ronald Reagan and get away with it. Hillary, of course, is stuck having to invoke the moral authority of LBJ.

It a word, it's pure chaos, though the Republicans have the purer version of chaos right now, because they don't have anything close to approximating an agreement on ideology and what they're about. (The Democrats, while in a nasty fight, do at least agree on principles.)

The only thing I can predict with any confidence is that someone will be elected president in November. And unless Bush does what Ted Rall and the crazies predicted, he or she will be sworn in.

But the swearing in ceremony is still a year away.

Anything will happen. (And I'm still clinging to my precious denial.)

I have to say, though, it would help if I could figure out what I'm in denial about.

Surely there's reality out there somewhere in search of triangulation.

posted by Eric on 01.18.08 at 08:55 AM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/6089






Comments

I was visiting DU last night to get a sense of where the Dems were at. It is getting really vicious.

I did a post on one bit: Democrat Racism.

I also saw a bit up - just evil - about Obama channeling Reagan.

There were also a lot of posts up about how Hillary couldn't win because of the general hatred towards her.

A few years back I thought the Dems would fall apart because Socialism Was Dead.

Furthest from my thoughts was that racism would wrack the party and that Clintonism would be so divisive.

Never in my wildest dreams could I imagine the Libertarian wing of the Rs polling at 5% (Ron Paul). But I couldn't imagine Paul attracting bigots either. And the swooning for Huckabee (after the Keyes debacle in Illinois) makes no rational sense.

Thankfully I have the fusion project (WB-7) to think about or I would go nuts.

M. Simon   ·  January 18, 2008 11:58 AM

Interesting times, interesting times! I had been doing a lot of reading about the lead-up to the Civil War and I swear that was about the only time I have seen things get quite so venemous, or so fluid. I can imagine elements of our political parties shifting and reforming, like blobs in a lava-lamp, and unexpected canditates emerging.

For now, though - I am just having a lot of fun watching Her Inevitabless duke it out with The Fresh Prince of Illinois. It almost seems like a fair fight, too.

Sgt. Mom   ·  January 18, 2008 06:02 PM

That would be "Her Inevitableness". Preview is not my friend after a glass of Chablis...

Sgt. Mom   ·  January 18, 2008 06:04 PM

It is definintely interesting times. For once the republican party is divided and the democrats though without anything closer to a front runner all fundamentally agree upon the issues. I am not sure how it is going to go but very possibly after SC the republican field will narrow significantly. If McCain wins then Hukabee is probably toast and Romney is going to be able to hang in because he has the money but it would probably be a loosing battle. For the dems the only way it could really get shook up is if Edwards won. I think his chance is about the same as Kuciniches so it is a real long shot.

ryan   ·  January 19, 2008 03:56 AM

Post a comment

You may use basic HTML for formatting.





Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)



January 2008
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits