Severely overcharging for his two cents' worth this week is Harold Meyerson in his column in The Washington Post, "A Real Realignment."
The first problem is the one we've seen quite a lot this week: it is not a realignment when one Presidential election departs from the recent past. It is a realignment when that Presidential election is followed by others that are similar enough so that we know the first was a turning point, not an aberration. The way to make that happen is for the Obama administration and the Democratically controlled Congress to provide the political leadership to make people want to return them to office in the next several elections.
The second and more important problem appears in the last paragraph. Just read it for yourself:
Indeed, eight years after Karl Rove stormed into Washington proclaiming that he would create a 21st-century version of the Republican realignment that emerged from William McKinley's victory over William Jennings Bryan in 1896, today's emerging Republican minority looks confined to Bryan's base in America's rural backwaters. The future in American politics belongs to the party that can win a more racially diverse, better educated, more metropolitan electorate. It belongs to Barack Obama's Democrats.
America's rural backwaters. Is this how we describe areas in which a majority of the people voted for McCain rather than Obama? Because if it is, then try not to get too upset when Governor Palin goes to such a place and describes it as the real America.
I read that paragraph and wondered if The Washington Post bothers to have anyone read the columns before they are published. I wasn't sure whether "yes" or "no" would disappoint me more.
Well said!
While there was definitely a shift in Obama's (and Dems') favor last week, we're still mighty close of a 50-50 nation.
And the Washington Post deserves every accusation of media elitisms it gets -- though not necessarily "liberal media," given who writes for the op-ed page! Has anyone told them that print is headed for backwater status?
oh, please
Don't get me wrong, this guy is a schmuck. But your response is priceless, and not in the good way. If North American conservatism wants to ally itself to the unthinking, racist politics of resentment for electoral gain, fine. That worked for forty years. It's a democracy. We get the government we deserve. But if after riding that horse to decades of electoral success, said conservatism gets whiny when it loses one for a change, my sympathies are limited.
Cf also http://election.princeton.edu/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/electoral-map-5...
Full disclosure: I am far, far to the left of New Deal Democrats, and see today's Ds as nothing more than Eisenhower Republicans. No love lost for them. But less for your whining.
Backwater was the wrong word
for sure. But there is a cultural difference between rural and metropolitan America. Unfortunately Palin's "real America" and this guy's "rural backwater" semantics inflame the culture wars but do little to support productive dialogue.
But rural America does lag when it comes to certain types of change . . . the immigrants land in cities, and educational and technological innovation centers tend to be in the metro areas. Population migration has, historically, gone from the rural areas to our cities.
And that leads to the observation that in 1896 -- Bryan's era -- most of our population lived in rural areas, small towns, and a much higher percentage worked in agriculture. Today the vast majority of our nation is in metro or suburban areas. So the analogy the writer makes is good, but overlooks the fact that a much higher proportion of our population lives and works in urban areas today.
If the Republicans are limited to a rural base today, well, they are likely in much worse position than the Bryan Republicans.
Backwater was the wrong word
for sure. But there is a cultural difference between rural and metropolitan America. Unfortunately Palin's "real America" and this guy's "rural backwater" semantics inflame the culture wars but do little to support productive dialogue.
But rural America does lag when it comes to certain types of change . . . the immigrants land in cities, and educational and technological innovation centers tend to be in the metro areas. Population migration has, historically, gone from the rural areas to our cities.
And that leads to the observation that in 1896 -- Bryan's era -- most of our population lived in rural areas, small towns, and a much higher percentage worked in agriculture. Today the vast majority of our nation is in metro or suburban areas. So the analogy the writer makes is good, but overlooks the fact that a much higher proportion of our population lives and works in urban areas today.
If the Republicans are limited to a rural base today, well, they are likely in much worse position than the Bryan Republicans.
Off Topic: Massive Chinese Stimulus
586 Billion is huge . . . they are making big infrastructure investments. I think it's wonderful, and exactly what is needed . . . in terms of size of package this is the equivalent of US pumping 2.2 trillion into nation building infrastructure programs. I wish we could do this in US. Too bad we have so much debt from this administration.
The Asian markets are loving it, and futures are way up on our markets as well.
More on realignment
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/us/politics/11repubs.html?hp
Governor's conference this week should provide some clues.
Post new comment