Well, let’s start with the obvious thing: Sarah Palin. I maintain that McCain’s choice of Palin as a running mate was a reasonably clever one. Granted that Palin gave me new reason to dislike her every time she opened her mouth, but at the very least she renewed interest in McCain’s campaign, reignited support from an increasingly disillusioned Republican base, and stop-hit Obama’s “convention boost”. Yes, yes, I know: after a few weeks, when it became obvious that she didn’t much know what she was doing and wasn’t coordinating either way with the rest of McCain’s campaign, she turned into a fantastically effective shit-magnet — but without Palin, McCain would’ve been forgotten halfway through August.
“Today on the Situation Room: Obama promises free puppies for everyone! And McCain does something that I guess we should care about. Here’s Dana Bash with more information about President-almost-elect Obama’s Canine Campaign!”
Palin’s taking a lot of criticism from what’s left of the Republican campaign structure. In one sense, it’s reasonable: it doesn’t matter so much why people dislike Palin, it’s just that they do dislike Palin and that’s good enough to blame her for McCain’s loss. (At the same time: who chose Palin in the first place? McCain. There you go.)
On the other hand, I think a lot of the detestation of Palin — and this is from the Republican party hierarchy as well as the gloating Democratic caucus — comes from the fact that she just doesn’t act like a member of the political caste is expected to. I mean, good Lord, she has pregnant daughters, she hunts, she describes herself as a hockey mom… it’s all so working class! Politicians are expected to pretend to give a shit about Joe Sixpack (or Joe the Plumber), not identify with him. That’s… unheard of!
Now, have a look at these articles:
- A sweeping rejection of President Bush (Cato@Liberty)
- What’s wrong with the GOP? (Below the Beltway)
- Republicans, the youth vote, and the path to the future (Below the Beltway)
After Bush 43’s presidency, Republicans have become big-government national-greatness minor theocrats. That may not be how Republican voters see themselves — let’s not forget that, while Obama won by a strong majority of electoral college votes, he only got 52% of the vote — but that’s how a lot of “Reagan Democrats”, moderates, libertarians, centrists, and independents see the GOP.
I think the Republican party has become blinded by its time in power: they see nothing outside the blinders placed upon them by policy wonks and pollsters. Palin’s getting it right up the (metaphorical) jacksey from the GOP because she’s not a privileged Washington insider. The GOP itself is getting it right up the (metaphorical) poop-chute from the voters because they’re almost exclusively privileged Washington insiders.
Look at the nationalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, for example, and tell me how it’s fundamentally different from Chavez’s nationalization of Venezuela’s industries. I’m not about to claim that the Democrats will do any differently — in fact, Obama has already called for yet another “stimulus package” — but most people identify the Republicans with just about everything that’s gone wrong lately (and not least because the Bush-43 Republicans have been the most recent power structure to fuck it all up). And let’s not forget about Iraq and Afghanistan (oh, you forgot about Afghanistan?).
What have Bush and the GOP been doing while this multifaceted shitstorm’s been splattering everyone? Mostly just pissing off one half of their base or the other over immigration and feinting towards a Federal Marriage Amendment. They’ve also managed to roughly double the national debt — something sure to endear them to young voters, who’ll be expected to pay it off (or deal with the long-term consequences of defaulting). Oh, that’s clever.
David Frum claims that:
A generation ago, Republicans dominated among college graduates. In 1984 and 1988, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush won states like California, Pennsylvania and Connecticut – states that have been “blue” for a generation. (America’s least educated state, West Virginia, went for Michael Dukakis in 1988.)
Those days are long gone. Since 1988, Democrats have become more conservative on economics – and Republicans have become more conservative on social issues.
College-educated Americans have come to believe that their money is safe with Democrats – but that their values are under threat from Republicans. And there are more and more of these college-educated Americans all the time.
I don’t think that’s quite true — it’s not that our money is safe with Democrats, it’s just that it’s no more safe with Republicans… and Republicans have little else to offer. The GOP has not just relinquished but contemptuously discarded any claim it had on individual liberty, free markets, and small government over the past eight years.
The Republicans still have a chance to win back the House and Senate in 2010, though. Given how unlikely it is that Obama can — or even wants to — change the general thrust of American policy over the next few years, a Republican party that can somehow destroy its most obvious big-government daddy-knows-best leanings and renew itself as something more akin to Goldwater’s party has a damn fine chance of winning back… well, not everyone, but at least the two percent plus one that it needs for what passes for a national mandate these days.
I’m not gonna hold my breath.
This election truly represented a choice between two not-so-choice options. A tax and spend, anti-abortion, open border red guy and an articulate, charming socialist blue guy.
The two party system is at the root of a lot of our problems. Nearly ALL of the time, effort and money controlled by our “representatives” is spent fighting the other guys and conniving to get re-elected. The populace has become – to a large extent – irrelevant to them.
The two party system is at the root of a lot of our problems. Nearly ALL of the time, effort and money controlled by our “representatives” is spent fighting the other guys and conniving to get re-elected. The populace has become – to a large extent – irrelevant to them.
That’s not just a two-party problem. Exactly the same thing goes on in Canada, where we have three major national parties and one regional party (the Bloc Quebecois) that’s big enough to play on the national stage. I think one reason this happens is that elections are, relatively speaking, few and far between — and elections are really the only way for the voters to influence the politicians.
Because elections are so rare, politicians can spend most of their time cheerfully ignoring the voters. Most people don’t keep track of which politicians broke which promises except when it directly and severely affects them, and even then most of the lies and corruption are forgotten by election time. There’s no incentive for politicians to do the right thing except when it’s going to influence their re-election… and it’s rarely going to do that. (Incumbents tend to win anyway, regardless of how well they’ve represented their districts/ridings, because they’re “our guy” and it’s easy for us to blame “someone else in Congress” or the like.)
The other problem is with the structure of elections: candidates are competing against other candidates, not trying to hit any standard of quality. It’s like hikers fleeing a bear: you don’t have to outrun the bear, you just have to outrun the other hikers. Consider the Democratic shift on Obama between the primaries and the general election: the Clinton power structure went from claiming that Obama was completely incompetent to lead the nation to claiming that Obama was so much more competent than McCain (contrary to what they’d previously stated, of course, but who remembers that?).
Excellent points – and I can relate to the bear thing. Eons ago I spent 4 months as the only woman in a mineral exploration crew in the Alaskan bush. The guys were teasing me one day about how I was going to use my 9mm ‘pea shooter’ when a bear attacked. I gave them my best innocent look and said that when the bear attacked I’d draw it very quickly — and shoot my partner in the knee.
But, regarding outrunning / outwitting politicians — apathy is another huge factor. I have otherwise intelligent friends – who, when I asked them how they felt about specific positions held by Obama, would nearly EVERY time state not just that they disagreed with them, but that they STRONGLY disagreed with them. Yet – nearly every one of these people voted for him. Most were devoted Bush-haters who swallowed the “McCain = Bush” line hook, line and stinker — then didn’t bother to look any farther. Husband and I had an argument with one couple over dinner where they both got quite angry about our ‘lies’ when we tried to tell them that it was *Obama* who broke his word and opted out on public funding. They were CERTAIN it was McCain. And these are educated, intelligent professional people whose taxes will certainly go up *if* O makes good on his promises. Husband and I were utterly dumbfounded and ended up just changing the subject and ordering double scotches.
When a criminally biased main stream media is the only source that most Americans will bother to pay any attention to – and only minor attention at that – the crooks are indeed given free rein (or should that be reign?)
You might get a real kick out of Bryan Kaplan’s book The Myth of the Rational Voter. My copy’s on loan at the moment, but the way I remember Kaplan’s argument is that since the expected value of one vote either way is so low, it “pays better” for citizens to vote in a way that’s consistent with their prejudices rather than one that’s consistent with their best interests.
Apathy’s definitely a part of it, though, especially when the situation degenerates to the point where only mediocre lawyers turned career politicians run for office. I think it’s a positive feedback loop: as voters become more apathetic, politicians can (and do!) get away with more and more abuse. As politicians become more abusive — on both sides — voters have fewer and fewer reasons to keep up on the issues and make informed decisions. If both “your guy” and “their guy” are at heart statist thugs, there’s vanishingly little incentive for you to weigh your options compared to the (relatively) enormous emotional payoff of voting for your favourite team.