Politics at a Crossroads

Over the course of the year, it has been noted by several conservative bloggers that the coalition inside the Republican party is splintering. Bush has alienated the classic conservatives by expanding government and increasing spending, the neocons by bungling the Iraq war, and now the theocons by nominating Miers to the Supreme Court. A couple of months ago, I commented on an article discussing the political legacy of 1964. There appear to be parallels between 1964 and today, which leads me to think American politics is at a crossroads and major changes could be on the way.

The Democratic party of JFK, LBJ, and FDR was a coalition, broadly speaking, of northern liberals and southern white conservatives. These disparate groups managed to sublimate their ideological differences to present a unified party, leading to a virtual monopoly on the White House from the elections of 1932 through 1964. For most of that run, Democratic presidents balanced the divergent interests of the party's coalition, being careful to not push any group too hard. So, for example, both FDR and Truman touched on civil rights, but never too hard so as to drive away the southern whites. (Truman pushed too hard and it gave rise to the Dixiecrats in 1948, and nearly cost him re-election.) Johnson's presidency was the swan song of that era, and of that coalition. By pushing a more liberal social policy, Johnson brought the internal differences between the different wings of the party to the fore, ultimately forcing the southern white conservatives out of the party and into the arms of the Republicans. By making a mess of Vietnam, Johnson alienated the more hawkish elements of the Democratic establishment. LBJ went from being a leading light in the party to standing alone in the ashes of that party.

Beginning with the 1968 election, the Republican party has been a coalition of, broadly speaking, fiscal and social conservatives. These groups have managed to sublimate their ideological differences to present a unified party, leading to a virtual monopoly on the White House from 1968 through the present. Leading lights like Nixon and Reagan managed to balance the interests of the party's constituency and keep everyone happy. But this appears to be coming to an end with Bush.

So the Republican party looks to be in a situation very reminiscent of where the Democrats found themselves in 1968. But here, the parallels appear to cease. As the Democrats were falling apart, the Republican party found new voices, including Goldwater, Nixon, and Reagan, who rallied their party and remade it with a new coalition of ideologies that they lead to dominance. Nixon's re-election in 1972, while forever overshadowed by the Watergate breakin the took place during the campaign, stands as the monument to the complete overhaul of American politics. After decades of Democratic control, a Republican won in a huge landslide.

Who are the comparable voices in the Democratic party today? There are none. Since Bill Clinton left the stage, no one has risen to truly lead the party. The Democrats are adrift with no clear concept of what they stand for. It seems to me the time is ripe for a transformation of the party to a party more in line with the New Democrats, fiscally conservative and moderately liberal socially, which would bring in the disaffected Republican conservatives. But no such leader has appeared to lead that transformation and complete what Clinton started. If the Democrats want to return to power, it's time for a Democratic Reagan to rise up.