An accidental click on a blog ad led me to The American Prospect website. I have NO idea what politics this magazine leans towards, but I was sufficiently intrigued by one of the stories to read it.
This story basically opines that if President Bush wins reelection, the foundation the Republican party will be able to establish through judicial and procedural means will basically guarentee that the government will be run by Republican and Republican politics for an extremely extended period of time, and that it’ll be difficult for anyone to do anything about it if they don’t like it.
Now, since I don’t know what American Prospect is like, I don’t know just how seriously to take this premise (or, more fairly, how much to adjust my reading). What do you think of this author’s thesis? Possible? Probable? Worth any thought?
First, The American Prospect is hard left, so you must account for that bias in reading this article. Second, while I’m not inclined to respond to this article point by point, I don’t think it necessary. No party will be able to exert the kind of control this article is talking about without the 60 senators needed to break a filibuster, or some other means of getting around it. This article barely even mentions the filibuster, and while it suggests that the Republicans may gain senate seats in the upcoming election, I defy you to find me a political analyst anywhere who thinks they will get to 60, or even close.
Hell, if luck cuts against them even just a little, they could lose the senate again this year.
If I recall my AP American History class before, it happened in the early 19th century with the complete breakdown of the Federalist party. The Democrats essentially ruled the roost until around 1850 when a lot of the various factions started breaking away, eventually coalescing into the Republican party under Lincoln. The domination was in name only, however, since the Andrew Jackson Democrats were rather different from the east cost banker Democrats who were rather different from the abolitionist Democrats… etc.
As a Southern Democrat, who voted against Phil Gramm even when he was a Democrat, let me opine here.
If the Republican party garners a super-duper majority, this does not me 99-1 votes in the Senate for the establishment of a state church, it mean very difficult Republican primaries, stong ideological differences in the party, and perhaps the ulitmate bifurcation of the Party. Just like what happened here in the South with the Democratic Party. As you know, the south used to be pretty darn Democratic. This was apparently just a historic anomoly. My dates may be a little off, but please bear with me. In the 70s and 80s the Republican party successfully wooed the conservative Democrats to their side. In the 90s the christian right asserted itself, and in Texas for one, took over the Republican party. This has been met with grumbling from the conservative Republicans here in Texas. Never the less, they are united currently against a common enemy, the Clintonian Democrat. The recent redistricting here is just the final bit of divide and conquer the enemy. I do mean enemy, BTW. My prediction is we’ll see The Christian Republican party in the future, and some sort of Religeous Freedom party as well.
So yeah, people will still be represented by someone in Congress, It’s just that the dividing line between good and evil will have moved to within their party.
My problem with the premise is that as long as the President is from the party that’s not in control, it’s much more balanced and no-one has a hold on the government. That the argument in the article has to be premised on Bush’s winning re-election shows this. If Bush wins this year but a Republican loses the next election, are they reall the “permanent party of autocratic government for at least a generation”?
Actually, for most of the history of the country, one party HAS dominated, controlling the Presidency and usually one or both houses of Congress.
1800-1860 Era of the Democrats
1860-1932 Era of the Republicans
1932-1968 Return of the Democrats
1968-Present New Era
So what if one party dominates? As Notmrknowitall has noted, that just means that the party will start to fragment, and get bogged down with infighting.
As a republican, that article made me feel great.
It is possible for one party to gain an extended hold of government. The democrats did it in 1932 with predictably disastrous results. From 1932 to 1982 they had the majority in the senate for 44 out of the 50 years and the majority in the house for 46 of the 50 years.
The majorities in this congress are very small, if 13 races in the house and 1 in the senate go the democrats way they would control both houses. That is a pretty small basis for legislative dictatorship. The bottom line is that if Republicans keep winning elections they will continue to be in power, and if the democrats wnat to do something about it, they should nominate people worth voting for instead of whining.
Thanks, Puddle. I love it when Republicans make my points for me. Your 1932-1982 statistics are simply delightful. To wit:
New Deal and recovery from the Great Depression. Hooray for FDR!
Winning decisively the largest armed conflict in the history of history and coming out of it the most powerful nation on earth to boot.
Civil Rights
economic boom and transformation of the 50’s. largest expansion of infrastructure and economy up until the Clinton Renaissance.
enhancement of international institutions and law, successful avoidance of nuclear holocaust in the face of monolithic Communism.
On the flip side, 1982 marked the beginning of a pattern of grotesque government deficits that continue to this day. As a percentage of GDP, Reagan deficits were the highest in U.S. history. Oh, wait - until George Junior today, that is.
So much for the myth of fiscal conservatism and the Republican party.
In response to the OP - of course it’s possible for one party to gain an extended hold on the government. It happens when one party does a better job than the other!
No, no . . . you’re thinking of The Nation, or The Progressive, or In These Times.The American Prospect is just a little bit leftwards of The New Republic – about as far left, say, as the Democratic Leadership Council.