Some saw Barack Obama's election four years ago as proof of a
demographic shift that would continue to help Democrats. Now the
president is enjoying relatively high approval ratings, despite having
inherited a deep recession and two wars. What does all this mean for
the future of the G.O.P.? Will the 2012 election be the last gasp of
the Republican Party?
A Swing, but Not a Permanent One
-by Glenn Greenwald
The recent history of partisan politics is that supporters of the
dominant party of the moment typically believe that their dominance
will endure for at least a generation, a belief that quickly proves to
be grounded in wishful thinking rather than reality. After impressive
G.O.P. victories in the 2002 and 2004 elections, Karl Rove boasted he
wanted a Republican majority "that would last for a generation" and
"wind up profoundly changing the relationship between citizen and
state in this country," while right-wing pundits excitedly proclaimed
the country on the verge of a "permanent Republican majority."
Partisans are naturally eager to believe that their party's victory in
one or two elections signals the national acceptance of their views.
These bold proclamations were not merely unrealized, but completely
obliterated, when the Democrats won both houses of Congress in 2006
and then the White House in 2008. Similar Democratic euphoria in the
wake of President Obama's 2008 election was swept away by the huge
G.O.P. win in 2010.
And so it goes. With President Obama's re-election looking
increasingly likely, and the G.O.P. field in disarray, we now hear
this familiar hubris from Democratic Party loyalists, as epitomized by
Jonathan Chait, who last week announced in New York magazine that the
G.O.P. was "staring down its own demographic extinction." Like similar
manifestations that preceded it, this partisan triumphalism is likely
to prove short-lived and wrong. The two major political parties have
proved themselves quite adept at changing form in order to ensure
their competitive viability.
This partisan cockiness typically assumes — wrongly — that the two
political parties are wedded to a fixed set of political principles.
That's not what the two parties are. They're far more akin to
products: specifically, brands. Recall that Advertising Age's Marketer
of the Year award in 2008 — chosen by the nation's "brand builders" —
went to the Obama campaign team for its excellence in branding its
product. When ordinary products begin to fail on the market, they are
simply rebranded: a car company associated with obsolete or clunky
designs revises its image into a newer, sleeker version of itself.
When a political party begins to fail competitively, as the G.O.P. is
clearly doing now, it, too, simply rebrands itself. Recall that in
2008, the G.O.P. was assumed by pundits to be dead for a generation
because of the profound, historic unpopularity of George W. Bush and
Dick Cheney. But the G.O.P. simply re-invented itself with a new brand
identity (the Tea Party) and swamped the Democrats a mere two years
later. If the G.O.P. is weighed down by obsolete or unpopular
associations — anti-immigrant or anti-gay animosity — it will simply
jettison those planks or change their image, just as Democrats did
under Bill "New Democrat" Clinton to escape the stigma of Jimmy
Carter, Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis.
Similarly, the assumption that President Obama's Wall-Street-friendly,
status-quo-perpetuating first three years in office would cause him to
lose base enthusiasm is likely to be negated by his aggressive
rebranding under way this election year: he runs around the country
giving uplifting, energized speeches depicting himself as some sort of
populist hero of the 99 percent, and presto: the magic returns.
Branding is very potent.
Partisans are naturally eager to believe that their party's victory in
one or two elections signals the national acceptance of their views.
But American elections aren't determined by such high-minded
considerations. They're little more than vacuous reality shows where
today's losers, with some slight image retweaking, become tomorrow's
winners — and vice versa. Anyone who doubts that should simply review
the manic swings in party fortunes over the last two decades.
More:
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/03/04/is-the-republican-party-almost-over/a-democratic-majority-maybe-but-not-a-permanent-one
--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy
--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment