Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH  

Opinion   

share
email
print
font size
options
 
READER FEEDBACK
Post a comment


So much for the revolution

Last week's election showed that the great Democratic ascent of 2008 was hogwash.

By Charles Krauthammer

Sure, Election Day 2009 will scare moderate Democrats and make passage of Obamacare more difficult. Sure, it makes it easier for resurgent Republicans to raise money and recruit candidates for 2010. But the most important effect of Tuesday's elections is historical. It demolishes the great realignment myth of 2008.

In the aftermath of last year's Obama sweep, we heard endlessly about its fundamental, revolutionary, transformational nature. How it was ushering in an FDR-like realignment for the 21st century, in which new demographics - most prominently, minorities and the young - would bury the GOP far into the future. One book proclaimed The Death of Conservatism, while the more modest merely predicted the terminal decline of Republicans into a regional party of the Deep South or a rump party of marginalized angry white men.

This was all ridiculous from the beginning. 2008 was a historical anomaly. A uniquely charismatic candidate was running at a time of deep war weariness, with an intensely unpopular Republican president in office, against a politically incompetent opponent, amid the greatest financial collapse since the Great Depression. And still he won by only 7 points.

A year later comes the empirical validation of that skepticism. Virginia - presumed harbinger of the new realignment, having gone Democratic in '08 for the first time in 44 years - went red again. With a vengeance. Barack Obama had carried it by 6 points. The Republican gubernatorial candidate won by 17 - a 23-point swing. New Jersey went from plus 15 Democratic in 2008 to minus 4 in 2009 - a 19-point swing.

What happened? The vaunted Obama realignment vanished. In 2009 in Virginia, the black vote was down by 20 percent; the under-30 vote by 50 percent. And as for independents, the ultimate prize of any realignment, they bolted. In both Virginia and New Jersey, they'd gone narrowly for Obama in '08. This year, they went Republican by a staggering 33 points in Virginia and by an equally shocking 30 points in New Jersey.

White House apologists will say the Virginia Democrat was weak. But if the difference between Bob McDonnell and Creigh Deeds was so great, how come when the same two men ran against each other for attorney general four years ago, the race was a virtual dead heat? Which made the '09 McDonnell-Deeds rematch the closest you get in politics to a laboratory experiment for measuring the change in external conditions. Run them against each other again when it's Obamaism in action and see what happens. What happened was a Republican landslide.

The Obama coattails of 2008 are gone. The expansion of the electorate, the excitement of the young, came in uniquely propitious Democratic circumstances and amid unparalleled enthusiasm for electing the first African American president.

November '08 was one shot, one time, never to be replicated. Nor was November '09 a realignment. It was a return to the norm - and definitive confirmation that 2008 was one of the great flukes in American political history.

The irony of 2009 is that the anti-Democratic tide overshot the norm - deeply blue New Jersey, for example, elected a Republican governor for the first time in 12 years - because Democrats so thoroughly misread 2008 and the mandate they assumed it bestowed. Obama saw himself as anointed by a watershed victory to remake American life. Not letting the cup pass from his lips, he declared to Congress only five weeks after his swearing-in his "New Foundation" for America - from remaking the one-sixth of the American economy that is health care to massive government regulation of the economic lifeblood that is energy.

Moreover, the same conventional wisdom that proclaimed the dawning of a new age last November dismissed the inevitable popular reaction to Obama's hubristic expansion of government, taxation, spending, and debt - the tea-party demonstrators, the town-hall protesters - as a raging rabble of resentful reactionaries, AstroTurf-phony and Fox News-deranged.

Some rump. Just last month, Gallup found that conservatives outnumber liberals 2-to-1 (40 percent to 20 percent) and even outnumber moderates (at 36 percent). So on Tuesday, the "rump" rebelled. It's the natural reaction of a center-right country to a governing party seeking to rush through a left-wing agenda using temporary majorities created by the one-shot election of 2008. The misreading of that election - and of the mandate it allegedly bestowed - is the fundamental cause of the Democratic debacle of 2009.


Charles Krauthammer is a Washington Post columnist.

He can be reached at letters@charleskrauthammer.com.

Comments   
Posted 06:23 AM, 11/09/2009
rich2506
The Obama re-alignment is alive and well, thank you very much. There were four elections last Tuesday, two for Congress and two for Governorships. Right-wingers have focused very, very heavily on the Governor races because they favored Republicans, but the NY-23 and CA-10 races were nationalized by right-wingers, very explicitly so in the case of NY-23. Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck were DEFEATED in a high-profile contest, which is why the right wing is so eager to sweep that contest under the rug.
Posted 06:58 AM, 11/09/2009
drklassen
And in NJ, the vote was FAR from nationalized. It was based on various promises made and not kept on the reduction of property taxes, and taxes in general. Of course, the electorate, through their reps in the state house, failed themselves by refusing to consolidate the overnumerous municipalities and school districts, so how do the expect to lower taxes?!
Posted 07:04 AM, 11/09/2009
EchoesoftheEnlightenment
Exactly, rich2506. I wonder why Charles didn't mention the NY-23 race? Week in and week out, Charles continually forgets to mention significant facts that undermine his arguments.
Posted 07:20 AM, 11/09/2009
Cat
Used to be once in a while Charles would take facts into account in his commentaries. Now, he is a bitter and paranoid with blinders on.
Posted 08:46 AM, 11/09/2009
gxel
You lefties are holding onto NY-23 as if it were a national referendum. Two state-wide races, VA. and NJ. went red. The Blue state of NJ going red, was a big deal. If you want to look under the bed, as you are doing with NY-23, go to Pa. where 14 minor elections went from blue to red. Guys, the people who elected Obama, did not think they would get the Obama they now have. See what happens in 2010.
Posted 08:56 AM, 11/09/2009
longshanks
Neocons can't be bothered with facts....they prefer lies, innuendos, and gossip.
Posted 09:10 AM, 11/09/2009
dsdjj
Prattle on liberals. Who gives a hoot about some obscure Congressional seat in Lower Slobovia. Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck weren't running or didn't you notice? You had your day. Ours is coming. A Red tsunami is forming.
Posted 09:40 AM, 11/09/2009
DarkKnight76
Actually dsdjj, you had your day. his name was George W. Bush, and that tsunami has already done the damage it is going to do. Red tsunami, what are you a communist?
Posted 09:58 AM, 11/09/2009
dsdjj
DarkKnigt76: Sharp as a tack. Red State Blue State. Ever heard of that. 76 is that your IQ?
Posted 11:15 AM, 11/09/2009
DarkKnight76
Ohhh that's what you meant. Jeez I had no idea. Sucks when people take what you say and distort it doesn't it?
Posted 01:13 PM, 11/09/2009
rgreen72
NY-23 was won because of low voter turnout, a poor conservative candidate(who if you watched wasnt very media savy), a RINO who endorsed the Dimocrat and most important the construction of the ballot. The conservative was listed four or fifth on the ballot which most in NY believe cost him 4-5 points(some say even more). All I have to say is this, keep doing what you are doing. I love it, the more you do the more independents come our way. they already went 2-1 against you in VA and NJ. Oh and look at independent in NY-23 they went for the conservative, but keep doing what you are doing.
Posted 01:42 PM, 11/09/2009
EchoesoftheEnlightenment
"NY-23 was won because of low voter turnout..." Corzine could say he lost because of low voter turnout, too--a lot of the people who came out in '08 to vote for Obama stayed at home last Tuesday. So let me get this straight: when your guy wins, it's a national referendum on the Democratic party. When your guy loses, it's all local issues, even though national right-wingers threw their support behind your guy. Is that it? Do you even know what logic is?
Posted 03:47 PM, 11/09/2009
rojopa
How does cap and trade increase our way of life in the USA? Who is going to pay the cost of this healthcare bill, if it passes? Who will have to pay back all our debt? Are you happy that we are trillions of dollars in debt? A legacy that we will leave to our children and their children, and their children. This is how we want to be remembered?
Posted 05:00 PM, 11/09/2009
chrissmith
All signs point to huge Republican success in 2010. You can either acknowledge it or ignore it. Your choice.
Posted 05:38 PM, 11/09/2009
MdeanL
Remember Charles you in no way are a traditional coservative. Conservatism is dead and it was killed by neo-cons like you who only care about overly idealistic foreign policy based on zero concept of reality. (see current state of middle east after 2 neo-con wars)
  • Top Jobs
  • Top Homes
  • Top Cars
 
SEARCH JOBS
Rittenhouse Square


$799,000
224-30 W RITTENHOUSE SQ #2815-6
Old City/Society Hill


$469,000
7 N COLUMBUS BLVD #116
SEARCH CARS

Buy Inquirer, Daily News & Philly merchandise here including:

 
Books
 
Movies
 
Page Reprints
 
Photo Licensing
 
Photos