2008 was no realignment

Adding considerable luster to the achievement of the Founding Fathers in building success and stability in the infant Republic is the fact that five of our first seven Presidents not only won and served out two terms but also departed office popular enough to insure the election of approved successors. What was achieved by five of the first seven has eluded all but four of the eighteen men elected President since 1900. Only Theodore Roosevelt (1908), Calvin Coolidge (1928), Franklin Roosevelt (1948-posthumously), and Ronald Reagan (1988) left office with sufficient popularity to effect the election of their chosen successors.

Any hope George W. Bush had of being the fifth President since 1900 to see his party win the White House three consecutive times was decisively crushed last November 4th. Instead he becomes the sixth president since 1900 to see his party driven from the White House, losers in two consecutive Congressional election cycles, and himself under a cloud of immense unpopularity. Thus W. joins Hoover, Truman, Johnson, Nixon and Carter.

Of the initial five history has largely restored the reputation of Truman; LBJ and Nixon have made only slight recovery; and Hoover and Carter are generally viewed as beyond redemption. Some time must pass before History instructs us how to think about George W. Bush.

Beyond the great distinction of becoming our nation’s first African -American President, Barrack Obama also joins FDR and LBJ as the only Democrats since 1900 to win the Presidency in a landslide.

In what Yogi Berra called “déjà vu all over again” the punditocracy is now proclaiming fundamental political realignment and the descent of the GOP, into permanent minority status.

In 1964 when LBJ crushed Goldwater many pundits opined that the Republican Party might like the Whigs disappear altogether. Four years later the GOP was in the White House and Democrats in chaos.

In 1972 when Nixon won forty-nine states and McGovern just one, everybody was reading Kevin Phillips's The Emerging Republican Majority and saying that just as the Civil War had destroyed the Democratic Party in the 19th century, the Viet Nam War had destroyed it in the 20th. Four years later the Dems were back in the White House and the Republicans were in chaos.

In 1988 following three consecutive landslide Presidential defeats many Democrats thought their party had to be reinvented by jettisoning liberalism. Four years after the Democrats were back in the White House and liberalism was very much alive and well.

Finally in 2004 after consecutive Presidential victories and a remarkable three straight victories in Congressional election cycles Republicans were hailing Karl Rove as the Architect of a permanent GOP majority. Four years later -well, we all know what happened in 2006 and 2008.

So, what does all this tell us about American politics?

First, and foremost things can change mighty fast. It is extremely unwise to read too much into even the most stunning partisan triumphs. The American people will punish most severely even those men and parties they have extravagantly affirmed just a few years before.

Second, electoral landslides happen frequently; genuine political realignments occur very, very rarely.

Fully half (13 of 27) of the Presidential elections since 1900 have resulted in landslides.

Yet only twice in our entire history have we seen full-blown political realignment and it required the massive trauma of the Civil War and the Great Depression to trigger those.

Finally the margin between victory and defeat even in a landslide (usually defined as six or more percentage points) is very narrow. If even one voter in twenty voted the “other way” Obama’s landslide becomes a decisive victory for McCain.

Two thirds of the electorate is pretty fixed in their partisan attachment. It is the loosely bonded or independent third in the middle that decides all elections. If just one in seven of those voters switch sides from one election tot the next- pretty likely if the country is experiencing an unpopular war, a sagging economy or both- the entire electoral configuration can be transformed, hence the old adage that “All of American politics is played between the forty yard lines”.

The moral of the story ? It’s a little early to place your bets for 2012 or even 2010.

William Moloney’s columns have appeared in The Wall St. Journal, USA Today, Washington Post, Washington Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, Baltimore Sun, Denver Post, and Rocky Mountain News.

September surprise rotten luck for GOP

Ever since Lyndon Johnson’s dramatic announcement of a Vietnam “bombing pause” two weeks before the 1968 election, the phrase “October Surprise” has been a staple of our political vocabulary. Other examples of last-minute political hand grenades that influenced close elections include Lawrence Walsh’s indictment of Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger in 1992, and the leaking of George W. Bush’s youthful DUI in 2000. Most October surprises are entirely “man-made”, but a few have been wholly unanticipated external events that by their nature spelled bad news for one Presidential candidate and conversely good news for his opponent e.g. The Iranian Hostage Crisis that more than anything else doomed Ted Kennedy’s challenge to Jimmy Carter in 1980.

If anyone ever compiles a history of these phenomena the Great Financial Meltdown of 2008 will surely be cited as the “Mother of All October (or September) Surprises”. In just a matter of days this event unleashed a political tsunami that transformed John McCain’s slight lead in the polls into a double digit deficit. It blew McCain’s very best issue-“Who do you Trust to be Commander-in-Chief”- right off the table and replaced it with the tailor-made for Obama issue of “Who Do you Trust to Fix this Economic Catastrophe”.

There is a segment of the American electorate who short of a 9/11 or Pearl Harbor find foreign and military policy either too complex or too remote to think much about.

Another segment similarly disdains issues of character or values because they believe that tolerance is the only virtue that counts.

There is however one issue-Money- that gets big time attention from every segment of the electorate. Things like personal financial security, comfortable retirement, 401Ks, money market funds, stocks and bonds, and losing your house and/or your job are absolutely riveting issues for almost every American and they will drive far more votes than who’s doing what in the mountains of Pakistan, whether Sunnis and Shias are hugging in Iraq, who’s running Abkhazia and South Ossetia, or almost anything else you can name.

All Americans know that something really, really bad is happening to their country. Not surprisingly they want to know who to blame for this mess. Unfortunately for Republicans the Flying Fickle Finger of Fate is pointing much more at them than Democrats.

McCain and Obama are competing to see who can more vigorously denounce greed and corruption on Wall Street. Well, who are these sneaky, selfish, conniving fat cats? Why, they’re almost all Republicans, right?

Both candidates also agree that much blame belongs in Washington. Well, who’s in charge down there? Why, it’s that Republican President, that Bush! He screwed up in Iraq, and now he’s wrecked our economy! It must be true. It’s in all the papers. Hey, Katie Couric wouldn’t lie to us!

So, Harry says to Louise “I wasn’t sure about that Obama guy, but we really need to change things. This scary stuff has got to stop”.

It’s too much to expect Harry and Louise to figure out the role of Chris Dodd or Barney Frank in all of this and the mainstream media certainly isn’t going to tell them. They probably remember the catchy names “Fannie and Freddie” but they wouldn’t know what they’re all about. Few can recite the legislative and other pressures from Democrats over many years to grant mortgages to people who couldn’t afford them.

Any time a poor and/or minority person couldn’t get a mortgage, hypocritical Democrats howled that the only reason was the racism of coldhearted greedy Republican bankers. The media echo chamber amplified this monstrous slander, and intimidated Republicans ran for cover rather than standing up and calling the question on this runaway fiscal disaster in the making that more than any one thing is at the root of the current financial calamity.

The game changing “Panic of ‘08” could have happened in ’07 or ’09, but it didn’t.

The old Yankees pitcher Lefty Gomez famously said “I’d rather be lucky than good”. John McCain- embodying the best values and traditions of our history- is a good man. Barack Obama-shallow in experience, suspect in associations, dissembling in both promises and explanations- is a lucky man.

Only when the effects of the October Economic Revolution and the concomitant November election ripple through the months and years ahead will we know whether America the Good can be America the Lucky as well. ------------------------------- William Moloney’s columns have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Washington Post, Washington Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, Baltimore Sun, Denver Post and Rocky Mountain News

Words worthless to halt aggression

(London, Oct. 6) The mistaken belief that clever diplomacy was a substitute for force of arms led to Athens’ defeat by Sparta, according to the ancient Greek historian Thucydides. Two thousand years later the French statesman Cardinal Richelieu- himself a master diplomatist- observed that diplomacy was useful only when it was the “velvet glove adorning the mailed fist.” Finally we recall the 19th century German Chancellor Bismark who famously stated that “ the great questions of the day are decided not by speeches in the Diet but on the battlefield by Blood and Iron.”

These ideas may sound harsh to some contemporary ears but they remain highly applicable in our very imperfect modern world, as the Russian invasion of Georgia reminds us yet again.

Russia’s aggression has rudely shattered illusions and highlighted unpleasant truths worldwide.

Prominently revealed in the wreckage is the terminal disunity of the European Union. While French President Nicholas Sarkozy flew to Moscow to appease Vladimir Putin- reminding many of Neville Chamberlain’s infamous flight to Munich to appease Adolf Hitler- the Presidents of Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Ukraine flew to Tbilsi to support the embattled President of Georgia.

Besides revealing the stark divide between “Old” and “New” Europe this sad scenario puts a final end to EU dreams of being a coherent diplomatic and military power on a par with Russia, China, and the United States.

Thoughtful commentary across Europe is now realizing the EU is trapped between its ongoing hostility to its nominal American ally and its newly revived fear of Russia’s imperial ambitions. Equally clear is the fact that answers to these challenges are different in virtually every member state and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

The major lesson here is that diplomacy and the attendant speeches in the U.N., European Parliament and U.S. Congress are utterly useless absent a credible determination to impose serious consequences on aggressors.

Just as Hitler correctly perceived the flabbiness of the Western democracies at the time of Munich, so too did Putin calculate that he would face no serious consequences for his invasion of Georgia. Also like Hitler, no one should believe that he sees Georgia as Russia’s final territorial acquisition.

The hard lessons that Europe is relearning have considerable implications elsewhere in the world and are highly relevant to the choice Americans will make in the upcoming Presidential election.

Within the coming year the United States will face important decisions regarding the next chapter in Iraq and Afghanistan. Similarly the nuclear confrontation with Iran may reach critical mass.

As their first debate illustrated, Senators McCain and Obama have starkly differing worldviews and approaches to the projection of American power around the globe.

While Obama ritually insists that “all options are on the table” and casually repeats a willingness to send U.S. troops across the Pakistan border, absolutely everything we know about him and the Democratic Party he now leads strongly suggests that the preferred options favor talk over action. These include deference to the U.N., the World Court, the E.U., and “world opinion” generally. He worries that the U.S, is not “liked” and believes this should be corrected by a multilateral approach to just about everything.

When asked how he would handle Russia, Iran or other tyrannies Obama’s usual response is “tough, direct diplomacy." As Hillary Clinton pointed out he has a “naïve belief in the efficacy of sitting down face to face with dictators."

What exactly would he say to them? Does he really believe that his breathtaking eloquence would persuade Putin to leave Georgia, Ahmadinejad not to exterminate Israel, or Kim Il-Jong to cease his nuclear program? Would he be willing to actually threaten them with consequences, even if he lacked the full backing of the U.N., E.U. etc.?

McCain is much more like Truman or Reagan: Utilize diplomacy when helpful, but always be willing to take forceful action when needed. Seek allies whenever possible, but be prepared to go it alone when vital American interests are at stake. McCain’s motto as he noted in the debate is that of his hero Theodore Roosevelt who said “Speak softly and carry a big stick."

The worldview, policy inclinations, and attitude toward their country of these two men is as divergent as their life experiences. Not within living memory has a Presidential election presented Americans with a clearer choice. ---------------- William Moloney’s columns have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Washington Post, Washington Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, Baltimore Sun, Denver Post, and Rocky Mountain News.