Top Headline Comments 12-2-13

Happy Monday.

WaPo's Goldfarb notes the emergence of a more populist strain among Democrats, particularly Sen. Liz Warren, and ties it to Election 2016. Of course, Goldfarb misstates what chained CPI would do in the first sentence (it reduces the growth rate of Social Security payments, not anyone's individual payments), but the gist is worth a read. A populist-flavored example from the right would be Sen. Lee and his proposed bump in the child tax credit.

Coehlo Speaks has some long and interesting posts (one and two) about the future of the GOP and whether a "transformative realignment" is coming. This is an area ripe for speculation (certainly, we see enough comparisons of the GOP to the Whig Party these days) and I encourage you to read it, but not because I think it's necessarily correct.

As I have argued a couple times on the podcast, things in existence have a tendency to stay in existence, and that goes for both the political parties and their significantly less-than-dependable voters. The story of political transformation is evolutionary, not revolutionary, as even Coehlo admits. The attempt to tie our current situation to three prior unusual revolutions in U.S. politics relies on extraordinary circumstances that don't exist here -- an actual revolution (aka the Civil War), the Great Depression and subsequent Second War, and the Vietnam War.

Or let me put it this way. Those who thought 2004 ushered in a decades-long era of Republican primacy were foolish. Those who thought 2008 would usher in a decades-long era of Democratic governance were foolish. And those who think 2016 can provide a decades-long era of Republican dominance are also foolish.

Our present circumstances don't even meet Coehlo's own terms for realignment. From his second post:

There are three essential factors that precipitated the dawning of new political eras of the past. The first is rather obvious: an unpopular incumbent President from the party that has been dominant in an era. Second, a transcendent event or confluence of events must take place that serve to undermine the governing philosophy of the party in power. The third and final factor is an oft overlooked one. There must be a burgeoning new base already developing for the party to expand into, a region in a state of political flux that the other two factors push into the opposite camp. Each factor has been present in the 3 realignments outlined Friday, and they can be seen in today's political climate as well.

We certainly have an unpopular incumbent President, but not from a party that has been dominant in an era. There has been no dominant party for decades. Instead, we've seen an ebb and flow as fickle voters merely turn against the last group they've voted for. Modern elections are poo-flinging contests and it's easier for voters to simply vote for the guy wearing the least amount of poo at the end of the fight--and usually, that's members of the incumbent party.

Moreover, while Obamacare certainly undermines the entire liberal progressive project, there's no indication that Coehlo's third condition is met. Voters dissatisfied with Obama and the Democrats are more likely to vote for Republicans next time, sure. And they're also likely to change their vote at the following election if they become dissatisfied with Republican incumbents. These persuadable voters aren't ideological. They're not going to settle on one party and then stick for decades.

That's the lesson that populism advocates, like, say Warren and Lee, need to learn. You don't buy an electorate forever with a one-time-only give-away. You have to keep giving to keep getting them. And, to borrow an idea from Lady Thostaer, eventually you run out of other people's money to give away.

posted by Gabriel Malor at 06:53 AM

| Access Comments