|
|
|
April 19, 2008
The Truman Strategy
Commenter Rhodium Heart has made a really good point in a comment to Eric's piece How far off base can the "base" get? I think it is very on point and also is a good answer to my piece Who Will Stand With Us? I'm going to quote it in full because it is a luscious piece of analysis. As an intro: Rhodium is referring to the fracturing of the Republican Party and especially the social conservative wing who might very well go for Alan Keyes if he runs on the Constitution Party ticket. The anti-war Republicans would be going for Bob Barr who will likely be running on the Libertarian ticket. == Alan Keyes' candidacy would be a gift from God. Harry Truman was supposed to get trounced in '48 because of the division of the Democratic Party. Republicans were united behind Dewey, but the Dems were split left and right. Strom Thurmond and the Dixiecrats on the one side; Henry Wallace to the left. And Truman won. Part of the explanation is that Wallace's left-wing candidacy assured centrists that Truman would not be overly soft on communism. The media will love to cover the well-spoken, dynamic (and ultimately loony) Mr. Keyes. And that will serve to assure swing voters, moderates, suburbanites, soocer moms, and the vestigial Rockefeller Republicans of the Northeast that John McCain is not too far right. How could he be when the hard right is so angrily against him! Keyes will help McCain win this election, despite his best efforts. == Thank you Rhodium. I do believe you are correct. In fact McCain has been hinting quietly at a new coalition. I do believe he means it. Here is a look at the 1948 Electoral Map Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon on 04.19.08 at 08:28 AM |
|
April 2008
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
April 2008
March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSALLAMERICANGOP See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• The Songs Of Distant Earth Days
• Unusual morning irregularity • We All Pledge To The Same Flag • "Hillary's terrorist ties" • The Heat In The Kitchen • Mr. Warman Claims Bad Reputation • Bitter blowback beats Bosnian backlash? (But which elitist underdog wins?) • A Novel Critique Of Life Prolongation • You shut down my supply and I keel you! • To hell with sides!
Links
Site Credits
|
|
You're welcome.
1948 was an interesting year in American politics. While it's too early to know for sure if 2008 will be a direct parallel, there are many signals that it will be the case.
1948 was not a transformative year in American politics. It was a year that the public, exhausted from war, nervous from an economic recession, was supposed to reject the long-ruling FDR coalition and go, automatically, to an isolationist Republican party led by a dapper, urbane, young up-n-comer. All foreshadowed by the fact that the President's party took a drubbing in the '46 midterms and the other party took control of Congress! Yet the public did not behave as the science and the pundits knew they would.
2008 is supposed to be the year that the voters finally toss out the long-running Ronald Reagan coalition (and, really, especially after the '94 midterms, the Clinton Presidency really was a Reagan continuation substantively). The voters are restless. They are exhausted from war. The incumbent party is accused of mishandling the economy. The incumbent party is divided. The voters are poised to reject the Wilsonian internationalists (now, bizarrely, played by the Republicans) and replace them with isolationists.
And, to make the case for the Dems more compelling, they are about to nominate a dapper, urbane gentleman who fits the Hollywood archetype known as the "Magic Negro" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Negro).
Yet we know that one turned out for the challengers.