The Republican Party has been on the (very) short end of the 2006 and 2008 elections. However, I think it is far too early and would be far too presumptous to claim that two elections have sounded the death knell for a party so entrenched and institutionalized in the American system. I think it is perhaps fair to say that the 2006 and 2008 elections may force the Republican Party into a realignment of its electoral platforms, issues, and especially campaign strategies. The 2008 election was set up well for Democrats - the presidential incumbent was horrifically unpopular and in the middle of economic meltdown, the Democrats put forward a magnetic candidate whose nomination (much less his election) would be historic in itself, and additionally the campaign was organized, structured, and disciplined in new ways that gave them an extended advantage (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/11/america/dean.php). As Nagourney notes in this article, there were many things at play, including the long and highly competitive nomination process for the Democrats. On top of that there is the simple and unusual math that put so many Republican and so few Democratic Senators up for re-election this year. Some year soon, that math will be reversed, and the partisan split in the Senate will again regress back towards the norm of a 50/50 split.
I think that in order for one to point to a collapse of the Republican Party, there has to be more than one or two election seasons of disappointment and lost seats. No one knows what will happen during Obama's first term as President. If the Democrats again gains seats in the midterm elections, and Obama wins re-election in a Reagan/Mondale-type landslide while the Democrats push towards 350 House and 70 Senate seats, then perhaps the collapse of the Republican Party is at hand. As it is I think it is more likely just part of natural political cycles, although admittedly the cycles do appear to be becoming more frequent - in my lifetime alone I can reference the 1994 Republican Revolution along with the 2002, 2006, and 2008 elections as those that have seen phenomenal, policy-changing partisan shifts take place.
In comparison with Aldrich's take on the development of party systems, I also do not see a correlation to make to substantiate a claim that the Republican Party faces collapse at our present time. Aldrich noted the near elimination of the Federalist Party from the national legislature after 1812 (p 98) and the rapid splintering of the Whig Party in the early 1850s (p 135) as the Republican Party rose to prominence. Neither of these scenarios fits the present case...but it may soon. As I said earlier, I do think the Republicans do have some choices to make about their direction and organization - they cannot wait around for Obama or the Democrat-controlled Congress to screw up and hope it buys them a big showing in the midterms or in 2012. Whether or not the new political map the Democrats are trying to create is something that they can perpetuate over time remains to be seen, but if the Republicans will certainly lose if they don't even show up for the fight.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
You are correct in saying that it has to take more than 2 election secessions to collapse the GOP. The GOP didn't fail completely to the levels that Aldrich stated the Whigs did and so there is no reason for alarm. These elections on the other hand, as you pointed out, have made the GOP re-evaluate their political agenda.
Post a Comment