Here's the revised and expanded pre-election print column. The director's cut:
But I wouldn't bet good money on that.
Granted, a decent argument can be made that we're on the brink of a transformative election - a rarity in our political history, akin to 1860 (when the Republicans took over and won 13 of the next 17 presidential campaigns) or 1932 (when the Democrats took over and won six of the next eight) or 1968 (when the Republicans took over, and won six of the next nine). The anticipated flood of new voters in 2009 could help reshape the electorate; young voters, in particular, came of age during , Katrina and Bush, and those formative experiences conceivably could bond them to the Democrats for the long haul.
Moreover, voters seem more willing to see themselves as Democrats. In the latest nonpartisan
Those who foresee a Democratic realignment also contend that the nation is moving slightly leftward. The polls report that only a small minority of Americans support retention of all the Bush tax cuts. There seems to be little appetite for Social Security privatization; even when President Bush was at the peak of his popularity, he couldn't sell it. And most Americans have long judged the war in to be a disastrous mistake.
Meanwhile, the new Pew poll reports that 57 percent of Americans support government guarantees of health insurance for all, "even if it means raising taxes." Indeed, by a one-point margin, Americans now favor "bigger government, more services" over "smaller government, fewer services" - in stark contrast to January 2001, at the dawn of the Bush era, when Americans favored the "smaller government" option by a 15-point margin.
The Democratic-dominance argument ultimately hinges on Obama's scoring a solid, broad-based victory in the nationwide popular vote. Historically, the bar for Democrats is not very high; if he merely surpasses 50.1 percent, he would be the first non-incumbent Democrat to do so since Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932. And, geographically, he needs to break new ground by expanding the Democratic map - which he appears well-positioned to do, given his current prospects for winning traditional red states such as And yet, I still don't buy the Democratic-dominance scenario...in part because some of the savviest Democratic thinks and strategists don't buy it, either.
Stan Greenberg, a prominent Democratic pollster, suggested the other day that voters are interested in Obama "because of his steadiness," and not because of his agenda. That sounds about right.
Swing voters - the folks in the middle of the electorate - checked out Obama during the three presidential debates, and judged him to be of keen intellect and good temperament, at a crisis moment when both traits are required. In terms of intellect, Obama is widely viewed as the antithesis of Bush; in terms of temperament, he is widely viewed as the antithesis of John McCain.
But just because Americans want something different, that doesn't mean the nation is trending leftward; indeed, as top Obama strategist David Axelrod remarked in Newsweek the other day, "I think right now people are in a pragmatic mood, not an ideological mood." In other words, Obama is well-positioned to win not because of his liberal profile, but in spite of it.
The latest ABC News-Washington Post survey reports that only 22 percent of likely voters define themselves as “liberals,” while 37 percent consider themselves “conservative” and 38 percent call themselves “moderate.” Other polls have reported virtually the same spread. Some liberal analysts have tried to dismiss those results out of hand, by insisting that many Americans don’t understand the labels. That's weak. The bottom line is that (starting in 1968) Democrats have won only three of the last 10 presidential elections, and the winners (Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton) were moderate Southerners who successfully convinced swing voters that they were not too liberal; as presidents, they frequently warred with the liberals. Indeed, This year, Obama - mindful that contemporary America is slightly right of center - has been talking up tax cuts, invoking God and traditional values, and voicing his determination to kill terrorists. Meanwhile, he sidesteps the traditional liberal issues. He tries not to utter the phrases gun control or gay marriage. He defends abortion rights when asked to do so, but stresses his desire to reduce the number of abortions. He defends capital punishment. And he steers clear of the liberal camp's concerns about post-9/11 government surveillance.
Obama's caution suggests that he is attuned to the dangers of overreaching, that he and Axelrod are keen not to mistake a solid win for a sweeping ideological agenda. Barring an unforeseeable landslide (60 percent of the popular vote, more than 400 electoral votes), victory would present Obama with an opportunity, not a mandate. Swing voters would be entrusting him to govern competently, using good ideas from both sides of the aisle. No longer would he be judged favorably in contrast to McCain or Bush; that's the easy part. Within a year or two, Obama (and the Democratic Congress) would be judged solely on the size of the gap between promise and performance.
Some liberal commentators, citing demographic trends, have long been predicting a major party realignment that would benefit the Democrats. For instance, Ruy Teixeira and John Judis contended 17 months ago that a new Democratic president, working with a Democratic Congress in 2009, would have the opportunity to lock in Democratic dominance for years to come, by enacting “popular landmark legislation. The passage of Social Security legislation (in 1935) helped keep New Deal Democrats in power for decades. The creation of an effective national health insurance program (in 2009), despite Republican opposition, might do the same for today’s Democrats.” But they cautioned that such an achievement would not be easy, since even Democrats would “have difficulty agreeing among themselves on new, large government programs that may require higher taxes.”
All told, it’s likely that an Obama presidency would have little margin for error; as recent history demonstrates, the sin of hubris is swiftly punished in our contemporary political culture. It was a mere four years ago when Bush's top political guru was suggesting that an extended era of GOP dominance was at hand; in his words, "we may be seeing part of a rolling realignment." Well, the nation's pragmatic voters have apparently nixed his dream. And the Obama team, if entrusted with the presidency, would be wise not to replicate the bravado of Karl Rove.
