| |
November 4, 2008 —
A New World Order
WASHINGTON DC (By
John F. Harris and Jim VandeHei,
Politico)
November 5, 2008
—
The term
"new world order" refers to a new period
of history evidencing a dramatic change
in world political thought and the
balance of power.
November 4, 2008, is such a day when
American politics shifted on its axis.
The ascent of an African-American to the
presidency — a victory by a 47-year-old
man who was born when segregation was
still the law of the land across much of
this nation — is a moment so powerful
and so obvious its symbolism needs no
commentary.
But it was the reality of power, not the
symbolism, that changed last night in
ways more profound than meet the eye.
The rout of the Republican Party, and
the accompanying gains by Democrats in
Congress, mean Barack Obama will assume
office with vastly more influence in the
nation’s capital than most of his recent
predecessors have wielded.
The only exceptions suggest the
magnitude of the moment. Power flowed in
unprecedented ways to George W. Bush in
the year after the Sept. 11, 2001,
attacks. It flowed likewise to Lyndon B.
Johnson after his landslide in 1964.
Beyond those fleeting moments, every
president for more than two generations
has confronted divided government or
hobbling internal divisions within his
own party.
The Democrats’ moment with Obama, as a
brilliant campaigner confronts the
challenges of governance, could also
prove fleeting. For now, the results —
in their breadth across a continent —
suggest seismic change that goes far
beyond Obama's four-percent margin in
the popular vote.
The evening recalled what activist
Eldridge Cleaver observed of the instant
when Rosa Parks refused to move to the
back of the bus and a movement followed:
“Somewhere in the universe a gear in the
machinery shifted.”
Here are five big things about the
machinery of national politics and
Washington that will be different once
Obama takes office on January 20, 2009:
The crash of the conservative
wave
For most of the past 30 years, since the
dawn of the Reagan Era, conservatives
have held the momentum in American
politics. Even the Clinton years were
shaped — and constrained — by
conservative ideas (work requirements
for welfare, the Defense of Marriage
Act) and conservative rhetoric (“the era
of Big Government is over”). Republicans
rode this wave to win the presidency
five of seven times since 1980 and to
dominate Congress for a dozen years
after 1994.
Now the wave has crashed breaking the
back of the modern Republican Party in
the process.
Obama’s victory and the second straight
election to award big gains to
congressional Democrats showed the 2006
election was not, as Karl Rove and
others argued at the time, a flukish
result that reflected isolated scandals
in the headlines at the time.
Republicans lost their reform mantle.
Voters who wanted change voted for Obama
by an 89 percent to 9 percent margin.
They lost their decisive edge on
national security. They even lost the
battle over taxes.
Republicans lost support in every area
of the country. Virginia went
Democratic, and North Carolina at
midnight hung in the balance.
Republicans still hold a significant, if
smaller, chunk of the South and a
smattering of western states. The cities
were lost long ago. The suburbs fell
last night — and even the exurbs are
shaky.
Republicans lost one of their most
effective political tactics. Portraying
Al Gore or John F. Kerry as exotic and
untrustworthy characters with culturally
elitist values proved brutally effective
for the GOP in 2000 and 2004, as it had
in numerous other races for years. In
2008, such tactics barely dented Obama —
who because of his race and background
looked at first like a more vulnerable
target — and they backfired against such
candidates as Sen. Elizabeth Dole in
North Carolina, who was routed badly
after trying to paint Democrat Kay Hagan
as an atheist.
The movement that brought so many
conservatives to great power over the
past 20 years — Gingrich, DeLay, Bush,
Cheney, McCain and Rove — is left with
without a clear leader, without a clear
agenda and without clear route back.
The crash of the conservative wave does
not necessarily mean the rise of a
liberal one. By stressing middle-class
tax cuts and the rights of gun owners
Obama showed he is sensitive to hot
buttons. But he will take power with the
opposition party diminished, demoralized
and divided by a draining internal
argument about the future.
A Democratic headlock
Many people find Obama’s post-partisan
rhetoric soothing. But it’s doubtful
these sentiments, even if sincere,
reflect the reality of the new
Washington.
This is a city that defines itself by
partisanship. Politicians and the
operatives they support play for the
shirts or the skins and believe one
side’s gain is the other’s loss.
In this
environment, Democrats have the capital
in a headlock, holding more power at
both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue than
they have had for at least 32 years
(Carter) and, more realistically, 44
years (Johnson). Obama seems ready to
press this advantage. The best early
clue of his ambitions: he wants
sharp-elbowed Democratic Rep. Rahm
Emanuel to run his White House.
Democrats are positioned to do more than
move legislation. They will flush
Republicans out of key positions in the
federal government and lobbying firms.
They will install their people in the
federal courts. They will be positioned
to raise money for those who usually
give to Republicans and easily recruit
the most desirable candidates in 2010,
as other Democrats look to join what
looks like a winning team.
Rainbow Rules
While Obama’s race hovered over this
campaign, what was most striking was it
was not the all-consuming subject it
would have been in the past. Exit polls
showed Obama pulling support from 43
percent of white voters, one percentage
point higher than Sen. John F. Kerry.
And look around elsewhere in American
politics. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s
gender was a novelty when she first took
the gavel, but now draws little notice.
Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) is a top
member of the House Democratic
leadership.
Meanwhile, the Republican Party’s
inability to offer more diversity in its
top ranks — Sarah Palin notwithstanding
— threatens to become a crippling
liability. Hispanics broke for Obama by
a margin of 67 percent to 31 percent.
The party inexplicably failed to field a
single minority candidate with a
plausible chance to win a House, Senate
and governorship. It will enter the next
Congress just like it did the past two:
without a single black member.
A party dominated by white males is
poorly positioned to prosper among an
increasingly diverse electorate.
Somehow, the GOP needs to find new ways
to appeal to minorities — or risk a long
life in the wilderness as a percentage
of the overall population continues to
shrink.
Geek Power
For a couple of generations, it was
conservatives who had the more effective
political infrastructure. They used
direct mail and talk radio to run
circles around liberals in raising money
and communicating their message around
the filter of the establishment media.
Some of that money flowed into think
tanks that helped nurture ideas and
operatives.
2008 was striking because the
technology/communications advantage was
decisively with the Democrats. Obama and
other Democrats used this to raise
vastly more money than McCain and to
mobilize legions of people who had not
previously been engaged with politics.
Liberal think tanks like the Center for
American Progress have served as a
Democratic government in waiting.
Important to remember: This Democratic
infrastructure advantage is not
disappearing. Obama, regarded as a
heroic figure among party activists, can
use it to help raise even more money,
and to mobilize support for his agenda.
This is a potent force that will inspire
fear, and give him clout, over
legislators of both parties.
Obama is the Google of politics: He has
technological expertise and an audience
his political competitors simply cannot
match. Looking ahead to 2010, House and
Senate Democrats will be jealously
eyeing Obama’s e-mail lists and
technology secrets — giving him even
greater leverage over them. Republicans
will be forced to invest serious money
and time to narrow the technology gap.
The 1960s are over — finally
For two generations, American politics
has been dominated by issues and
personalities that were shaped by the
ideological and cultural conflicts of
the Vietnam era.
The rest of the population may have been
bored stiff, but the Baby Boomers
continued their remorseless argument, as
evidenced by Bush and Kerry partisans
quarreling over Swift Boats and National
Guard service in 2004.
Obama had not yet reached adolescence in
the 1960s. He seems little interested in
the cultural conflicts that preoccupy
Baby Boomers. The fact that he admitted
to using cocaine was hardly a factor in
this election.
And this young president-elect exerted
powerful appeal over even younger
voters. They favored Obama by 34 points,
66 percent to 32 percent — a trend with
huge potential to echo for years to
come.
Guns, God and gays will not disappear
from our politics. But they are
diminished as electoral weapons as the
country confronts a new generation of
disputes: global warming, mortgage
meltdowns and the detention of terrorism
suspects, to name a few.
|
|
|
|
|
