Short little theory about recent electoral history that no one in the establishment is willing to entertain because it is just too scary. We have the trouncing of democratic governors and it’s announced as a fundamental shift in the electorate, away from the fundamental shift in the electorate back in 2008. I might posit the following: neither election represented any fundamental shifts, and ideologically, the nation is pretty much in the same place it was in 2004. What’s at issue is a deep misunderstanding of why Obama was elected in the first place. The bipolar (in all the senses of the word) world-view of the establishment only admits to a zero-sum game between Republicans and Democrats, a loss for one is a gain for the other side. This fails to take into account a creeping anti-establishment, anti-government, anti-statist feeling in the country. This has been growing since Bush #1, just look at the odd alliance of forces that rallied against NAFTA and the WTO in the 90’s. The reason the 2000 election was so close was because the electorate found no substantive difference between Bush #2 and Gore other than their party affiliation. Obama wasn’t elected on charisma, or policy, or the color of his skin. He was elected because he wasn’t the Washington establishment, and his polls are dropping because as a president he’s pretty much the same old story. IMO Republicans aren’t winning, Washington is losing.
censorship
Vandalizing the Marketplace of Ideas
Everyone who’s been paying attention and has mere than a passing affection for freedom of speech knows that Internet culture is getting out of hand. Especially at times, it seems, in the little corner of Read more…
4 Comments
Geoffrey A. Landis · November 4, 2009 at 5:32 pm
“Fundamental shift” does seem like a poor phrase. A single-vote plurality-wins balloting system is calculated to produce two parties, and the winner-take-all method means you get sharp transitions.
S Andrew Swann · November 5, 2009 at 8:35 am
Of course you only get a sharp distinction when there’s a sharp distinction between the candidates. Unfortunately, the only real distinction between the parties is rhetoric, which is why there’s been no real change in the trajectory of the country since W’s dad was in the white house.
michelle · November 5, 2009 at 10:32 am
The proof that there’s no distinction between the 2 parties was never more apparent than when Dede Skozafuzza (Republican) resigned from the NY-23 race and then endorsed the Democrat.
Tim · November 7, 2009 at 11:46 am
I think that there’s a growing feeling of disenfranchisement reflected in our overall voting. The election of supposed opposites following so close to the assumed vote of confidence in the last presidential elections just highlights that people are trying to send a message. Whether elected or non-elected officials will listen to the message, or what the message is, is another matter.
Comments are closed.