It is called Unstable Majorities. He claims that the public is not as polarized as political elites. When one party wins in an electoral cycle, it tends to over-reach, leading to backlash from the public. Hence the unstable majorities.
The odd thing about the current situation is that I think it is the losers of the election who are over-reaching. Instead of positioning themselves as providing a centrist balance, the Democrats are positioning themselves as the #Resistance, denying the legitimacy of the last election and not moderating their views in any way. We’ll see how that works out for them.
“We’ll see how that works out for them.”
They can read the demographic tea leaves as well as anyone else. I don’t think you understand to what extent knowing you will inevitably lead a one party state no matter what you do motivates people on the left.
It worked out pretty well for the GOP.
Denying the legitimacy of the last election? I’m sure there are some isolated examples of this, but saying that Democrats are positioning themselves around this is just not true.
Do you think the 2018 election rhetoric will be predicated on Impeachment?
I think the 2018 election rhetoric will be predicated on the evolution of the Mueller investigation. I don’t think an impeachment narrative will play well unless we see additional facts that can dependably turn more voters. If it comes off as run of the mill divisiveness, that isn’t a wise strategy against Trump.
The most powerful democrats are not calling for impeachment, or claiming that Trump’s victory was illegitimate. As of right now, Trump questions the legitimacy of the 2016 vote far more than Democrats, and the special elections we’ve seen this year have not featured impeachment as a rallying cry. There have been a few Democrats getting out front on this, but its just not reasonable to characterize that as the positioning of the Democratic party so far.
That being said, we don’t know what will be exposed before November. I have a hard time believing that Trump has the discretion and judgement to survive this job for very long.
And another apropos opportunity to remember Henry Manne’s wisdom. Testifying before Congress about an industrial reorganization bill back in the ’70s, he observed tongue in cheek, but nonetheless spot on:
” In the completely free political structures allowed by the U.S. Constitution, we have developed only two significant political parties. And one of these, measured by party registrations, is significantly larger than the other. Generally in the last 45 years it has achieved an overwhelming superiority of all votes cast. It would seem, by all of the criteria used by proponents of this bill to judge General Motors Corporation or IBM, that the Democratic Party should forthwith be reorganized into nine, or some other arbitrary number, of smaller, safer, more competitive, more innovative, and less politically powerful organizations. How else, after all, can we expect our system of democracy to survive, competing interests to be recognized, and freedom to prevail?”
In politics our choices are indeed very restricted. Two flavors of soda only, grape or orange. You don’t like high fructose corn syrup, you are out of luck. And even the most hard core orange soda fanatic will give grape a taste now and again.
Not odd at all considering you are a conservative despite any protestations to the contrary.
My guess is that Trump’s strategy is indeed to count on the Democrats over-reaching and doubling down on immigration matters. The last deal he offered the Democrats was not made in earnest but to make them appear unreasonably opposed to the border wall project, since the proposal included almost everything else they were asking for in the earlier negotiations, and the Democrats know that the requested wall funding doesn’t even fund a wall*, and is mostly there so Trump can claim he’s fulfilling his promise to build a wall.
*Practically zero media coverage of this fact. The proposal has $25 billion for only 720 miles of wall. That’s $25 Million per mile (and some other stuff, but mostly wall. As much as some 4-lane highways costs. Talk about American Cost Disease.) And it’s not new wall of unwalled areas. It’s “new, replacement, and secondary” wall, which means plenty of replacement of the old, Bush-era, purposefully-ineffective fencing , some better walls behind some of that old, Bush-era, purposefully-ineffective that is going to be left in place, and of those miles, some, I assume, are good new walls in places without any existing wall. It’s not quite clear how many net miles we’re even talking about. But, see, as the leaders of various ancient empires might tell you, the thing about border walls is that big gaps reduce effectiveness. A lot.
The unstables tend to stabilize government spending with shutdowns and sequester. And there may be enough evidence to show shutdown and sequester has led to longer, stable growth when tried. Finally, I might note, a majority of the senate agreed to shutdown, sound stable to me.
Instead of positioning themselves as providing a centrist balance, the Democrats are positioning themselves as the #Resistance, denying the legitimacy of the last election and not moderating their views in any way.
Did you witness the 2009 Tea Party or the Birther movement? I think there are a lot of over-the-top Democrats but Fox News went against Obama hard.
I think there are a lot of over-the-top Democrats but Fox News went against Obama hard.
Very true. The difference is quantitative, not qualitative.
I don’t think it’s “overreach” so much. One of the most human feelings is even more pronounced in Americans: “The grass is always greener … on the other side … of the fence.”
One great thing about democracy is the ability to Throw The Bums Out. It’s too bad so few in Congress get thrown out, but at the very important Pres. level, the 20th Century saw how many party changing elections? 1912, 1920, 1932, 1952, 1960, 1968, 1976, 1980, 1992; 2000, 2008, 2016.
That’s quite a few changes, compared to most other country’s Presidents or Prime Ministers (Italy changes a lot more often).
Lots of Americans are more willing to be against, rather than for, “the Devil you know”.
I suspect with Andy McCabe leaving the FBI, there will be an increasing trickle of Obama-Clinton scandals which will a smaller factor than the increasingly good economics, but will both make Trump supporters more enthusiastic. And, most folks like to vote for the winners …
Trump is doing not just “better”, but AMAZING, in terms of policy. The big Obamacare flop was the Rep Party failure to have an alternative ready (arguably), while Trump avoids being worse than Obama in the specifics. Everything else he’s been doing better, far better, than any sceptic (like me) could have asked of any conservative president. (Jury still out on the Kurds & Turkey).
Denying the legitimacy of the last several elections has been the strategy of many Republicans including the current occupant of the white house. It seems to have worked. Did you miss the fact that Trump was a leader in the birther movement and the various election fraud conspiracies?