A few weeks ago, I made mention of how in 1964, Lyndon Johnson defeated Republican Barry Goldwater in a landslide defeat, so crushing that articles questioned if this meant the death of the Republican Party. Yet only four years later, the GOP captured the White House with Richard Nixon, who subsequently won re-election, as well.
My point was to make clear that predicting political demise is a risky business, and parties have a way of resurrecting themselves - either through their own regeneration, or though the collapse of their opponents. So, while Democrats should be pleased by the current state of political affairs, they should by no means fall asleep at the wheel.
That said, Republicans should take even less comfort. For as consoling as it might be to look at 1968 and see their party rise to victory after near-total demise, it would be the wrong lesson to take as a precursor to events today.
In fact, the lesson of 1964-1968 for Republicans is the exact opposite of what they seem to be teaching themselves.
Let's look back a moment.
In 1964, Barry Goldwater represented the most conservative wing of the Republican Party. The slogan Democrats used about him was, "Goldwater is right. Far right." President Lyndon Johnson received 61.1% of the votes, Goldwater only 38.5% - the fifth largest margin in U.S. history. Further, Johnson won the Electoral College vote by 486-52.
The Republican Party was in total disarray. Party leaders realized they had to change focus to win back the country. As a result, within four years, the GOP candidates in the running for the presidential nomination were moderates and liberals Nelson Rockefeller, George Romney (father of Mitt), and Harold Stassen. (Ronald Reagan made his first entry into national politics, but wasn't a factor.) The remaining candidate was Richard Nixon - but not the old, bitter conservative - he was marketed as "The New Nixon." Warmer, kindler, gentler. (This, of course, before most Americans learned of Watergate and then his ultimate resignation.) His being successfully marketed as "The New Nixon" was so legendary that it spawned a best-seller analyzing the whole effort, The Selling of the President by Joe McGinniss. And the moderate "New Nixon" won the nomination.
With the Democratic Party falling apart after the disastrous Chicago convention riots, and the party painted as the home of left radicals - and with a third-party candidate, George Wallace, running a far-right campaign on race, and taking 13.5% of the vote, most of it from the Deep South, then a Democratic stronghold - the Republican Party sat in the middle and sneaked to victory over Hubert Humphrey by seven-tenths of a percent.
The point here is this:
In 1964, the Republican Party lost in a landslide when it ran a far-right candidate. It moved to the middle with moderates and liberals, put up a "new" moderate, and won the White House back.
That is the exact opposite of what the Republican Party is doing today.
Today, after winning the White House in 2000 by running towards the middle as new and "compassionate," the Republican Party has moved farther right than Barry Goldwater ever was.
Only 21% of Americans call themselves Republicans. There are zero GOP representatives from New England in the House. It's had two sitting senators bolt the party. Moderate is seen as un-Republican. It is a party solely of the right. And the result is that the Republican Party has lost the White House and last two elections in Congress.
Because Republicans today are lead by neocons - who believe in ignoring reality and creating their own - they have forgotten history and therefore its lessons. They are actively doing the very things that caused them to lose in a landslide and face party death. Rejecting what brought the party back. They are living life in reverse, the Benjamin Buttons of politics.
If Republicans think they can take comfort from the lessons of 1964-1968, they are living in a Fool's Paradise. They are recreating the very conditions of their own landslide defeat. The difference is that 35 years ago, the GOP quickly attempted to reverse this. Today, the party is enthusiastically embracing it..
I want to see the Republican Party strong - because a strong two-party system means a strong America. A strong two-party system pushes each party to their best, to serve the public the most. And a strong Republican Party means strong Republican conservatives, moderates and liberals - which means that even should a Republican win an election, it will be someone who has the breadth of the nation in mind, not a political ideologue of limited scope.
But for a strong party, Republicans must understand history. Must learn the lessons. Must realize that chopping away moderates and liberals from their own party and purifying it with far-right religious zealot conservatives is the very reason they last lost in a landslide - and will do so again and again and again, every time they try it.
Republicans must not take comfort from 1968. They must take it as a warning sign.
You may recall hearing some conservatives say they will “hold their nose” and vote for McCain mainly because they did not think BO would protect them from the idiot terrorists. This is looking more and more like it will turn out to be true than anyone could have imagined. I pray I am wrong on this but if I realize BO is a diplomatic appeaser-pushover then for sure the terrorist jerks know it too.
I suspect that BO may be the first one to resign the presidency in shame because he allowed us to get attacked; sort of like “Nero fiddled while Rome burned.” I genuinely think that Biden would do a far better job of keeping us safe. Joe may be a bit skewed on many things but he is not confused about his pride in our country and he knows who the enemy is.
In summary, yes indeed the loyal opposition is coming back together but at the grass roots level. No obvious leader has emerged yet but there is plenty of time for that. The political winds are swinging back in the other direction: like the leaves changing in the fall from green to many colors; one leaf at a time.
Did YOU suggest Bush resign when HE failed to protect America from the worst attack on the continental US in American history? An attack which the President had received NUMEROUS PDB's titled the likes of "Bin Laden Determined to attack". "Attack Imminent". etc
Now lets not foerget we were attacked by people who HATED us. If Obama is soothing some of that hate, he IS keeping us safer.
As for Nero "fiddling while Rome burned", let us not forget Bush took more vacations than any other president, including the month before 9/11.
You are SIMPLY following the mantra of DICK CHENEY, so that IF we are attacked you can blame Obama. But IF we are, corrolation does not mean causation.
Firm up, man. An adult is finally at the helm.
Republicans talked a big game for many years and the people bought it. They won. They implemented their policies and they caused the greatest economic recession in 70 years.
And neo-cons are not the far right. "Big government" conservatism,massive budget deficits, civil liberty limiting legislation such as the Patriot Act and interventionist foreign policies are left wing, not right wing. The best example of a far right republican in the party is Ron Paul, who gets marginalized by his own party.
I agree the republican party leaders are doing the wrong thing, but that's because they are embracing a moderate position, not right wing conservatism. The republican party is in trouble because it didn't deliver on it's core conservative values: small government, low taxes, fiscal responsibility, balanced budgets, noninterventionism, civil liberties with personal responsibility and running the country according to the constitution.
Should be easy to apply the word-tainting strategy now to the republicans. If they don't even know what moderate, conservative and right wing means - it's almost like liberals struggling for their word.
And what if McCain had nominated Lieberman, Pawlenty or Romney? Please go right ahead with your strategy. If you are looking forward to a 16 year build-up phase, nobody is going to stop you.
By rights, President Obama, will probably be able to get re-elected but the forces to unravel democratic majorities are already here and working.
In 2004 Bush beat Kerry. Shouldn't have but he did. Just before the election there was one last push....and he lost...
Due to the push back against Pro Choice and Gay Marriage Activists.
Today 6 states have said they will allow Gay Marriage and about 30 have said that Marriage is between a man and woman.
Some say that the fight is over....
I say it hasn't really begun yet especially when you consider whose not talking....
Most Americans are not gay and most don't agree with the idea of Gay Marriage.
Maybe a civil union but not marriage.
Maybe a civil union but not marriage.
True, but they're all dying out so...
And being that many are Christian and Christ said that marriage is between a man and woman, you won't be changing that at all.
First, governments by their very nature must have control over everything.
Our Constitution tell us that there are powers reserved to the Federal Govt, some to the state and to the individual.
Marriage is something reserved to the state.
Now listen up....
EVERY MARRIAGE IS CIVIL IN THAT EACH COUPLE MUST APPLY FOR A MARRIAGE LICENSE.
IF ONE WANTS TO BE MARRIED WITHOUT A RELIGIOUS CEREMONY HE OR SHE SEES A JUDGE.
IF ONE WANTS A RELIGIOUS CEREMONY HE OR SHE PICKS WHATEVER FAITH THEY BELIEVE IN AND THEY ACT ACCORDINGLY.
WE TERM MARRIAGE EITHER CIVIL OR RELIGIOUS BUT IN TRUTH EACH COUPLE MUST HAVE THAT MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE STATE.
SORRY, BUT THIS IS HOW IT WORKS PERIOD.
Every time I hear these stories about one party or the other going down in flames I feel like I'm in Groundhog Day.
Wasn't it just 4 years ago that Democrats had lost 99 of the 100 fastest growing counties in America?
LOL!!! There is only ONE predictor of a party's success ... WAIT UNTIL THE ONE IN POWER F'S UP!!!
I think that view is falling by the wayside and political debate in America is coming down to corporatists v populists with most Americans weary of continuing the old battles on wedge social issues, especially in a down, mutating economy. Indeed, many Dems at the grass roots level are finally waking up to the idea that there are corporatists within their own party and are giving enormous grief to the likes of Nelson, Baucus, Bayh and others on a host of issues.
You also didn't touch on the fact that Repubs are losing every major growing demographic from young people to women to Latinos, a far different situation demographically than where the country was in the late 60s where the electorate was still largely white and male.
The Repubs are a dead party walking. Who will replace them? Well, that's the interesting part, isn't it? With the rise of the internet, it will be far easier to form new political coalitions whether within the Democratic Party itself or perhaps a new party made up of Greens, Libertarians and disaffected Democrats.
There is a huge wave causing a political sea change in this country and it is sweeping Repubs out to sea permanently. Which can't happen fast enough for me.