Comments on: The Dream of the Forever Majority http://www.politicsinvivo.com/2011/08/the-dream-of-the-forever-majority/ Political and Cultural Commentary, and Whatever Else... Fri, 01 Mar 2013 22:46:14 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: The GOP Doesn’t Have a Demographic Crisis, it has a Policy Crisis | Politics In Vivo - Political and Cultural Commentary, and Whatever Else... http://www.politicsinvivo.com/2011/08/the-dream-of-the-forever-majority/comment-page-1/#comment-82445 The GOP Doesn’t Have a Demographic Crisis, it has a Policy Crisis | Politics In Vivo - Political and Cultural Commentary, and Whatever Else... Thu, 08 Nov 2012 20:38:36 +0000 http://www.politicsinvivo.com/2011/08/the-dream-of-the-forever-majority/#comment-82445 [...] can take heart: there is no such thing as a permanent majority in American politics. Eventually things will return to an equilibrium [...] [...] can take heart: there is no such thing as a permanent majority in American politics. Eventually things will return to an equilibrium [...]

]]> By: Senator Lugar and the Rise of the Process Extremists | Politics In Vivo - Political and Cultural Commentary, and Whatever Else... http://www.politicsinvivo.com/2011/08/the-dream-of-the-forever-majority/comment-page-1/#comment-49213 Senator Lugar and the Rise of the Process Extremists | Politics In Vivo - Political and Cultural Commentary, and Whatever Else... Wed, 09 May 2012 20:37:05 +0000 http://www.politicsinvivo.com/2011/08/the-dream-of-the-forever-majority/#comment-49213 [...] the fevered dream of the forever majority; and if it’s indeed impossible (which it is) for one side to "win" the eternal [...] [...] the fevered dream of the forever majority; and if it’s indeed impossible (which it is) for one side to "win" the eternal [...]

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.politicsinvivo.com/2011/08/the-dream-of-the-forever-majority/comment-page-1/#comment-22821 Anonymous Fri, 19 Aug 2011 17:49:12 +0000 http://www.politicsinvivo.com/2011/08/the-dream-of-the-forever-majority/#comment-22821 Democratic control of the Congress for a half-century is mostly illusory--that was a combination of southern Dixiecrats and northern Democrats that ranged in persuasion from Strom Thurmond to Jack Kennedy. No, the "permanent" Democratic majority of that time period owed more to big tent within the Democratic party and the limited coherence of either party's social agenda (at the time, your economic agenda almost exclusively dictated party preference). In reality, the same divisions in the country today animated the Jefferson-Adams political divide at the founding of our country (with a few wedge issue odds and ends, like racism and religious intolerance, thrown in for good measure). There never has been a permanent political majority and there never will be. The real, but counter-intuitive, explanation of large-scale enduring electoral majorities is not public sentiment realigning with a party but a party's realigning with public sentiment. I'm not a historian, but this is very obviously the explanation of both the FDR and Reagan realignments. Therefore, and this must seem quite obvious, to the extent that a party can match the prevailing sentiment of a democratic society, it will be rewarded with electoral victory. Yet it isn't obvious to politicians, who believe that following their inner guiding lights will lead them better than listening to the people they are sent to Washington to represent. To the extent that a party (or, really, an individual politician) is out of step with public thinking, it/he/she will be punished. These factors favor both compromise and incumbency, which is why we're likely to see this Congress, which is so out of step with America, out on its ear wherever districts are actually competitive in the 2012 election even though the party composition of Congress may not change dramatically. Stay tuned. Democratic control of the Congress for a half-century is mostly illusory–that was a combination of southern Dixiecrats and northern Democrats that ranged in persuasion from Strom Thurmond to Jack Kennedy. No, the “permanent” Democratic majority of that time period owed more to big tent within the Democratic party and the limited coherence of either party’s social agenda (at the time, your economic agenda almost exclusively dictated party preference).

In reality, the same divisions in the country today animated the Jefferson-Adams political divide at the founding of our country (with a few wedge issue odds and ends, like racism and religious intolerance, thrown in for good measure). There never has been a permanent political majority and there never will be. The real, but counter-intuitive, explanation of large-scale enduring electoral majorities is not public sentiment realigning with a party but a party’s realigning with public sentiment. I’m not a historian, but this is very obviously the explanation of both the FDR and Reagan realignments.

Therefore, and this must seem quite obvious, to the extent that a party can match the prevailing sentiment of a democratic society, it will be rewarded with electoral victory. Yet it isn’t obvious to politicians, who believe that following their inner guiding lights will lead them better than listening to the people they are sent to Washington to represent. To the extent that a party (or, really, an individual politician) is out of step with public thinking, it/he/she will be punished. These factors favor both compromise and incumbency, which is why we’re likely to see this Congress, which is so out of step with America, out on its ear wherever districts are actually competitive in the 2012 election even though the party composition of Congress may not change dramatically.

Stay tuned.

]]>