In the last month, two versions of the same basic argument have made their way through the political discourse in America. After the election results, one group of deep thinkers has been pondering whether or not the Republican party will survive. A second, albeit smaller, group is now considering whether or not president Obama does or should have the goal of "destroying" the Republicans. This is all just nonsense.
In the last half century, this story line has been put forward by the pundits of the left again and again. Some of you may recall that in 1965 after Goldwater was trounced by Johnson, the demise of the Republican party was loudly proclaimed. The GOP was "over", and that was it. Of course, four years later, the Democrats were split down the middle and the Republicans were in the White House. Indeed, by 1973 after Nixon destroyed McGovern, the story line had switched to whether or not the Democrats could ever recover. By four years later they did just that and Carter just beat out Ford for the presidency. If you fast forward to 1984, there was another major loss by the Democrats when Mondale won only his home state and DC against Reagan. The story line at that point from the right was that the Democrats were "over"; sounds familiar doesn't it. By 1992, as Clinton won, we heard that the Republicans were now just a regional party who could only win in the South; their days as a national party had ended. Two years later, the GOP swept into control of Congress that lasted for twelve years; somehow those Republicans managed to win outside the South. That brings us to Obama. His 2008 victory had changed politics forever; the GOP could no longer win, we were told. The story was that the GOP was just going to wither away according to the pundits. Two years later, the GOP made the biggest gains in an off year election for over 70 years. Even the 2012 election was actually quite close. Obama did not come close to winning the same number of votes as in his first term. The last time that a president was re-elected with fewer votes than in his first term was back when Franklin Roosevelt won in 1940. That is hardly the mark of an unstoppable political party. In other words, although political parties are often pronounced dead by the cognoscenti, the truth is that these pundits are just wrong. So too this time.
That leaves the question of whether or not Obama should destroy Republicans rather than trying to work with them. Here we are told that this is actually Obama's goal, his plan for the second term. If this is correct, I predict a big bounce in 2014 for the GOP. Americans, for the most part, want their president to concentrate on doing things that help the country. They are not such partisans that they celebrate political defeats and destruction. But maybe I will be wrong. Nevertheless, Obama's "plan" sounds like hubris to me, the fatal flaw of the Obama presidency. Wow, did I actually just say that? Let me quickly amend that statement. Obama's plan is the latest of the fatal flaws of his presidency.
In the last half century, this story line has been put forward by the pundits of the left again and again. Some of you may recall that in 1965 after Goldwater was trounced by Johnson, the demise of the Republican party was loudly proclaimed. The GOP was "over", and that was it. Of course, four years later, the Democrats were split down the middle and the Republicans were in the White House. Indeed, by 1973 after Nixon destroyed McGovern, the story line had switched to whether or not the Democrats could ever recover. By four years later they did just that and Carter just beat out Ford for the presidency. If you fast forward to 1984, there was another major loss by the Democrats when Mondale won only his home state and DC against Reagan. The story line at that point from the right was that the Democrats were "over"; sounds familiar doesn't it. By 1992, as Clinton won, we heard that the Republicans were now just a regional party who could only win in the South; their days as a national party had ended. Two years later, the GOP swept into control of Congress that lasted for twelve years; somehow those Republicans managed to win outside the South. That brings us to Obama. His 2008 victory had changed politics forever; the GOP could no longer win, we were told. The story was that the GOP was just going to wither away according to the pundits. Two years later, the GOP made the biggest gains in an off year election for over 70 years. Even the 2012 election was actually quite close. Obama did not come close to winning the same number of votes as in his first term. The last time that a president was re-elected with fewer votes than in his first term was back when Franklin Roosevelt won in 1940. That is hardly the mark of an unstoppable political party. In other words, although political parties are often pronounced dead by the cognoscenti, the truth is that these pundits are just wrong. So too this time.
That leaves the question of whether or not Obama should destroy Republicans rather than trying to work with them. Here we are told that this is actually Obama's goal, his plan for the second term. If this is correct, I predict a big bounce in 2014 for the GOP. Americans, for the most part, want their president to concentrate on doing things that help the country. They are not such partisans that they celebrate political defeats and destruction. But maybe I will be wrong. Nevertheless, Obama's "plan" sounds like hubris to me, the fatal flaw of the Obama presidency. Wow, did I actually just say that? Let me quickly amend that statement. Obama's plan is the latest of the fatal flaws of his presidency.
1 comment:
Jeff, How much will Hilary Clinton LIE about Be Ghazi?
Post a Comment