For the last four years, one of the main themes in the political coverage in the mainstream media has been the so-called Republican civil war. Social conservatives were battling economic conservatives. Tea Partiers were battling the Republican establishment. According to some in the mainstream media, the GOP was always on the edge of disintegration. Indeed, after president Obama's win in 2012, the media (and some helpful Democrats) kept telling Republicans that the only way they could survive and win elections would be to become milder versions of Democrats. The Republicans were told over and over by the supposedly insightful that they needed to worry more about groups of Americans than about the country as a whole or individuals. Hispanic Americans had to be promised immigration reform; women had to be promised free birth control; African Americans needed to be given "reparations"; etc. Voters were not individuals; they were just members of one group or another.
While there were some in the Republican party who bought into these ideas, the majority of the GOP rejected them. In fairness, it was the average Republican voter who rejected these concepts and made that choice clear to the party's office holders. As a result, in this last midterm election, the media story about the civil war in the GOP was barely mentioned, and the Republican candidates did not opt to be pale copies of Democrats.
Now that the midterms are over, however, we are watching what would be described as another outbreak of political civil war, except this time the fighting is among the Democrats. The senate Democrat leader Harry Reid negotiates a tax deal with Republicans and the White House undermines Reid by threatening to veto any resulting bill. Senator Schumer of New York denounces as a mistake the passage of Obamacare in 2010 and the Democrats' abandonment of helping the economy grow; in response all manner of White House loyalists attack Schumer (who also happens to be part of the Democrats' leadership in the Senate.) In New York, we witnessed major policy battles between the Democrat governor and the Democrat mayor of New York City. Similar battles are breaking out all over the nation.
Interestingly, the mainstream media is not covering this "civil war" because the participants are Democrats. Even today, there is more coverage in the media of a now non-existent civil war among Republicans than the actual infighting among Democrats.
It's not just the media. It seems that Democrats are actually gearing up to lose. Before the 2014 midterms, there was a spate of articles about how it would benefit the Democrats to lose the Senate to Republican control. Now articles are starting to appear containing analysis explaining why it would be a good thing for Democrats to lose the White House in 2016. Just today, Larry Sabato came forward with such an analysis. There is also a seeming avalanche of pieces on how Hillary Clinton's prospects have been greatly reduced and that she seriously may not even run.
In politics, things often change overnight. No matter what, the next two years are going to be very interesting.
While there were some in the Republican party who bought into these ideas, the majority of the GOP rejected them. In fairness, it was the average Republican voter who rejected these concepts and made that choice clear to the party's office holders. As a result, in this last midterm election, the media story about the civil war in the GOP was barely mentioned, and the Republican candidates did not opt to be pale copies of Democrats.
Now that the midterms are over, however, we are watching what would be described as another outbreak of political civil war, except this time the fighting is among the Democrats. The senate Democrat leader Harry Reid negotiates a tax deal with Republicans and the White House undermines Reid by threatening to veto any resulting bill. Senator Schumer of New York denounces as a mistake the passage of Obamacare in 2010 and the Democrats' abandonment of helping the economy grow; in response all manner of White House loyalists attack Schumer (who also happens to be part of the Democrats' leadership in the Senate.) In New York, we witnessed major policy battles between the Democrat governor and the Democrat mayor of New York City. Similar battles are breaking out all over the nation.
Interestingly, the mainstream media is not covering this "civil war" because the participants are Democrats. Even today, there is more coverage in the media of a now non-existent civil war among Republicans than the actual infighting among Democrats.
It's not just the media. It seems that Democrats are actually gearing up to lose. Before the 2014 midterms, there was a spate of articles about how it would benefit the Democrats to lose the Senate to Republican control. Now articles are starting to appear containing analysis explaining why it would be a good thing for Democrats to lose the White House in 2016. Just today, Larry Sabato came forward with such an analysis. There is also a seeming avalanche of pieces on how Hillary Clinton's prospects have been greatly reduced and that she seriously may not even run.
In politics, things often change overnight. No matter what, the next two years are going to be very interesting.
No comments:
Post a Comment