A Speck of Dust

Will 2012 Represent a Sea Change?

Further to our piece entitled "Foolish Predictions" in which we had the temerity to suggest that President Obama and the Democrats will be toast in 2012 we came across this article which purports that the Democratic Party has now lost the centre. 

What many folks outside the US don't realise is that unlike most other Western democracies there are three dominant "parties" in the US electorate: Republicans, Democrats and Independents.  So, Republicans we know, Democrats we know, but who are the Independents?
  They are the elephant in the proverbial room.  The Independents are people who do not align themselves with either Republican or Democrat--and they represent a larger group of voters than registered/self-identified Republicans or Democrats respectively.  Often the Independents are said to represent the political centre. 


As the Independents go, so does the country come election time.   And here is where the Independents are now: 

In mid-2005, as disaffection with the Bush administration and the Republican Party was gathering momentum, the Pew Research Center asked American to place themselves and the political parties on a standard left-right ideological continuum. At that time, average voters saw themselves as just right of center and equidistant from the two political parties. Independents considered themselves twice as far away from the Republican Party as from the Democrats, presaging their sharp shift toward the Democrats in the 2006 mid-term election.

In August of this year, Pew posed a very similar question (note to survey wonks: Pew used a five-point scale, versus six in 2005), but the results were very different. Although average voters continue to see themselves as just right of center, they now place themselves twice as far away from the Democratic Party as from the Republicans. In addition, Independents now see themselves as significantly closer to the Republican Party, reversing their perceptions of six years ago.

There’s another difference as well. In 2005, Republicans’ and Democrats’ views of their own parties dovetailed with the perceptions of the electorate as a whole. Today, while voters as a whole agree with Republicans’ evaluation of their party as conservative, they disagree with Democrats, who on average see their party as moderate rather than liberal. So when Independents, who see themselves as modestly right of center, say that Democrats are too liberal, average Democrats can’t imagine what they’re talking about.

Democrats see themselves as moderate, sensible, reasonable middle-of-the-road types.  The Independents now see Democrats as extreme and even fringe left.  No doubt President Obama, who has carried the Democratic brand, bears a great deal of responsibility for this shift in perception. 

William Galston, who writes the above quoted article, draws this conclusion:

Granted, ideology isn’t everything. Political scientists have long observed that Americans are more liberal on particulars than they are in general—ideologically conservative but operationally liberal. (Surveys have shown majority support for most individual elements of the president’s jobs and budget packages.) And the Republicans could undermine their chances by nominating a presidential candidate who is simply too hard-edged conservative for moderates and Independents to stomach.

In the face of widespread skepticism and disillusion, it will be an uphill battle for Democrats to persuade key voting blocks that government can really make their lives better. But if they fail, the public will continue to equate public spending with waste, the anti-government message will continue to resonate, and Democrats will be in dire straits when heading into what is shaping up as a pivotal election.

Of course, this is typical Democratic stuff.  If we are going to have a Republican win, then for goodness sake let's hope that the President will be a big-government Republican.  In that case we could argue about particulars and policies, but we would all be on the same chess board.  That would be a Republican that we could live with.

So, the real questions and issues emerge.  It seems certain that President Obama will lose the presidency to a Republican.  It seems certain that the Republicans will strengthen their hold on the House and win a majority in the Senate. The real question is how they will win.  Will small-government conservatism win the day?  Will Independents agree that small-government conservatism is common sense?  Will they come to the view that devolution to the states on a whole raft of issues, and dis-assembling the Federal Government as much as possible, whilst getting Federal spending under control is sound, prudent common sense. 

If small-government Republicans and the Independents join hands, and if the new government actually carries out the fundamental restructuring of the Republic which is implied in small-government ideology,  then Democrats will be forced to adopt a me-too ideological shift to the right.  Obama and the big-government centralists will seem like a bad dream. 

There are a lot of  big "ifs" in there.  But if correct the US may be on the cusp of a generational change in politics and political ideology.  We will see. 

Now, if only we could see the US repent of its "Exceptionalist" idolatry.  Recently our stomach disemobogued once again hearing candidate Romney portentously declare in a recent debate that the "US is the hope of the entire world".  The terribly sad and angering thing is that no-one in the audience (predominantly Republican) objected--neither did any of the other presidential candidates, including those who are self-confessed Christians. 

Such statements as Romney's can only provoke God to wrath.  Such statements ignorantly and blasphemously presume to replace the installed King of all kings with a stupid pathetic speck of dust or drop of water (Isaiah 40:15).