On the election
There's a lot of talk among conservative circles that says the results of last week's election was a sign of the voters' satisfaction with the conservative ideology as a whole, while Democratic blogs, such as Daily Kos have been scrambling to say the election is actually a repudiation of conservative politics. I think both views are flawed.
Last week's election was fueled by one thing and one thing only - voter dissatisfaction. The public was overwhelmingly unhappy with the management of the war in Iraq as well as the numerous ethics scandals that appeared to plague the leaders of the Republican Party. Factor in the opposition endorsing some voter-friendly initiatives like raising the minimum wage and reforming lobbying, and you've got a recipe for a electoral wave.
Coupled with this discontent, the Democrats ran an effective 50-state campaign in which they (finally) recruited candidates for office that reflected the values and views of their home state. It may be the Democratic Party went more conservative in some races, but not all.
For instance, Sheldon Brown captured the Senate seat from Ohio, and few would argue that Brown is conservative. He's an old-school labor guy who scores very high on most grading cards for 'liberal.' However, Ohio is a state with a large manufacturing industry that has been affected by free trade policies. These voters were sympathetic to what Brown was offering.
However, consider both Jim Webb and Jon Tester, who won in Virginia and Montana respectively. Webb is by no means a liberal as he served as Secretary of the Navy under Republican President Ronald Reagan, while Tester possesses strong libertarian traits that mesh well with the traditional conservative views that run through Montana.
The views and ideologies of people in Montana are vastly different than those in, say, Pennsylvania. The issues which matter to them are different and their demographics are different. And, contrary to previous elections, the Democrats sought out people who were a reflection of their communities who still shared progressive ideologies.
I, for one, think this is a good thing.
Now, I also believe the Democratic Party is evolving too, and I think you're going to see more candidates like Tester and Webb in the future rather than candidates like Brown, but that has more to do with the recent emergence of some libertarian views with regard to social and privacy issues in these circles. I hope this, however, does spill over toward economic views nor do I hope that Democrats move away from free trade policies.
Last week's election was fueled by one thing and one thing only - voter dissatisfaction. The public was overwhelmingly unhappy with the management of the war in Iraq as well as the numerous ethics scandals that appeared to plague the leaders of the Republican Party. Factor in the opposition endorsing some voter-friendly initiatives like raising the minimum wage and reforming lobbying, and you've got a recipe for a electoral wave.
Coupled with this discontent, the Democrats ran an effective 50-state campaign in which they (finally) recruited candidates for office that reflected the values and views of their home state. It may be the Democratic Party went more conservative in some races, but not all.
For instance, Sheldon Brown captured the Senate seat from Ohio, and few would argue that Brown is conservative. He's an old-school labor guy who scores very high on most grading cards for 'liberal.' However, Ohio is a state with a large manufacturing industry that has been affected by free trade policies. These voters were sympathetic to what Brown was offering.
However, consider both Jim Webb and Jon Tester, who won in Virginia and Montana respectively. Webb is by no means a liberal as he served as Secretary of the Navy under Republican President Ronald Reagan, while Tester possesses strong libertarian traits that mesh well with the traditional conservative views that run through Montana.
The views and ideologies of people in Montana are vastly different than those in, say, Pennsylvania. The issues which matter to them are different and their demographics are different. And, contrary to previous elections, the Democrats sought out people who were a reflection of their communities who still shared progressive ideologies.
I, for one, think this is a good thing.
Now, I also believe the Democratic Party is evolving too, and I think you're going to see more candidates like Tester and Webb in the future rather than candidates like Brown, but that has more to do with the recent emergence of some libertarian views with regard to social and privacy issues in these circles. I hope this, however, does spill over toward economic views nor do I hope that Democrats move away from free trade policies.
posted by Jmac at 7:01 AM
4 Comments:
Don't you mean Sherrod Brown?
I remember his name because it drives one Mr. Jared Brown absolutely nuts.
Yes I do. I was confusing him with the dude from Rhode Island.
Some Democratic analyst I am.
"I hope this, however, does spill over toward economic views nor do I hope that Democrats move away from free trade policies."
I assume you mis-spoke somewhere in that sentence? You don't hope that Dems move away from "fair" (as opposed to free) trade policies, right? It is not the case that the Dems currently advocate free trade, to which you hope they will remain faithful. Eh?
It depends on the wing of the Democratic Party, as well as the terminology of the whole thing (obviously 'fair' and 'free' can mean the same thing since 'free trade' is done through open markets with little to no resistance, which is part of the reason I have issues with Chinese trade practices as of late).
The DLC wing of the party, headed up by the Clintons, is for what you'd term 'free trade' while the more traditional, labor organization-friendly Democrats tend to be more for what you'd term 'fair trade.'
There's a whole of nuance to be sorted out, and I'm not doing any sort of justice to it. I can try to sort it out in a bit.
Post a Comment
<< Home