The Democratic
sweep in 1958 presaged the party's strength in the Kennedy-Johnson
years. Democratic dominance peaked in L.B.J.'s 1964 landslide.
But just two years later, big Republican gains signaled problems
in the Democratic coalition that the party struggles with to this
day.
The 1978
elections during Jimmy Carter's presidency marked the emergence
of a powerful New Right that swept Ronald Reagan into office in
1980 and continues to be the dominant force in the Republican
Party.
The 2006
elections will be a test of the audacious Karl Rove-George W.
Bush plan to launch a long-term Republican Era. They foresee an
alliance of corporate interests and religious conservatives, with
the South as its home base. Business provides the money. Middle-class
traditionalists furnish the troops.
But the
alliance always threatens to disintegrate because its wings have
very different priorities and competing values. Moreover, conservatives
can't win elections on their own. They need moderate votes, and
significant support outside the old Confederacy. Bush's carefully
cultivated image as a strong, trustworthy leader in the war on
terror brought around enough middle-of-the road voters to create
the Republican monolith that is now our national government.
The 2006
elections will determine if Rove's brilliantly constructed machine
has staying power, or just falls apart in the face of adversity.
And there was adversity in abundance during 2005.
Bush and
Rove's careful management of the politics of moral issues -- show
the religious conservatives you're with them without alienating
moderates -- collapsed during the Terri Schiavo controversy. The
administration and its allies turned out to be well to the right
of the national consensus on end-of-life issues and were widely
perceived by moderates as pandering to the religious right.
The president's
Social Security privatization proposal reminded many blue-collar
and middle-class voters why they had once voted Democratic. Such
voters did not trust the free market enough to agree to cuts in
their benefits.
The increasing
unpopularity of the war in Iraq has struck at the heart of Bush's
appeal to the center. The controversy over how we got into Iraq
has undermined the president's reputation for trustworthiness.
The continuing violence alongside political instability in Iraq
creates doubts about Bush's capacity as an effective leader. And
much of the country listens to the president's promises with far
more skepticism. The messy occupation without an end in sight
flies in the face of the administration's happy talk before the
war about a peaceful, prosperous Iraq that would be a model for
the Middle East.
Note that
each of these issues upsets the careful balance Rove had to achieve
to get Bush to 50.8 percent in 2004. Three strikes and you're
out: The social-issue right can't help Bush if its support drives
away too many moderates. Pro-business economics can't help if
it drives away many in the middle class. And the war on terror
doesn't help if Bush is seen as managing it badly.
This last
is critical, which is why Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador
to Iraq, may be the most important figure in the 2006 elections.
Khalilzad needs to get Iraq's dominant Shiites to make concessions
to the Sunnis and create a semblance of political peace. This
is more important to the future of Iraq than any amount of training
for Iraqi forces -- and more important to the American elections,
given the role Iraq will play this fall, than almost anything
that happens during the campaign.
It is customary
in columns of this sort to say somewhere around now that the Democrats
will need to come up with a plan, a message, a program, etc.,
etc. I'm all for such things. But in 1958, 1966 and 1978, the
out party gained ground largely by exploiting the failures of
the party in power and exacerbating the contradictions in its
coalition. If the Democrats prosper in 2006, it will be because
whatever program they come up with achieves those goals.
The obvious
way for Rove to get his new era is for Bush to do a whole lot
better in 2006 than he did in 2005. Failing that, Rove has to
hope the Democrats will get in their own way and lose the chance
to make this election a referendum on the course Bush has charted.
