- Joined
- Oct 17, 2007
- Messages
- 11,862
- Reaction score
- 10,300
- Location
- New York
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
This was not a re-aligning election. Control of the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives remained unchanged. Should that situation result in a bad outcome, the prospect of a re-aligning election in the future, perhaps as early as 2016, would increase.
This was largely a cyclical election driven by the state of the economy and perceptions about its future trajectory. The economy was the most important issue cited in the exit polling, with chronic unemployment (the need for job creation) the most prominently cited economic issue. Had the economy shown indications of fresh deterioration, the electoral outcome would likely have differed. Instead, the economic data in the closing weeks of the campaign reflected recovery. The first Q3 GDP figure released at the end of October showed a modest pickup in growth. The October Employment Situation report showed an increase in job creation. A host of consumer sentiment surveys taken during October revealed rising consumer confidence at levels exceeding those that preceded the financial crisis and recession. That growing consumer confidence was reflected in exit polling data showing voters felt that the economy was improving.
The “Tea Party” movement was dealt a significant setback. That movement was largely a fad driven by a negative economic climate and deep-seated pessimism. However, anger and frustration are not the building blocks of enduring political coalitions. The movement pushed beyond positions that are embraced by a sufficient share of the public to allow for political viability. If 2010 represented the rise of the Tea Party, 2012 represented at least the beginning of its decline. Its role in 2014 will very likely be further marginalized.
Beyond the cyclical component, there is a growing structural threat to the Republican Party’s ability to win and retain the White House. There is a risk that some of the states that have recently gone blue could become blue on a more permanent basis, with some exceptions. Sociocultural (largely demographic) forces, economic forces, changes in technology, and the geopolitical balance of power all shape the nation’s structural political environment.
The biggest demographic changes underway in the U.S. involve an aging population and a diversification of the nation’s population (with Hispanics representing the segment enjoying the fastest relative growth). These are readily predictable and high confidence developments. Pollsters and political leaders who ignore them do so at their own peril.
Technology, including the introduction of early voting, has reduced barriers to voting that hobbled elections with low turnout. Those gains will not be reinforced. They will likely expand to other states.
Geopolitically, neoconservative myths of U.S. preeminence have already been shattered. The U.S. remains the world’s strongest power, but economic realities of a rising China, among other fast-growing states, indicate that its relative power will decline in coming decades. Issues ranging from the nation’s stagnant educational attainment to fiscal challenges amplify the impact of that evolution.
Political parties do not enjoy the luxury of being immune to the consequences of the major forces described above. They operate within that environment. Their ability to leverage that context can allow them to build long-periods of dominance. Both the Republican and Democratic Parties have enjoyed such periods in the past. Their unwillingness or inability to adapt can doom them to long periods of irrelevance.
In that context, the Republican Party faces perhaps the greater present challenge. It must translate its traditional message of individual freedom and economic opportunity to serve that evolving environment. The message must be cast in positive terms, not negative ones.
Growing diversity can threaten stability. One has seen the consequences in a number of countries where shifting demographic trends or a decline in authoritarian power has renewed longstanding sectarian conflicts. Some conservative pundits are already latching onto that dark perspective. Joel B. Pollak of Breitbart.comcalled for a new culture war.
However, that’s neither the American tradition nor the U.S. experience. Tolerance is a principle at the foundation of some of the nation's most hallowed rights. The American experience has demonstrated that increased tolerance in the face of growing diversity can sustain stability. Women’s suffrage and Civil Rights have provided examples of the power increased tolerance can have in promoting a cohesive society. The future expansion of the franchise of marriage to same sex couples will be consistent with the positive American experience.
Hispanics will play an increasingly instrumental role in shifting the balance of political power. To be viable, political coalitions will need to include a significant share of the Hispanic vote. The demographic developments have doomed the zero tolerance approach to immigration policy. Immigration policy was inconsequential in the exit polling, but it mattered deeply to the nation’s growing Hispanic population. A zero tolerance immigration approach will provide little political returns, but it could risk making the Hispanic voting gap a long-enduring one. If so, the Republican Party could find itself increasingly unable to build the broad coalitions necessary to win the White House, much less retain it for long periods of time barring a serious crisis that temporarily makes such factors less important.
Higher voter turnout is likely here to stay, though turnout will vary from election cycle to election cycle. Relying on low-turnout models or attempts to erect barriers to turnout will undermine prospects of electoral success.
In the geopolitical and fiscal context, the nation’s foreign policy will need to be more focused. The limits to its power are real, as they have always been. The national interest and balance of power will be key foundations on which a sustainable foreign policy can be developed and maintained.
Republicans still enjoy a deep roster of future Presidential candidates. They currently hold 30 of the nation’s 50 governorships. The pragmatic, frequently non-ideological, results-oriented problem-solving approach undertaken by their most successful governors can provide a road map for navigating the big changes in the nation’s political environment.
In general, the nation seeks problem-solvers, not prophets for its leaders. The nation is still yearning for results. It has not yet made a final decision on who is best able to do so. It has hedged its bet by re-electing the President, a Democratic majority in the Senate, and a Republican majority in the House. As a result, 2012 was not a re-aligning election, but a future one—perhaps as early as 2016—might be.
This was largely a cyclical election driven by the state of the economy and perceptions about its future trajectory. The economy was the most important issue cited in the exit polling, with chronic unemployment (the need for job creation) the most prominently cited economic issue. Had the economy shown indications of fresh deterioration, the electoral outcome would likely have differed. Instead, the economic data in the closing weeks of the campaign reflected recovery. The first Q3 GDP figure released at the end of October showed a modest pickup in growth. The October Employment Situation report showed an increase in job creation. A host of consumer sentiment surveys taken during October revealed rising consumer confidence at levels exceeding those that preceded the financial crisis and recession. That growing consumer confidence was reflected in exit polling data showing voters felt that the economy was improving.
The “Tea Party” movement was dealt a significant setback. That movement was largely a fad driven by a negative economic climate and deep-seated pessimism. However, anger and frustration are not the building blocks of enduring political coalitions. The movement pushed beyond positions that are embraced by a sufficient share of the public to allow for political viability. If 2010 represented the rise of the Tea Party, 2012 represented at least the beginning of its decline. Its role in 2014 will very likely be further marginalized.
Beyond the cyclical component, there is a growing structural threat to the Republican Party’s ability to win and retain the White House. There is a risk that some of the states that have recently gone blue could become blue on a more permanent basis, with some exceptions. Sociocultural (largely demographic) forces, economic forces, changes in technology, and the geopolitical balance of power all shape the nation’s structural political environment.
The biggest demographic changes underway in the U.S. involve an aging population and a diversification of the nation’s population (with Hispanics representing the segment enjoying the fastest relative growth). These are readily predictable and high confidence developments. Pollsters and political leaders who ignore them do so at their own peril.
Technology, including the introduction of early voting, has reduced barriers to voting that hobbled elections with low turnout. Those gains will not be reinforced. They will likely expand to other states.
Geopolitically, neoconservative myths of U.S. preeminence have already been shattered. The U.S. remains the world’s strongest power, but economic realities of a rising China, among other fast-growing states, indicate that its relative power will decline in coming decades. Issues ranging from the nation’s stagnant educational attainment to fiscal challenges amplify the impact of that evolution.
Political parties do not enjoy the luxury of being immune to the consequences of the major forces described above. They operate within that environment. Their ability to leverage that context can allow them to build long-periods of dominance. Both the Republican and Democratic Parties have enjoyed such periods in the past. Their unwillingness or inability to adapt can doom them to long periods of irrelevance.
In that context, the Republican Party faces perhaps the greater present challenge. It must translate its traditional message of individual freedom and economic opportunity to serve that evolving environment. The message must be cast in positive terms, not negative ones.
Growing diversity can threaten stability. One has seen the consequences in a number of countries where shifting demographic trends or a decline in authoritarian power has renewed longstanding sectarian conflicts. Some conservative pundits are already latching onto that dark perspective. Joel B. Pollak of Breitbart.comcalled for a new culture war.
However, that’s neither the American tradition nor the U.S. experience. Tolerance is a principle at the foundation of some of the nation's most hallowed rights. The American experience has demonstrated that increased tolerance in the face of growing diversity can sustain stability. Women’s suffrage and Civil Rights have provided examples of the power increased tolerance can have in promoting a cohesive society. The future expansion of the franchise of marriage to same sex couples will be consistent with the positive American experience.
Hispanics will play an increasingly instrumental role in shifting the balance of political power. To be viable, political coalitions will need to include a significant share of the Hispanic vote. The demographic developments have doomed the zero tolerance approach to immigration policy. Immigration policy was inconsequential in the exit polling, but it mattered deeply to the nation’s growing Hispanic population. A zero tolerance immigration approach will provide little political returns, but it could risk making the Hispanic voting gap a long-enduring one. If so, the Republican Party could find itself increasingly unable to build the broad coalitions necessary to win the White House, much less retain it for long periods of time barring a serious crisis that temporarily makes such factors less important.
Higher voter turnout is likely here to stay, though turnout will vary from election cycle to election cycle. Relying on low-turnout models or attempts to erect barriers to turnout will undermine prospects of electoral success.
In the geopolitical and fiscal context, the nation’s foreign policy will need to be more focused. The limits to its power are real, as they have always been. The national interest and balance of power will be key foundations on which a sustainable foreign policy can be developed and maintained.
Republicans still enjoy a deep roster of future Presidential candidates. They currently hold 30 of the nation’s 50 governorships. The pragmatic, frequently non-ideological, results-oriented problem-solving approach undertaken by their most successful governors can provide a road map for navigating the big changes in the nation’s political environment.
In general, the nation seeks problem-solvers, not prophets for its leaders. The nation is still yearning for results. It has not yet made a final decision on who is best able to do so. It has hedged its bet by re-electing the President, a Democratic majority in the Senate, and a Republican majority in the House. As a result, 2012 was not a re-aligning election, but a future one—perhaps as early as 2016—might be.