Therein lies the problem... (4.00 / 6)

If the Democratic party becomes the party of big business, democrats will be beholden to Wall Street (even moreso), and we wouldn't be able to achieve economically progressive goals!

sigh

---

by: Iron Curtain @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 15:39:57 PM CST

If you're right, (4.00 / 4)

if our choice is to be between ignorant bigots and scheming plutocrats, the time for revolution will truly have arrived.

---

by: DaveW @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 16:03:17 PM CST

Well, then, if her husband has a good union job... (4.00 / 4)

...then certainly she would be in support of employee free choice?  What?  No?

Yeah, that house of cards will fall down very fast if she would actually be put in the spotlight again...

The Republicans like to pretend that they are the party of main street and have been doing so for a long time...  She's just another useful idiot to them and will continue to be, but the bigwhigs in the party will still shut her down if she steps out of line.

Romney may have lost a lot of money, but he is still filthy rich, and so are the rest of their elite rulers...

Remember, none of the Republicans liked McCain, either, and yet he won the nomination....

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

---

by: lord_mike @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 16:20:55 PM CST

A right wing (4.00 / 1)

populist party will become moe and more marginal.  Hate of others as its core.  Not enough.  White males split votes and the racists are not enough.  Evangelicals are not enough.

I think you're right.  The Rs will go in this direction.

Palin/Huckabee 2012!  It will ensure Dem rule.

---

by: Tom Wells @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 16:28:38 PM CST

Not funded, either (4.00 / 5)

Huckabee got considerable voting support and volunteers but very little money.  A populist Republcan party would lose a lot of cash to blue dog Democrats who are at least in the majority.  Just imagine them with 35 Senators and 160 or fewer House mebers.  What reason is there for the corporates to fund them?

---

by: David Kowalski @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 16:44:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I Dunno (4.00 / 5)

There's at least an outside chance that Huckabee sees Palin not just as a rival for GOP populism, but as the antithesis of what he stands for.  He's very confused on the policy front, as his economics simply makes no sense.  But he seems to be genuinely compassionate in ways that Sarah Palin can only mock.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 16:45:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Thats true. (4.00 / 1)

My VP may be wrong.  Huckabee sincerely seems to have a heart.  Palin has hate.  

---

by: Tom Wells @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 16:56:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The DLC Wing Has Been Scheming For This Since 1972 (3.20 / 5)

Driving all the populists into the GOP, and grabbing all the Big Business support for themselves?

This is what the DLC wing of the party has been all about since 1972, when they couldn't stop McGovern, so they pulled all the support they had and gave as much as possible to Nixon.

It's why they were relatively happy with Jimmy Carter, despite his screw ups.  It's why they pushed Mondale to run as a deficit hawk in 1984, and stay mum about social spending.  It's why Dukakis ran with the slogan, "It's about competence, not ideology."  And it's why Clinton ran with a populist agenda, but then ended up falling in lock-step with the Rubin crowrd.

Right now, there are troubling signs that Obama may blunder into more of the same, if the money spigot stays on for Wall Street, but there's no bailout for people losing their mortgages, and state and local governments are decimated, just when their services are needed most.

Thus far, he has given mixed signals, so it could go either way.  

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 16:42:21 PM CST

What matters? (4.00 / 1)

How will the House and Senate position themselves on the big issues?  Will the Senate modify the current version of the 60 Rule (51 votes does it, remember, folks)or let Republicans and a few fake Dems gum up the whole works?

I'd sure like to see more fire from Pelosi and Reid.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 16:48:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I thought a change of rules requires... (0.00 / 0)

...a 2/3rds majority?

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

---

by: lord_mike @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 17:03:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Reaching back to the nuclear option days (god what a dark time) (0.00 / 0)

I recall that it takes 51 votes, plus the President of the Senate (Cheney or Biden) overruling the objection of the Senate parliamentarian, on behalf of the minority, who will have appealed to him/her for a ruling on the legitimacy of the 51-vote.

It's not gonna happen anyway.  Nuclear option pulled by pro-business party = sorrowful tut-tutting.  Nuclear option pulled by dirty hippie party = nuclear press.  Unless the GOP becomes some unpredictable anti-corporate populist beast -- which is not actually possible given the current composition of the GOP Senate caucus -- then GOP filibuster rights will not be stripped.

---

by: texas dem @ Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 02:35:02 AM CST

[ Parent ]

This all sounds right, but (4.00 / 1)

I'm trying to figure out how to reconcile it with that I'm also seeing gobs of Republican commentators who are now convinced that Sarah Palin was, in fact, the reason the Republicans lost the election and that in order for the Republicans to survive they need to step away from the religious extremism of Bush and Palin and potentially just jettison the evangelicals altogether.

We have two groups each emitting the message that in order for the right to succeed the right needs to follow only them and ignore the other group. This doesn't sound like a recipe for success for either group. It's almost enough to make me wonder if, although Chris is surely right that the Democrats will get no Bush Grace Period, they'll still be favored in the next two elections just because the Palin and Romney wings of the Republican Party can't stop fighting long enough to win an election.

I mean-- so between the two, it definitely seems like the Palin wing is more dangerous for the Democrats' electoral chances than the Romney wing, both because of the "easier to organize people than money" thing right now that Matt identifies and because the Obama wing has been bending over backward to satiate the moderates of the Romney wing (to the point of potentially scaring progressives away from the party and making the Palin wing, if it can harness sentiment against bailouts, a threat in the first place...). But I don't think the Palin wing can go it alone, can they? I mean, Palin is right now a polarizing figure even among Republicans, and it seems like if her wing winds up holding the Republican mantle for yet another election the traditional business wing could wind up not so much "investing relatively more in the Democratic Party" as potentially outright fleeing in droves (or perhaps sitting out the election, letting Palin self destruct, and planning for 2016). It's easy to believe that if the nativists take over hardcore that the business wing will issue token complaints during a primary and then come around in a general, but then, I also believed the Limbaughs and such would do the same thing for McCain and it turned out a bit more complicated than that. Meanwhile I don't even know what effect a Republican party split in two like this has on a Congressional midterm election...

---

by: mcc @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 16:44:33 PM CST

And, of course (4.00 / 3)

big business naturally will redirect a lot of its money to the dominant party, regardless of which party that is.

---

by: Valatan @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 16:44:40 PM CST

Or create its own party (4.00 / 1)

A mix of corporate Democrats, old style Republicans, blue dogs and the scared or dependent will do.  Or at least do better than the faded out, beat up Republicans by their lonesome.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 16:51:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Unlikely (0.00 / 0)

Creating a new party requires organisation, which big business by its very nature cannot do.

If the Palin Republicans flee the party, they could certainly take over the husk, but I don't think they have the chops to build something from the ground up.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 19:24:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The problem with a right-wing populism (4.00 / 4)

is that it is almost unimaginable what the content of it would be. There is simply no ideological foundation for such a movement. What economic policies would they advocate that were both (a) populist and (b) different from what the Democrats are offering? The only thing I can think of is scapegoating immigrants; that will further alienate racial minorities, and has limited appeal to whites who do not live in immigrant-heavy states.

They could, I guess, marry the Democrats' economic policy with social conservatism on gays, guns, abortion, etc. But is there a political figure in this country for whom such an agenda would not be a total and abrupt 180 from what they have previously professed to believe? And even if there were, how well would it really sell? "We'll be just like the Democrats, except we'll overturn Roe v. Wade!"

Looking back at the GOP's track record. They have now lost four of the last five presidential elections. Their sole victory, in 2004, was due entirely to the terrorism issue. It is the only issue on which they have a winning hand. But war is rarely decisive this way; 2004 was an aberration: an election held in the shadow of 9/11. Unless 9/11 becomes a regular occurrence, they can't rely on that, and that was the only thing keeping them afloat. It won them Congress in 2002 and the presidency in 2004. As soon as the terrorism issue faded, they lost two consecutive semi-landslides; the Democrats now have a bigger majority in Congress than the Republicans ever did.

The GOP isn't necessarily doomed; if the next four years go poorly, if Obama is perceived as a failure, they will blame it on liberal policies and they will probably win. But they are painted into a corner. They have to just hope the landscape tilts their way.

---

by: Jason C. @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 16:52:34 PM CST

Right Wing Populism's content is easy to imagine: (4.00 / 3)

"When Fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross"

Sinclair Lewis, It Can't Happen Here

---

by: northcountry @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 17:17:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

small quibble on the salience of the immigration issue (4.00 / 1)

You say immigrant-bashing "has limited appeal to whites who do not live in immigrant-heavy states." But there's no evidence that xenophobic views on immmigration are more prevalent in states with big immigrant populations (e.g., New York, Texas, Florida). On the contrary, it seems to be more popular in parts of the country where there are relatively few immigrants, where they can be imagined as a sort of phantom menace. (Many of those places - not coincidentally - have weaker economies; so folks there have more reason to feel anxious in general, and at the same time immigrants have less reason to move to those areas.)

---

by: Chachy @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 17:46:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I guess I just assume (0.00 / 0)

that immigration as an issue is pretty far off the radar for people who live in, say, Indiana. Something that happens somewhere else. But then again, the same is true of terrorism.

---

by: Jason C. @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 23:33:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

John Brown via Joe Bageant had an excellent post on this: (0.00 / 0)

Sarah Palin is the Future of Conservatism

---

by: northcountry @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 17:12:16 PM CST

Do you see a progressive third party in the tea leaves? (4.00 / 1)

If the Republicans can be maneuvered into definite regional/marginal party status, that would leave an opening for the Democratic coalition to split into "centrist" and "progressive" factions - something that in some respects already seems to be happening.

With Progressives positioning themselves rhetorically as the opposition keeping Obama in line, could there be an opportune moment when a progressive party might take advantage of a populist message and become viable? A two-party system with the parties being centrist and progressive would be quite an improvement over the last few decades.

---

by: Cramer @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 17:17:45 PM CST

I could see that in New England (4.00 / 1)

Republicans have almost given up challenging for Massachusetts House seats, and where they do they usually get below 30%, not enough to win a 3-person race.

There's definitely an opening for affiliates of the Vermont Progressive Party in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, and possibly also in New York City (although a black reformist party might also work there). Similarly, I could see the Green Party moving from their role as an opposition party in San Francisco city politics to competing seriously in federal elections there.

That said, none of these things is likely to emerge organically. It'll take virtually unopposed and conservative Dems in liberal areas, or widespread corruption, or charismatic third party leaders in those areas. And it'll take a lot of support from outside. Those things do not happen every day.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 19:29:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Sarah Palin is going to help the Republican party (4.00 / 1)

I know far too many on the left who treat her as a joke....but she's no laughing matter.  She didn't help McCain, but she did keep the seats won that Democrats could have won but didn't, down by a lot.  We only got the 20 seats or so at the low end of expectations, not the higher end like the 30 plusexpected even by moderates like Charlie Cook. She is the reason McConnell kept his seat and maybe even Missisippi...and now Martin lost  Why too many of our close races went to the other side.

I just read Krugman at FDL who thinks without Martin, without 60 that EFCA will not pass.  With McConnell still in charge....the Republicans may not only fall in line with themselves..but they might bring conservative Dems along with them like Nelson.  Filibusters do matter and Republicans have always had more discipline and more balls than Dems.

Right after Sarah Palin was chosen I wrote a comment here called "the coattails have been cut"  and it's still a valid observation.

http://www.openleft.com/showCo...

The coat tails have been cut  

I was certain immediately that whether we win the presidential or not....the number of House and Senate seats we were going to get has been reduced. I have been agnostic whether Barack Obama had coatails or not before.
But given the Texas primary vote patterns, which was that the districts Hillary Clinton won had better down ticket results than the districts Obama won.  Obama voters were Obama voters...not Democratic party voters. I have long felt that George Bush was going to drive more voters to vote Democratic than having Barack Obama at the top of the ticket.

But now...the Republican base has woken up...like Rip Van Winkle....and they will stay awake.  They will go out, knock on doors and they will vote. We are going to win fewer than expected House seats and probably fewer Senate seats.

Whether Obama bashes McCain or not will help the presidiential campaign, but not those Congressional races. The Republican base is proud, angry and motivated.  What would help those down ticket races, if, and only if,  Obama begins to present more of an aggressive image,  is identify himself as a Democrat so those down ticket candidates can gain votes from that.

Part of a what I said I Nov 5th elsewhere

1. When McCain chose Sarah Palin, to counteract Obama not choosing Hillary, it didn't help McCain, but it helped Republicans in downticket races because she energized the Republican base exactly in those red states like KY and GA that we lost and in house races we should have gotten but didn't.  ...Only Palin as VP could have done that...no one else in the party could have done that as VP. McCain pidking Romney would have emant another dozen seats for the House.

It may be that Americians aren't giving the Dems much leeway or time...but as is often the case I don't blame them as much as the MSM sho has already made having programs and legislation that's too left, too progressive, too big D Democrat as ...bad.  They are already poisoning the soil.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 00:44:11 AM CST

Credit Due Palin (0.00 / 0)

Interesting that he gave her credit.  The media is interviewing everyone BUT her today.  It's funny to watch, really.

She's definitely going to be a factor in the future.

---

by: AnninCA @ Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 11:57:10 AM CST