Our political quote of the day comes from The Atlantic’s Ronald Brownstein notes that President Barack Obama has been essentially repudiating the Bush administration since day one and is opting to do a big push for major changes — with the idea of a possibly political realignment in mind…something that is possible but also filled with pitfalls:
So is 2009 the beginning of another epoch that will enshrine a new governing theory for the next generation? [White House advisor David] Axelrod is aware how many other presidential political gurus have been mesmerized by that light in the distance. And yet Axelrod can’t help but think that prospect may be flickering more brightly than usual now. “I know others who have sat in the office I’m sitting in have talked about realignment,” he said. “I think its premature to talk about that. But I think this is not an ordinary time. I think this is potentially one of those transitional moments.”
Presidents who believe they are governing in “transitional moments” take greater risks to impose bigger changes. When the country embraces those changes (as in the case of Skowronek’s reconstructive presidents) the policy and political payoff is enormous. But Bush and his political guru Karl Rove also believed they could reshape the electorate with bold change to establish a lasting majority for their party. Instead they governed in a polarizing manner that lost the country’s confidence and eventually decimated the Republican electoral coalition. That’s a cold testament to the risks facing ambitious presidents who reach beyond their electoral mandate-and a reminder to Obama that in repudiating Bush, he needs to be careful not to emulate him.
The secret to lasting majorities is they have be comprised of more than 50 + 1. A last majority requires some skill at coalition building, winning some wavering people over and either moving the country’s political center to your side or peeling off a larger number of centrist voters to be for you than against you. Bush and Rove didn’t do it. Can Obama? 50 + 1 (or even in the Senate just 60) may be enough to ram some things through. But the key is to persuade and try to draw wavering voters in.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.