The Obama Revolution

Harris & VandeHei did a good job of describing the massive shift in power from conservatives to Obama, which is nothing short of a revolution.

The rout of the Republican Party, and the accompanying gains by Democrats in Congress, mean that Barack Obama will assume office with vastly more influence in the nation’s capital than most of his recent predecessors have wielded.

The only exceptions suggest the magnitude of the moment. Power flowed in unprecedented ways to George W. Bush in the year after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. It flowed likewise to Lyndon B. Johnson after his landslide in 1964.

In both cases, the power shift followed the shock of a sudden tragedy - 9/11 and the assassination of JFK. Obama's revolution followed the slow-motion tragedies of Iraq, Katrina, innumerable scandals, and finally the market meltdown.

For most of the past 30 years, since the dawn of the Reagan Era, conservatives have held the momentum in American politics. Even the Clinton years were shaped — and constrained — by conservative ideas (work requirements for welfare, the Defense of Marriage Act) and conservative rhetoric (“the era of Big Government is over”). Republicans rode this wave to win the presidency five of seven times since 1980, and to dominate Congress for a dozen years after 1994. Now the wave has crashed, breaking the back of the modern Republican Party in the process.

In reality, conservative "ideas" were never very popular. Reagan beat Carter because Carter was both ineffectual (Iranian hostages, oil prices) and unpopular ("malaise"), not because of Reagan's conservative "ideas." Reagan betrayed those "ideas" by creating huge deficits, raising taxes to reduce them, and negotiating Start II with the Evil Empire.

Reagan was never very popular because of his attacks on the poor, and George H.W. Bush had to run as a "kinder and gentler" candidate. Bush only beat Dukakis because he looked like Snoopy in a tank and wouldn't even defend his wife. Even after driving Iraq out of Kuwait in 1991, Bush lost to neoliberal Bill Clinton.

Newt Gingrich and the Republican Revolution stormed Congress in 1994, but their victory was driven by Democratic disappointment over Clinton's failed health care plan. Gingrich was never popular, and his relentless attacks on Clinton - including impeachment - only made Clinton more popular.

In 2000, George W. Bush ran as a "compassionate conservative" who promised a "humble foreign policy" and a prescription drug plan. Even so, he lost to Al Gore. In 2004, Bush only beat Kerry through a vicious Swift Boat campaign and constant Code Red terror alerts.

Democrats are positioned to do more than move legislation. They will flush Republicans out of key positions in the federal government and lobbying firms. They will install their people in the federal courts. They will be positioned to raise money for those who usually give to Republicans and easily recruit the most desirable candidates in 2010, as other Democrats look to join what looks like a winning team.

Before the election, I said the biggest problem facing the Republican Party is its pathetic bench. Because of the ideological takeover by the far right, the GOP has no credible candidates for President, for the Senate, for the House, or for any other office. And it will be impossible for the GOP to recruit decent candidates for 2010 because of its losing record, its lack of money, and its shrinking base.

A party dominated by white males is poorly positioned to prosper among an increasingly diverse electorate. Somehow, the GOP needs to find new ways to appeal to minorities — or risk a long life in the wilderness as a percentage of the overall population continues to shrink.

Karl Rove tried desperately to reach out to hispanics through comprehensive immigration reform, but his friends on rightwing hate radio went into full-scale revolt, and conservatives in Congress quickly followed. Thanks to Jim Sensenbrenner's draconian anti-immigration bill, Hispanics went for Obama by 67-31.

Obama is the Google of politics: He has technological expertise and an audience his political competitors simply cannot match. Looking ahead to 2010, House and Senate Democrats will be jealously eyeing Obama’s e-mail lists and technology secrets — giving him even greater leverage over them. Republicans will be forced to invest serious money and time to narrow the technology gap.

Republicans can invest as much in technology as they like, but web 2.0 is all about bottom-up user participation, not top-down messaging. The only grassroots activists who are still Republicans are neofascist ideologues who believe Obama is a Muslim communist. Why would any normal voter want to associate with crazies like them?