It has amazed me to no small degree in the last several months to read the reactions of many here at DailyKos to the idea of Barack Obama attracting large support from independents and Republicans. To many, this seems like a compromise of values. An effort to ignore the prized chance for Democrats to give the Republicans a public humiliation as revenge for the last eight years. They seem to have a great desire to run roughshod over every member of the GOP and make them pay for inflicting George W. Bush on the country and the world. They are the militant arm of the progressive movement.
Guess what?
You can thank Lee Atwater and Karl Rove for creating them.
Most of us have come of age in the political climate of the late 1980s to the present (although I have been excited to see the widening range of ages that participate on this site!) Atwater-Rovian politics in the United States are what we understand, and we operate within this paradigm. By radicalizing the conservative political base in the United States, these two men helped create a reactionary progressive base that was equally committed to their own values and attitudes as the Republicans they reviled. I, as all here would agree, believe that the progressive values are generally much more realist and sound than those espoused by the opposing side. However, what is not "real" or "American" is the type of political polarization we have seen in the last two decades. In fact, during the 20th Century, it's generally been an aberration.
Many of us have become conditioned with the idea that the political divide is a zero-sum game with little room for maneuver, where states are pre-assigned to certain parties and the election is waged over fragmentary scraps in the form of a decreasing number of "swing states". Until Howard Dean (who despite his other faults) took lead of the DNC, Democrats largely accepted the premise of this argument. They were fools to do so. The Republican establishment knew that they were, because the Republicans themselves knew from experience that the whole idea was completely wrong.
If the political history of the United States in the 20th Century is examined, one idea becomes fundamentally clear.
Presidential elections are not supposed to be close.
We too easily forget that the trends of the last two decades do not reflect the greater conditions present in American popular politics. The last two elections (and to a lesser extent 1996) were close because Democrats reduced themselves to playing in the sandbox that Atwater-Rovian strategy had created for them. Since 1920, if one even briefly looks at the history, it is undeniable that close elections, and 50+1 strategy was not typical. Presidents before this recent period appealed to all voters, not "base" motivating games.
Let's take a peak at all elections since 1920 that haven't had a strong 3rd Party presence and examine the trends.
1920 - Harding (R) over Cox (D) >> 60.32% to 34.15%
1928 - Hoover (R) over Smith (D) >> 58.21% to 40.80%
1932 - Roosevelt (D) over Hoover (R) >> 57.41% to 39.65%
1936 - Roosevelt (D) over Landon (R) >> 60.80% to 36.54%
1940 - Roosevelt (D) over Wilkie (R) >> 54.74% to 44.78%
1944 - Roosevelt (D) over Dewey (R) >> 53.39% to 45.89%
1952 - Eisenhower (R) over Stevenson (D) >> 55.18% to 44.33%
1956 - Eisenhower (R) over Stevenson (D) >> 57.37% to 41.97%
1960 - Kennedy (D) over Nixon (R) >> 49.72% to 49.55%
1964 - Johnson (D) over Goldwater (R) >> 61.05% to 38.47%
1972 - Nixon (R) over McGovern (D) >> 60.67% to 37.52%
1976 - Carter (D) over Ford (R) >> 50.08% to 48.02%
1980 - Reagan (R) over Carter (D) >> 50.75% to 41.01%
1984 - Reagan (R) over Mondale (D) >> 58.77% to 40.56%
1988 - Bush 41 (R) over Dukakis (D) >> 53.37% to 45.65%
2000 - Bush 43 (R) over Gore (D) >> well...we all know the story...
2004 - Bush 43 (R) over Kerry (D) >> 50.73% to 48.27%
1924 had the Progressive Party. 1948 the Democrats looked in disarray due to the Dixiecrat issue. 1968 had George Wallace, although Nixon's victory was no less dominant. 1992 and 1996 had Ross Perot, plus the DLC reaction to the Atwater-Rove game (ie playing it).
1960 was close, not because Kennedy was Catholic, but because many Americans associated Nixon with what they viewed as a "golden age" in the 1950s under Eisenhower, compared to the hardship of the Depression.
1976 was close because, I hate to admit it, but despite Watergate and Nixon - alot of people liked Gerald Ford as a person. They still do.
Americans don't vote based on triangulation, hard partisanship, zero-sum politics. They vote because they believe, even if we here don't agree with what they believed at the time. Barack Obama appeals to these sentiments. People didn't vote for FDR because they loved his economic metrics. They did it because he made them believe that there was a solution and a victory - and helped deliver. They voted for Ike because they believed in his belief that America was the greatest country in the world. They voted for Johnson because they believed that he would carry on Kennedy's "vision". They voted for Nixon because they believed that he would save them from what they feared. They voted for Reagan because he promised them "Morning in America". They voted for Bush 41 because he spoke of a "thousand points of light" (and Dukakis was a moron).
The people that voted these large majorities in came from ALL political parties.
What should be most reassuring to use here at DailyKos is that larger coalitions rarely meant a tempering of policy. Instead, it was an acceleration. FDR didn't turn the New Deal over to private enterprise. Johnson didn't avoid the Great Society and Civil Rights. Nixon didn't make efforts to seek his "peace with honour". Reagan didn't go ahead full steam with "Reaganomics". Mandates have a funny way of doing this.
From the 1880s to 1932, conservatism dominated the national ideology. Then on a dime, liberalism laid the foundation from 1932 to 1980. Another fairly sharp to conservatism in 1980 went too far up to the present 2008. About time for another paradigm shift - don't you think?
Politics is not static. Yesterday's Republicans are tomorrow's Democrats, who are the day after's Republicans.
You can't change the conversation if you don't change the words.