On balance, yes.
Remember that coalition worked both ways. In exchange for segregation & mlitarism the Southern Democrats supported social welfare/infrastructure programs that the Republicans are now free to oppose.
Or whatever. What were the political conditions that allowed a 90% marginal tax rate in the 1950s?
Would I trade segregation for a return to a 50-60s economy, rising incomes and decreasing income inequality for 90% of Americans?
Is this a trivial, absurd, or wicked question?
I read the Yglesias article three times, and I don't see where he talks about the dynamics of policy implementation.
In a highly polarized polity, what do you bargain with? What do you give up? Do you pre-emptively make concessions in order to broaden your base, or do you go 50+1 like Hastert & DeLay?
Maybe Obama can gently reason the Republicans into tax increases. But I think he will have to deal.
What will the Unfoggedetariat be willing to sacrifice, something the Republicans really want, to get out of Iraq or get health care?
I feel like Yglesias makes this same argument about once a week.
What will the Unfoggedetariat be willing to sacrifice, something the Republicans really want, to get out of Iraq or get health care?
I would make sacrifices of 5 Republican senators for either one. Now I just need to find a Mayan priest.
I need to think on this, or go do some reading.
We will see in November whether the electorate is highly polarized or whether we have a realignment and new ideological majority, or even supermajority. I doubt it.
If the election is close, then policy will likely remain incoherent. Withdrawal from Iraq + huge defense expenditures, health care without the means to pay for it, a socially liberal Supreme Court Justice who is also pro-business, etc.
New Democrats like John Cole, Glenn Greenwald, Bruce Bartlett will not vote for the same kind of Democrat I would vote for. I cannot imagine a politics that doesn't find a disagreeable center in a polarized environment.
7: For real progress, we'll need an overwhelmingly popular President with 90% approval ratings and an authoritarian cult following, right?
5: Really? Not Thugi?
I really like that bit at the start of the second Indiana Jones movie.
My guess for 2009 is pretty solid Democrat control of Congress and a Democratic President.
At that point the Democratic left will become players for the first time since about 1984 (or 1968, depending on criteria). I do expect intra-party fights, but that's a good thing. It will be a step away from maximal "Beggars Can't Be Choosers" politics.
When Obama's promises of bipartisanship were in question, I agreed that he's very problematic that way.
What will the Unfoggedetariat be willing to sacrifice, something the Republicans really want, to get out of Iraq or get health care?
I don't think you have to give up anything to get out of Iraq. One of the nice features of our countermajoritarian decision is it's very easy to not do things. A (sufficiently brave) Democratic president doesn't need Republican support to not fight a war.
On healthcare? I'd start the bidding at massive pork projects for the home states of a handful of Republican holdouts supporting a filibuster in the Senate. Truth be told though I'd happily sacrifice on any part of the tax agenda to get it. GO ahead and cave and let the Bust tax cuts be renewed - I'd rather run deficits for another decade with universal access to healthcare than scrimp and save to build up a surplus that the next Bush can squander as soon as fortune swings the other way.
I think that bribing a few key Senators (and Representatives?) with pork and breaking the power of the Republican leadership is the first step.
And of course, punishing disloyal Democrats and loyal Republicans.
8:"Real Progress?"
Think about FDR, LBJ, & Reagan with less polarized parties.
You're close.
McCain, in MY's analysis I think, should get Goldwater numbers in the fall.
My guess for 2009 is pretty solid Democrat control of Congress and a Democratic President.
This is why Hillary wants it so, so much. I'd bet she's got polling figures to suggest that even if she tears the party asunder with primary shenanigans, the Democratic candidate will win in November.
See, all y'all Americans say your legislature is polarised, and I'll be honest, I don't see it. Polarisation indicates people are on opposite sides, and in most cases the GOP and Democrats are pretty much a one party system. The basic, fundamental assumptions are shared between parties, and their disagreements stem from the nuances. There is an incredibly narrow spectrum of accepted political speech, as this primary season demonstrates. The position of the most leftist "extremist" on the hill would be startlingly conservative in a healthier body politic, but even your conservative "extremists" tend to be dismissed if their extremism isn't carefully checked against the daily talking points. Spending on military, corporations; no spending on gays, poor people, infrastructure, healthcare. I'm not saying Ron Paul was a kook, but he was marginalised for saying "maybe America shouldn't run the world," not for saying "I hate Martin Luther King."
When the acceptable spectrum of ideas is so narrow, it's time to analyse whether or not the entire system is working at providing democracy.
Ron Paul is in Congress and won the primary for his re-election.
11
"I don't think you have to give up anything to get out of Iraq. One of the nice features of our countermajoritarian decision is it's very easy to not do things. A (sufficiently brave) Democratic president doesn't need Republican support to not fight a war."
I totally agree with this. If a Democrat is elected President with a Democratic Congress all he has to do to get out of Iraq is give the order. Even an unlikely Republican Congress would find it hard to stop him.
As for things to give up I would suggest support for illegal immigration.