A WINNING HAND

    Divisions of Red & Blue:  Tonight's NewsHour on PBS included a segment focusing on political polarization in the USA.  There's nothing new here except that the four authors have published new books on the subject.  The USA has seen evidence of polarization dating back to the early '60s founded on the legacy of racism in the USA which was misdiagnosed as a uniquely southern problem, when in fact Swedish sociologist Gunner Myrdal correctly identified it with the title of his book "The American Dilemma."
    LBJ was prophetic when upon signing the Civil Rights Bills of '64 and '65 he told his longtime political ally Sam Rayburn, the Speaker of the House, also from Texas, that he was signing the death knell of the old Democratic Party! From the '30s though the late '50s the party was built on a coalition of white Southern pro-segregation and conservative voters and northern liberals heavily influenced by organized labor and civil rights groups like the NAACP and the ACLU.  A major realignment has taken place since that time.
   As the Republican party especially under Ronald Reagan successfully attracted the southern white voter and increasingly the lunch bucket old union workers the GOP expanded its base regionally but at the price of becoming the "conservative" party of the USA much more so than when the GOP was dominated by a northeastern NAM wing and a midwestern farm belt voter.  Since that time the GOP has increasingly become conservatively "ideological."
   But a similar trend line has also happened within the Democratic Party as it has become the party of the coastal beltways in the northeast and the so-called "left" coast.  The Democratic Party has been captured by its own activist wings committed to minority group civil rights, gay-lesbian rights, environmentalism and feminism.   Like the GOP it has increasingly become a party which looks at candidates through an ideological litmus test lens.
   But what the authors in tonight's discussion missed is that while the rank and file party loyalists are more solidly conservative or liberal - they mirror similar divisions within the voting public.  While the base for each party has narrowed, leaving independents out of the picture, each party's base has been played to by its candidates and PAC supporters.  So the incentive to move to the middle has increasingly been marginalized.
    The not so hidden secret is that until the independent voters start asserting themselves as an organized voice in US politics (an unlikely prospect) or until candidates see some virtue in reaching out to such voters (again not likely until the precondition of the center's mobilization becomes actionable) - we will continue along this polarized pathway with it's negative results - gridlock. 
    But let's be clear, while the Democratic activists can share the blame with the GOP activists (and data for that true believer separation goes back 40 years via the University of Michigan survey research data) - the more recent harvest of the politics of polarization has become an art form sketched by Karl Rove in the Bush White House, the ideologically tempered metaphorical political offspring of Lee Atwater, Roger Ailes, Newt Gingrich and Grover Norquist. 
   By contrast Bill Clinton invented the Democratic Leadership Group (DLC) to move the Democratic Party to a centrist posture.  His nomination and election proved that a "centrist" strategy was a winning hand with help from H. Ross Perot.  Remember the issue in '92 was "the economy stupid" not affirmative action, gay rights or global warming.  But the Clinton presidency was savaged even before the inauguration by the anvil chorus of the right shouting the Bill was the apostle of the "left." 
   The irony is that Hillary, the ideologue in the family, more than Bill (aka Slick Willie) distorted the Clinton presidency with Whitewatergate and then Gay's in the Military with a big nudge by Colin Powell, then the Chairman of the JCS.  Between Whitewatergate and the Lewinski affair, Bill Clinton rode his DLC agenda to America's longest and deepest economic boom, success in US/Russian relations, tax cuts, streamlining government (a Gore chore), welfare reform and NAFTA - each requiring a little help from the Uncle Newt's GOP.
   So can the center rule again in the USA?  Yes it can - but NOT WITH A GOP PRESIDENT - unless that is Rudy Giuliany.  But if one is a betting person, put your dollars on Queen Hillary.  While her aura is that of a feminist lefty, she will govern like Attila the Hun giving the "left" the back of her hand just like Bill often did - with all the while feeling their pain.  But if you want really new blood - no pun intended, let's hope voters in Iowa and New Hampshire vote for Barack Obama.
    PS:  Now that the deck chair of the caucus/primary Titanic is set with the Iowa Caucus on January 3, the New Hampshire Primary on January 8 and the Michigan Caucus set for January 11 we will have a very early test of how the voters are feeling.  RAD's bet is that voters in these early states don't like to be told by the Inside the Beltway Boys & Girls that the race is over - it's going to be Hillary vs. Rudy.
    The polls are tightening and who knows who will win and get early "MO".
    But once you look beyond the early states to Super Tuesday February 5 - the chances of Hillary losing seem unlikely, while the GOP field is as clear as mud!  But look at the football rankings this season - how many teams have fallen from ranks of the top 5?  The game is settled on the field of dreams (play) not in the board rooms of NBC, CNN or Fox News.  Thank God!
   In the meantime, Happy Thanksgiving...