"The fact is that one of our two great political parties has made it clear that it has no interest in making America governable, unless it’s doing the governing." Krugman, today. (Bonus berating of bitter old crank, Alan Simpson.)
The truth, as Krugman points out - and Steve Benen...and Matt Yglesias - is that the crisis in our politics, marked by the collision of feckless Democrats with reckless Republicans, is a more intractable disaster than the serious economic problems that aren't being addressed effectively because of that crisis. The problem isn't merely a congress that is tepid and co-opted - the GOP cohort is increasingly marked by just plain crazy and/or utter cynical saboteurs.
Or put another way.. the schism between the liberal middle class and the working poor is complete because a coalition between these two blocs could easily have avoided the sabotage of Obama's governance.
Now the country cannot unite even on an overseas monetary policy.
To me, this signals the end of the Obama era.
Expect a Bloomberg-esque independent run to counter a crazy Palin ticket. Then keep in mind that 2012 election goes to the House with each state getting one vote should no candidate garner 270 electoral votes, meaning a Republican win.
Posted by: pablo | November 22, 2010 at 07:14 PM
The Republicans have staked positions so far away from the actual middle of popular opinion that they have given the Democrats the ability to move fluidly between being the party of corporate power and the party of populism. Obama is the President who gave away the company store to Goldman Sachs and the guy who fired the CEO of GM. He wrestled the Health Insurance industry to the ground, but he did it with the help of Big Pharma and the AMA. He is expanding drone missile assassinations in Pakistan (where we supposedly aren't even at war!) with one hand and preparing to "draw down the Mission" (i.e. accept defeat) in Afghanistan with the other. He is both lowering taxes, and increasing Federal infrastructure investment. You can only spread your arms that wide if you are alone in the room and essentially, the Democrats are alone in DC.
Despite their numbers in the House, the GOP can't represent any large constituency from a policy perspective because they don't actually have any stated policies.
Even if the "Obama era" is over, it is really just beginning as the actual policy victories and defeats and compromises begin to have an effect on the country. As far as personnel changes in Congress, it will only amount to gridlock that won't matter that much next to HCR, the restructuring of GM, the Stimulus, and a variety of other smaller victories, including the very real possibilities of a functioning Consumer Protection agency and DADT repeal.
Put another way, if politics is a game, then the GOP is currently ahead, but if politics is the cumulative effect of legislative, regulatory and foreign policy actions, then the GOP left the field two years ago and it is still not clear when they might come back.
As for 2012, I think given his ability as a campaigner, given his ability to fundraise at both ends of the economic divide, the fact that we will still be in the middle of a war and the two years the public will have had to sour on the GOP, Obama is essentially a shoe-in. A third party upsetter would either be a far right crank who would split the conservative vote, or, if it was a serious centrist contender (like Bloomberg), he would be soft-soaped out with promises of access, appointments, etc.
Posted by: Jamie | November 22, 2010 at 11:03 PM