The Governing to Come

Paul Krugman writes:

A magnificent victory for Barack Obama. And bear in mind that the campaign, in its final stages, was really about different philosophies of governing. This wasn’t like the 2004 campaign, which was essentially fought over fake issues — Bush running on national security and social issues, then claiming that he had a mandate to privatize Social Security. In this election, Obama proudly stood up for progressive values and the superiority of progressive policies; John McCain, in return, denounced him as a socialist, a redistributor. And the American people rendered their verdict.

Now the work begins.

I think that’s right and it’s part of what I had in mind when I disputed the notion that John McCain’s campaign was somehow even more slimy than previous conservative efforts. The whole socialism, welfare, redistributionist, appeaser schtick certainly had its ugly side, but it did also have some real ideological content. A high-tone policy argument? No. But it wasn’t just a series of random insults directed at Barack Obama, it was a clear claim that Obama’s political views were too liberal whereas Obama argued that McCain offered a continuation of Bush’s conservatism. And the voters chose the liberal path.

Ezra Klein thinks back to late 2004 and early 2005:

I do remember that. I also remember how Democrats had to get religion if they ever wanted to be competitive again. I also remember how they had to appeal to the white heartland by nominating candidates more culturally recognizable to rural voters. Instead, they went in the opposite direction, running a candidate who was recognizable to the majority coalition Democrats hoped to have in 10 years. It seems to have worked out pretty well. It’s almost as if pundits don’t really know what they’re talking about.

Mostly I think it’s a reminder that events matter. By 2006, the consequences of conservative governance were clear to a majority of the public, who registered their displeasure at the polls. But the lame-duck conservative president and a filibuster-happy conservative minority in the Senate blocked efforts to take the country in a substantially new direction. Two years later, the consequences of conservative governance and of conservative obstruction were even worse. So the public has once again expressed its displeasure at the polls. The vehicle — an unlikely candidate with an uncanny talent for political oratory and organizing who didn’t fundamentally rethink the nature of the progressive agenda but did help sharpen public demand for change into an effective political movement for change.

That gets you . . . an opportunity. If progressive ideas, when put into practice, work as we think they will work — which is to say, if they work well — then we should expect to see that reflected in future election results. But if our ideas fail, as conservative ideas have failed, then victory can turn into defeat incredibly quickly, just as Karl Rove’s dreams of an enduring Republican majority have now melted away into nothing.