But what would political science look like with facts? A Michael Barone column.
Today Barone notes with impeccable insight that Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher continue to reign over the political landscape, having moved the discussion to the center right for the foreseeable future. The parties of the left in their countries have experienced success only by accepting the definitions provided by the right and articulating near alternatives to center-right policies (see Clinton and Blair), but at the expense of alienating their parties' core. Meanwhile, the media sees the stark analysis and eat-your-vegetables rhetoric of the right as distasteful, while remaining warmly in love with the accommodationist, compromising rhetoric of the center left.
The result? The public gives the center right (Bush, Thatcher and Reagan) low approval ratings. But it refuses to vote for the center left.
Or as Barone so clearly puts it:
When you look back at all these leaders' job ratings in office, you find an interesting thing. The transformational Thatcher and Reagan had negative to neutral job ratings during most of their longer years in power. Thatcher's peaked upward after the Falklands victory; Reagan peaked from his re-election until the Iran-Contra scandal broke two years later. Their divisiveness, the stark alternative they presented with the policies and conventional wisdom of the past -- all these held down their job ratings.
In contrast, Blair and Clinton for most of their years in office had quite high job ratings. Blair's ratings for his first eight years were probably the highest in British history. Clinton, after he got over his lurch to the left in 1993-94, also enjoyed high job ratings, especially when he was threatened with impeachment. The center-left alternative, by accepting most of the Thatcher and Reagan programs, was relatively uncontroversial, determinedly consensus-minded, widely acceptable to the left, center-left and much of the center-right segments of the electorate.
Thus, the crunchy, confrontational right was in its years in power not so widely popular as the soggy, consensus-minded center-left. Yet surely history will regard Thatcher and Reagan as more consequential leaders than Blair and Clinton. Thatcher and Reagan defined the issues and argued that, as Thatcher once famously said, "There is no alternative."
8 comments:
How do we know this isn't wishful thinking? We need more evidence.
The precedent set by PM Thatcher has not been an entirely pleasant one. For instance, when she waited until all ten of the Republican hunger strikers died in order to grant the basic human rights to political prisoners she institutionalized an imperialistic stance towards the people of N. Ireland. This is why, today, it was so easy for British government to suspend the right to self rule and self determination granted to the people of N. Ireland under the Good Friday Agreement even though the IRA had satisfactorily disarmed two years previous to this. In other words, the Iron Lady's iron composition was not always to such great benefit as it was when put to use against the Soviet Union. So then, I urge SWNID to recall his international (and specifically Scottish flavored) perspective and recognize that Margaret Thatcher might not be the best poster woman. Her iron girdle helped many, but also hurt many others
With a problem as seemingly intractable as Northern Ireland, everyone makes mistakes.
Apparently some readers of this blog believe that an approving comment equals the attribution of moral and intellectual perfection. That seems to be true whether we discuss jazz disc jockeys or political leaders.
Erin, we note Barone's hard-to-refute judgment that Baroness Thatcher and Mr. Reagan have set the political agenda for a generation. Even people who disagree with both of them on everything may have to reckon with that reality.
Fiona, your analysis of the current situation for Republicans has every virtue except historical perspective, though you have that in common with about 90% of professional pundits. And I salute your ability to work Giuliani into every comment. Feel free to dispense with the "Sir" from now on. We get it.
Most Excellent Fiona, Least Nagging of Women (Prov 27:15):
Elections also aren't won by excessive handwringing and declarations of falling skies. Pessimism never brought out the base.
But we aren't trying to gin up some excitement. We're just taking the contrarian position that the Ds aren't a lock in November.
Barone knows more details of political science than anyone alive. He edits the almanac on the subject. I find your statement that he's a better writer than thinker amusing. Ann Coulter and P. J. O'Rourke are published because they write well. Michael Barone is a pretty pedestrian writer, clear but uninspiring and unfunny. He is published at a highly visible level because he tends to be right much of the time, and he tends to be right because he tends to the social sciences, not the latest trend in journalism or punditry.
We fail to address your repeated objections to the Giuliani candidacy because you simply restate them again and again. We've addressed them before. But you keep coming back. And it's our blog! Even we want to discuss more than Giuliani. If you want an internet debate on why Rudy is the antichrist, get your own blog.
Now listen up, because we're saying this for the ages:
Conservative Republicans are likely to support Giuliani in the primaries in sufficient numbers because (a) he has a superb record on crime in NYC; (b) he looks able to command the armed forces and intelligence services vigorously, critically and effectively in the Global War on Terror, the defining issue of this generation; (c) he's not as liberal on social issues as his rabid opponents make him out to be (by the standard you apply to Rudy, Nixon, Eisenhower and Lincoln were liberals and TR was a communist) and he will have the beneficent pressure of a conservative congress on these matters; (d) he's a more trustworthy, competent and appealing candidate than McCain; and finally and most importantly (d)THERE IS NO VIABLE, NATIONALLY APPEALING SOCIALLY CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE. (Please forgive our yelling, but we fear that at least one gentle reader is hard of hearing.)
Yes, he may have trouble in South Carolina. But who is his challenger on the right? Folks have to vote for someone. Is Pat Robertson running?
And Rudy is electable in November because Americans won't vote for a left-wing candidate if presented with any kind of conservative at all. The Ds will nominate Hillary, but Rudy nukes Hillary's base. He steals New York and maybe more of the Northeast, plus maybe California.
Rudy wins the general election because he appeals across the spectrum, not because he brings out the base in record numbers. He wins for the same reason that Bob Casey will likely beat Rick Santorum in PA in November '06. He wins for the same reason that Tony Blair beat John Major.
We remind you again that Rudy currently polls better than anyone among registered voters, likely voters, and Republicans. Where's the deficit in his support?
OK? The question asked for the 50th time has now been answered for the last time. Stop saying we aren't answering, or we'll say again that you aren't listening or aren't remembering or just like the attention.
And when do we get some of these cookies you keep bragging about?
Ms. Fiona,
I will comment only on the one aspect of your comment that might otherwise produce no complaint. While verbally the British "biscuits" and American "Cookies" are the same, my palate protests that they are nothing like each other. The British dunk their biscuits in tea and coffee because they are not fit for any other service to the stomach. However, American cookies, which I am sure you are quite adept at producing, need nothing to mask their wonderful flavor and texture. If for nothing else the colonies disbanded from the empire in order to establish a better diet. For, it is difficult to establish economic dominance over the world on a steady diet of black pudding and bangers and mashed.
Ms. Fiona:
Give it a rest. Do you have opinions about nothing else?
Again I must be the one to correct French grammar: "C'est la vie" is the correct spelling, but I admire the sentiment.
Or as Giuliani supporters like to say in these trying times, "C'est la guerre."
Post a Comment