Their Dream Isn't Over Yet... And It Is My Nightmare

Some interesting analysis on the Death of Karl Rove's 'Dream,' much of which I agree with, but... I am a tad more uneasy with the analysis. To me, Bush succeeds by simply barreling through but doing so with a smile on his face and a folksy way.

Anyways, this article (like many others recently), point out that Karl Rove modeled Bush's rise on what Mark Hannah did for William McKinley @ the end of the 19th century. the salient points:

Karl Rove's dream is dying. This is happening for reasons that have nothing to do with Valerie Plame.

Rove's dream was to reshape American politics by creating a durable Republican majority. [snip]

McKinley was an affable, none-too-bright former congressman when Hanna helped elect him governor of Ohio. In 1896, Hanna raised an unprecedented amount of money and ran a sophisticated, hardball campaign that got McKinley to the White House. One could go on with the analogy: McKinley governed negligently in the interests of big business and went to war on flimsy evidence that Spain had blown up the USS Maine.

Oh, that sounds familiar doesn't it?

The key to McKinley's political success was the alliance Hanna forged between industrialists like himself, who provided the cash, and workers, who provided the votes. In Rove's alliance, the rich provide the cash, and religious conservatives provide the votes. Refuting the conventional wisdom that successful presidential candidates must lay claim to the political center, Bush has governed from the right and won re-election in 2004 with a "base-in," rather than a "center-out," strategy.

I prefer to say that Bush has 'governed' by being a bully and a thug. But that's just me. And Helen Thomas. And Maureen Dowd. (read between the lines people!!!)

Many things have gone wrong for Bush, but the underlying problem is his relationship to the constituency that elected him. Bush's debt to his big donors and to religious conservatives has boxed him in and pitted him against the national consensus on various issues. His extremism is undermining Rove's realignment.

Yes, 'many things'... but 'many things' have also gone very right for him.

Bush aims to be the Second Coming of Ronald Reagan. But he has never understood the genius of Reagan's method, which was to placate the religious right without giving in where it mattered. Reagan could proclaim his undying support for a constitutional amendment to ban abortion without doing anything to endanger Roe v. Wade. (He was the one who nominated O'Connor, remember?)... [snip] But whether because he is less adroit or because he truly believes, Bush seems able to appease his base only by surrendering to its wishes. He has caved to conservatives on Terri Schiavo, on stem-cell research, on Social Security privatization, and on "intelligent design." Now, most important, he is caving by at least creating the appearance that he is trying to get enough votes on the Supreme Court to reverse Roe.

Bush's failure at base-pacification is not entirely his fault. The evangelicals, who were pragmatically willing to settle for half a loaf during the Reagan and Bush 41 years, now feel empowered, emboldened, and owed. James Dobson and Pat Robertson don't understand that they would do their cause the most good by keeping their mouths shut and not scaring everyone witless. Conservatives of all kinds are in a militant mood heightened by their success in muscling Bush on Miers. They do not realize how their militancy alienates not just the left, but the swingers in the center whom Republicans need to win.

See I disagree: they do undestand that they scare people, but they don't care because 'those people' (ooh, they're talking but us dear reader!) aren't really people at all: we're sinners and when the vengeful god of the Old Testament returns, we're gonna get it. They don't care about us because their kind of fanatic never does.

Rove is actually the second Republican realigner to stumble in this way in recent years. After the 1994 election, Newt Gingrich had his own visions of political sugarplums. Gingrich's unsuccessful revolution was more libertarian and less moralistic. He thought the new Republican majority would coalesce around shrinking government (a theme Bush has soft-pedaled, preferring to undermine government through neglect and incompetence). Gingrich was also, frankly, a little nuts. But he failed because he made the same basic mistake that Rove did. Gingrich thought he'd won a mandate for radical change and enshrined a new governing majority. He forgot about the country's nonideological majority, which likes Medicare, Social Security, national parks, and student loans. Republicans have retained control of Congress since Gingrich's downfall, but only by reversing his austerity program and spending like a bunch of drunks.

Ha Ha! Spending like a bunch of drunks! And more of a few of them probably are (based on their driving records).

I feel slightly better, but not much: this isn't over and there is a lot that can still go wrong... an animal is never more dangerous than when cornered and realizes it has nothing left to lose.