Are These the Death Throes of the American Left?

I don't have a yes or no answer to that question. In fact, rule of thumb: be cautious about announcing the death of a major political party or predicting the end of an ideology, because however much you might wish the contrary, they're probably here to stay. Just think back for a moment to the 2008 presidential election, and some of the analysis that occurred in its wake. Do you remember when certain members of the media, punch drunk on Obama's "landslide" victory, wondered aloud whether we might be witnessing the end of the Republican Party as we know it?

To almost everybody now, that prediction is laughable. President Obama's poll numbers have cratered so quickly and so precipitously that David Axelrod must wake up each night in a cold sweat from the same nightmare: Sarah Palin sewing up the 270th electoral vote, making her the 45th President of the United States and transforming Barack Obama into Jimmy Carter once and for all. But joking aside, the poll numbers are amazing- and most alarming for Democrats must be the mass exodus of Independents. The Virginia governor's race was just a preview of coming attractions.

Some on the Left still aren't convinced that the Republican Party is a force to be reckoned with...just listen to that paragon of reason over at MSNBC, Chris Matthews. He's still, even in the wake of Republican victories in deep-blue New Jersey and the crucial battleground state of Virginia, convinced (deluded?) that the GOP is continuing its march toward becoming the "party of the confederacy." What evidence does Matthews have to support this view? Alabama Representative Parker Griffith's party switch from Democrat to Republican. According to Matthews, that's the only way the GOP can grow: recruit "Dixiecrats" from the South to cross over. Oh...so THAT'S how Chris Christie won the New Jersey governorship! He flew in a bunch of confederate sympathizers to vote for him! Same with Bob McDonnell in Virginia...and it was easier for Bob, since Virginia was once a confederate state!!!

But no one really takes Chris Matthews seriously (except for, maybe, MSNBC's couple hundred viewers), so we needn't worry about his grim predictions about the future for Republicans. After all, this is the guy who got a "thrill" up his leg from listening to Barack Obama speak. Matthews discarded rational political analysis awhile ago, choosing instead to do things like sling mud at Sarah Palin for hiring a ghostwriter. Matthews' apparent shock and disgust at this revelation might ring a little genuine, if only he hadn't been a speechwriter for Jimmy Carter. And surely Matthews isn't too obtuse to realize that those words from then-candidate Obama, the very words that gave him the bizarrely thrilling sensation in his lower region, were also penned by a speechwriter. Let's face it: Chris is a disingenuous, partisan hack.

But enough about Matthews- he makes it far too easy to mock him, and I almost feel bad for poking fun at the guy (emphasis on almost). Let's get back to the title of this article. The reason I ask the question is, in part, irony- the fact that it's clear to anyone who isn't a partisan hack that the dreams of a Democratic realignment or the transformation of the GOP into an insular, permanent minority party are laughable. But here's a passage from a recent article by Drew Westen at The Huffington Post that got me thinking more seriously about whether this really might be the last gasp of liberalism in America (liberalism in the perverted sense of the term, of course, as adopted by "progressives" in the Wilson-FDR-LBJ-BHO tradition- not genuine, classical liberalism as Locke, Madison, and the rest of the Founders understood it):

The lefty Westen, wrapping up his critique of the Obama presidency thus far, writes: "You want to win the center? Emanate strength. Emanate conviction. Lead like you know where you're going (and hopefully know what you're talking about). People in the center will follow if you speak to their values, address their ambivalence (because by definition, on a wide range of issues, they're torn between the right and left), and act on what you believe."

This mirrors the Left's default explanation for the flight of independents: that Barack Obama hasn't done enough, that he's been too weak, too afraid to govern energetically and unapologetically. If only he'd reveal his true, far-left colors and unashamedly pursue them, the ideological center will follow him and support him. This view is completely incorrect and it will prove politically disastrous should the Democratic Party buy into it.

Here are the facts: 40% of Americans self-identify as "conservative," while just 21% call themselves "liberals." America remains a center-right country. Overall, a majority of Americans remain skeptical about government's ability to solve their problems. They remain confident that a free-market economic system, where government is a referee rather than a player, is the surest path to economic growth. They understand that we are not dealing with a fixed pie of wealth that Barack Obama (and before him, FDR) envisioned, but rather a pie that can continue to expand...if we only let it. These sorts of views are the reason that the current version of health care reform is VASTLY unpopular. It's not Barack Obama's lack of leadership on the issue that has caused support to crater so rapidly and so deeply (although that has undoubtedly played a supporting role). It's the fact that this bill is out of step with the views of mainstream Americans.

Bill Clinton won two terms as president because he was a "New Democrat": he was a moderate who, after the twin disasters of Don't Ask Don't Tell and HillaryCare, moved back toward the center and governed from there. He worked with Republicans on NAFTA, and he achieved meaningful, badly-needed welfare reform while proclaiming (correctly) that "the era of big government is over." Clinton, for all his flaws, had a good sense of where the center of America was on most issues- and, his failures on gays in the military and health care notwithstanding, he governed as a moderate, centrist Democrat. That's why he won a second term, and that's why despite his personal failings, his job approval ratings remained quite solid throughout his second term.

The 1994 midterm Republican landslide was a repudiation of Clinton's early failures- failures that resulted from tacking too far to the left. If the 2010 outcome is similar to 1994, as I suspect it will be, the reason will be the same: a president and a Congress with an agenda that is out of step with the American electorate.

So are these the death throes of the American Left? I don't know. But I think back to a conversation I had with a bright, thoughtful friend of mine about a year and a half ago. He said something along these lines: that often, the adherents of an ideology mistakenly believe they are witnessing the resurgence and the ultimate triumph of their side, when in fact they are really witnessing the final flame-out of their movement. Could it be that Barack Obama's election was a last gasp, the dying breath of 20th-century "liberalism," before it is discredited once and for all? Whatever the answer, it's clear we are at a crossroads. It's time to decide whether the European welfare state is the right direction for America, or whether we need to renew our roots and return to the Founders' formula.