6 Years Bush = More Democratic and Secular America
An interesting post at Hot Air: six years of Bush have made America more Secular and more supportive of the Democrats.
Permanent majority, right?
When will they learn: in two-party system no one party will ever have a ‘permanent majority’. In the end, after a couple of years people always get fed up with the ruling party. It is human nature.
Now combine that basic truth with the way Bush has mishandled the war in Iraq, recent and not so recent controversies, etc. and… this isn’t exactly shocking news.
All of that being said, the becoming more secular trend is an interesting one. Europe is, compared to America, very secular, it seems that America will follow Europe in this regard. If this trend continues (and it is quite likely that it will of course), the Republican party will have to adjust.
And, whether social conservatives like it or not, I am sure she will.










I definitely agree with your premise about a permanent Democratic majority. The GOP thought it was establishing a permanent majority as recently as a year ago, when the Democrats were in disarray.
Bush rode into office in 2000 and 2004 due to a backlash from the hedonistic Clinton years. Social conservatives were outraged by his personal behavior in the White House, while neoconservatives felt that his foreign policy lacked direction (they had urged him in 1998 to invade Iraq and remove Hussein). The two factions came together with the business community and helped ensure Bush’s victory. Six years of Republican leadership ended up not fulfilling anyone’s hopes, and unleashing massive opposition from Democrats, Libertarians and Independents, which helped the Democrats win back both houses of congress last year.
The war’s length and lack of progress continue to dim the GOP’s electoral hopes for ‘08. Republicans have 22 Senate seats coming open and as many as 11 Representatives have indicated that they are considering resigning their seats. So we may get a real wipeout.
It will take dissatisfaction with the next Democratic president to turn the tables again. I’m sure they’ll end up having to raise taxes, and if they pass universal health care, it will galvanize the Republican base, who remain dead set against it.
Exactly.
Also something I could have added to my post, I think that those who think that one party can have a ‘permanent majority’ simply don’t understand the complexities of American (or any for that matter) society.
MvdG- It all goes back to the way the primary system works in this country. Both parties are forced to pander to their respective interest groups and activists , who usually are the most ideologically extreme. That accounts for someone who runs as a moderate during the general election, who is then reined in by the party base after the election. Of course the moderates, independents and centrists then react with buyer’s remorse, as most Americans become dissatisfied with who they voted for. Only way to fix it is to have more political organization of moderates, and pass laws allowing independents to vote in primaries. I think most Americans are pragmatic, being too busy making a living and raising their families to be bound by ideology.
I guess I’m the only one interested in this, LOL! MvdG-
Your post is a relief, because my biggest fear after six years of a move towards permanent Republican rule, was that it was becoming a reality. The GOP has become unrecognizably intolerant of dissent , and has moved closer to authoritarianism the longer they stayed in power.
Bush’s moves to insert party loyalists (over competent candidates) at every opportunity- as we are seeing in DOJ is one sign of this alarming trend. Another was Tom Delay’s K St Project, and of course his attempts at redistricting in his home state.
When there is a concerted effort to consolidate power for its own sake, and loyalty to an ideology or party trumps competence, our democracy is weakened. We’ve seen machine politics at the federal level with Bush at an unprecedented level, and it is an unsettling trend. I’m not sure why, but the media is not connecting the dots on this one.