Most voters in this country have become polarized during the past two decades.
I found the argument for this proposition a bit weak. He referred more to the vagaries of the approval ratings of presidents. My own feeble take on all this is the opposite, the growing number of independent voters, with certain centrist convictions. Each party plays to get the centrist voters while trying to hang onto their more committed bases as well. It's a pretty cliched analysis.
I also, as I've typed here before, find Judis' argument that the growing independent vote of great consequence, what he calls the professionals, are social liberals and fiscal conservatives. Judis thinks that's a bigger problem for Reps than for Dems. But if he's right, we could expect to see: (a) a hidden but ferocious fight to oust Lott, now that he's stuck with his past; (b) a much bigger push by Bush to get the Hispanic vote (assuming Rove has decided the black vote is now lost); (c) some interesting back and forthing on the judicial nominees--a few to satisfy the fire breathing evangelical constituency, a few to reach back toward the middle; perhaps some they think work for several constituencies, i. e., very conservative Hispanics for one; (d) a tax cut proposal that tries to hide, more vigorously than before, the extent of benefits to the wealthy; etc.
On the dem side, it's, obviously, harder to see because there is no one center of authority. And, as we begin to enter the primary season, candidates, cliche again, move to get the base, in this case, left. |
