A collection of quotes, most in one way or another via Andrew Sullivan - capturing the potential of the moment:
I'll start with this quote from Obama himself. This so perfectly captures my own view on realignments (they are primarily rhetorical) that I both want and need to save this for future reference. Obama is fully aware of what he is doing.
...when I think about great presidents, I think about those who transform how we think about ourselves as a country in fundamental ways so that, that, at the end of their tenure, we have looked and said to ours — that's who we are. And, and our, our — and for me at least, that means that we have a more expansive view of our democracy, that we've included more people into the bounty of this country. And, you know, there are circumstances in which, I would argue, Ronald Reagan was a very successful president, even though I did not agree with him on many issues, partly because at the end of his presidency, people, I think, said, "You know what? We can regain our greatness. Individual responsibility and personal responsibility are important." And they transformed the culture and not simply promoted one or two particular issues.
This is what Obama's critics on the left fail to understand, notably the usually invaluable Paul Krugman. Talk of unity and bridge-building may be a sign of weakness in the zero-sum game of ordinary politics. In the politics of realignment, when you can make the words do something, it is the mark of strength. New voters are entering the process and decent, generous people who have thought of themselves as conservatives since Reagan, or longer, are wondering whether it is time to identify with something new. The diffuse sense of goodwill and fairness that the broad middle of America shares has been reflexively right-wing for nearly three decades. There is nothing inevitable about that, and Obama's way of imagining the country may draw it back to a more hopeful image of the American compact.
From one of Andrew Sullivan's readers:
My dad is a 75 year old Korean War vet, an Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan Republican. He said he understands my excitement about Obama and that he would vote for "Hillary or Obama" even over Giuliani, because "Giuliani is such a scumbag."
Andrew, you can't believe the shock I feel that my father would even consider a Democrat. He says his favorite Dem is Richardson. If anyone wanted to know how scattered the Republican party is, consider my father. The man has an "R" floating through his bloodstream, yet he is seriously considering Dems.
A second Sullivan reader:
Obama, in embracing hope, has reinvigorated a sense of patriotism, or even nationalism, on the American left. Such sentiments have tended to be shunned these past few years, not because leftists aren't patriotic or proud of their country, but because they -- like you, I suspect -- aren't particularly proud of what their country represents at the moment. But Obama invites us to believe in the possibility of transcending this moment, in a way that no other candidate really does. I think all the candidates have their virtues: Edwards has real passion, and Clinton has a true dedication to her work and her beliefs. But I don't think any of the candidates have as deep a love of, or as fierce a belief in, America. And he alone makes the fresh renewal of that idea by a new generation seem possible, attainable.
And from the other side, this thought on Huckabee from Powerline:
If Huckabee goes on to win more primaries he will have a reasonable claim to the nomination.... In spite of itself, the party might end up with him as its nominee, and with it, heading down the shortest road to disaster since the Goldwater debacle of 1964.
Make no mistake about it: an electoral defeat of these dimensions would represent a major watershed in the history of the Republican party. It would be faced with only two possible roads forward.One is to become the party of the religious right, a sectarian agglomeration somewhat like the small ethnic parties in inter-war Europe, perhaps capable of holding some governorships and seats in Congress but never again competitive in a presidential election. The other would be to cut itself free from the religious right and seek to appeal to the wide and growing tranche of independent voters who are socially liberal but economically conservative. In that case the Republican party would gradually resemble some of the “liberal” (that is, conservative) parties who periodically win national elections in Western Europe or Canada. These parties are friendly to market-based solutions to economic problems—that is, they are broadly libertarian.
If you don't see the magnitude of the change that's coming, you aren't paying attention.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
