Back in the 70s Bill and Hillary decided they wanted to reclaim the Democratic Party for the old Humphrey liberalism (under their leadership of course) and push the McGovern Democrats to the margins. Looks like they’ve been pretty successful.

Nice overview of the current situation. I eat that stuff up.

Indeed, Obama’s supporters are among the most enthusiastic young graphic designers and techies, what Richard Florida calls the “creative class”. Hillary Clinton has the vote of the transit workers and nurses, Obama of the hipster magazine staff. Though here in the bay area Obama’s support seems to extend to much of the working class too, especially in Oakland.

Thanks for that new Friedman link. Hadn’t seen that one!

Sure, the GOP has its fights, but they stick together in power. However much they hate each other, 95% of the time a GOP Congress will (eventually) rally around a GOP President (with perhaps a few token voices of “opposition” who always back down in the end) and 95% of the time they will rally against a Dem President. A Dem Congress, OTOH, is much less cohesive.

The hope of redistributionist policies — and the absolute certainty that Republicans will not deliver anything in that regard — is a powerful glue at the moment. The failure to deliver might become a similarly powerful force for realignment.

The ‘leftward’ move of both current Dem candidates on health care and withdrawal from Iraq has a lot to do with John Edwards’ presence in the race early on.

And ka1igu1a, if you read this: I hope you don’t think I was picking on you. You provided a lot of food for thought. And I totally ignored the Mountain West thing, to which I’ll need to return.

Not at all Jim; in fact, I appreciate the commentary. However, I do stand by what I wrote.

In terms of the GOP, I maintain the bonding that holds these coalitions together is more aptly characterized by “Van der Waals” rather than the more stable and permanent “covalent” type that you maintain. Grover Norquist and the supply-siders raged war against “Tax Hike Mike.” Former Huckabee spokesman Joe Carter in a recent Reason Magazine article said Huckabee specifically saw the split in the GOP between conservatives and libertarian free marketers. The Neocons haven’t been supply-siders since Reagan left office and were going to make a very public defection to Hillary Clinton(at the time she seemed the likely Dem nominee) if Huckabee had garnered the nomination. In fact, if the GOP had proportional delegate awarding instead of winner take all, you would be witnessing a bitter 3 way race(Mccain,Romeny, and Huckabee) that would mirror what’s going on the Dem side. Throw in Ron Paul and you would have all 4 coalitions still battling it out on the GOP side.

That we are seeing a bitter Dem nomination process this late in the game and would be witnessing a similar coalition splintering contest on the GOP side (if not for it being rigged to specifically prevent this) more than suggests that political re-alignment is in the cards. Political coalitions are not historically static. They do change.

You keep implying that Dem economic redistributionist policy will continue to unite the Dem coalitions. And as I posted on Freedom Democrats, neither Obama nor Clinton are economic redistrubutionists. Obama is being advised by the post-Friedman Chicago school and Hillary would be about as redistributionist as her husband’s presidency was. When it comes to campaigning, ignore the headlines and always look at the fine print.

And contrary to your position, I assert that winning political coalitions that may have “worked” in the past will not likely remain viable going into the future. In any event, winning coalitions these days are won at the margins, which makes, say, the “western libertarian vote” a vote that actually has to be “courted .” Court jesters still, perhaps, but ones that have some say in who their king will be.

You should actually thank Dain for the Jeffrey Friedman article, he’s the one who pointed it out here. He has actually called into question the empirical case for libertarianism.

Anyway, oddly enough, I just happened to stumble onto this passage not long before I read your post:

“The post World War II American ‘Corporate State’ ap-
pears to this writer to be based upon a profoundly conser-
vative coalition of government, big business, conservative
labor leaders and ‘liberal’ intellectuals. Kaiser Wilhelm I
and Bismark would certainly smile approvingly on con-
temporary American capitalism.”

–E. K. Hunt’, “A Neglected Aspect of the Economic Ideology of the Early New Deal” (Review of Social Economy, Vol. XXIX, No. 2, Sept. 1971). Quoted in Chris R. Tame, “Power, Class and the State,” LA Historical Notes No. 8.

Now dear Jim, let the good folk at AoTP understand: I wrote that at your blog, and just wanted your blog readers — you know, the substantial readership you’ve built due to you prescience and insight — know that all of UO (including moi, until you evict me) is not leaving them high and dry for new parts.

Now, carry on. Limitedly or otherwise.