2010 – The Political Unknowns
There are two ways to look at the politics of 2010.
The first is the conventional approach. Under this scenario the economy will improve somewhat, helped by delayed spending of the remaining stimulus funds and continued support from the Federal Reserve. The opposition to health care reform will gradually fade. Unemployment will edge down. The Democrats will lose a dozen seats or so in the House, and one or two in the Senate, as is normal in mid-term elections.
In other words, things will go back to what, in the eyes of the political establishment, is considered “normal”.
The alternative scenario would overturn that conventional wisdom. Yet from a historical perspective it could be more logical or “normal” than the first one.
Which one will be the real one depends on the balance of two sets of forces: the first set could be termed “system inertia”; the second, “popular aspirations”. The two are increasingly at odds, leading eventually to a political crisis. The longer the resolution is delayed, the more intense the crisis will be.
In order to gain historical perspective, let us go back some 150 years.
In the 1850’s the USA was a nation in transition, both economically and politically.
The economy was transitioning from the colonial model (commodities exchanged for manufactured goods) to a self-sufficient and self-funded system based on diversified agriculture and a budding industrial sector. Politically we were moving from an elitist system favoring the landowning and merchant classes to a full-fledged democracy.
Both economic and political transitions generated a set of practical issues such as the construction of railroads, the distribution of Western lands and the provision of mass higher education. And through it all ran the burning problem of slavery.
The parties of the time, Whigs and Democrats, were tied to the status quo. As the issues became more urgent, the do-nothing approach led to the rise of a large uncommitted and/or dissatisfied mass of voters. Parts of this floating electorate coalesced around single issues and formed third parties, but none of these attained critical mass.
None, that is, until the Republicans appeared in 1854.
The original Republicans were a motley crew of frustrated Whigs, angry abolitionists and land-hungry Free-Soilers, with a few Democrats thrown in. They founded the party almost in desperation, but it was desperation mixed with strokes of genius.
The first stroke was their platform, incorporating simple, practical and feasible solutions to the issues facing the country. The second was their invitation to anyone liking that platform to join them, regardless of past political affiliation.
It was a triumph of realism over ideology. In six years the Republicans took over the U.S. Within another six they passed a legislative program that made America a continent-sized nation and a top-rank industrial power.
Do we hear an echo here?
Many of the same elements are present today: a stuck political system invested in the status quo; an economy in transition from the industrial to the post-industrial; a large disaffected segment of the electorate, today called “independents”; a general conviction the country is headed in the wrong direction; and many single-issue groups and factions ready to be integrated into a common framework, if such a platform could be defined.
Does this mean a third party? Not necessarily. What is needed is a platform that transcends the current ones, either on the right or on the left. Such a platform can be conceived within one party as long as it is willing to expand its horizon. It can also be born out of the fragmentation of the current parties, with compatible factions combining into a new majority.
2010 could provide such a beginning. As Mark Twain observed, “History does not repeat, but it does rhyme.”
