More Realignment Nonsense

Sun, 09 Nov 2008 16:51:42 +0000

Severely overcharging for his two cents' worth this week is Harold Meyerson in his column in The Washington Post, "A Real Realignment."

The first problem is the one we've seen quite a lot this week: it is not a realignment when one Presidential election departs from the recent past. It is a realignment when that Presidential election is followed by others that are similar enough so that we know the first was a turning point, not an aberration. The way to make that happen is for the Obama administration and the Democratically controlled Congress to provide the political leadership to make people want to return them to office in the next several elections.

The second and more important problem appears in the last paragraph. Just read it for yourself:

Indeed, eight years after Karl Rove stormed into Washington proclaiming that he would create a 21st-century version of the Republican realignment that emerged from William McKinley's victory over William Jennings Bryan in 1896, today's emerging Republican minority looks confined to Bryan's base in America's rural backwaters. The future in American politics belongs to the party that can win a more racially diverse, better educated, more metropolitan electorate. It belongs to Barack Obama's Democrats.

<!--break-->

America's rural backwaters. Is this how we describe areas in which a majority of the people voted for McCain rather than Obama? Because if it is, then try not to get too upset when Governor Palin goes to such a place and describes it as the real America.

I read that paragraph and wondered if The Washington Post bothers to have anyone read the columns before they are published. I wasn't sure whether "yes" or "no" would disappoint me more.