Friday, October 31, 2008

Defining a Mandate

Sirota on both parties and The Mandate Debate.

In their own ways, they are both telling us that a vote for McCain is a vote for Reaganism and a vote for Obama is a vote for Roosevelt-ism. And so it doesn't matter if Obama wins by one vote, or by a landslide. If a guy billed as a black Muslim socialist/terrorist can win an election in such an ideologically polarized environment, it is a huge rejection of conservatism - one with a mandate for arguably more progressive governance than Obama himself is even proposing.

That's why conservatives are freaking out - they realize that under such circumstances, a McCain loss isn't just a loss for one candidate in one election, but a much more far-reaching rejection of an entire ideology. That's not to say that conservatism won't make a comeback, should Obama win. But it is to say that an Obama win would deal a much deeper blow to the conservative movement than had this race ended on less ideological terms.

To be sure, the fight to define this mandate will be fierce.

1 comment:

    Jas damn kid somedays i think you should write pro. that sounded like something out of the wall street journal or the New Yorker more lib yah you should write for the new yorker
    but anyways i think you nailed it on the head and yes i am scared shitless that you are right
    infact i think i will go purchase another box of ammo tomarow and im going to put another 2 feet of bobwire around the top of the compound fence
    it is scary as hell the change in ideolagy and thinking that is accouring in people its been scary from the beginging
    i got to say thow just because the thinking is becoming more of the majority its still not the right thought
    just because there is more people in the mob dosnt make mobocracy right