Fine and good, but a few thoughts in response.
The absence of electoral turnover in the House would attract a lot more attention and alarm if it weren't countered by frequent Senate and Presidential turnover. So that's Thing One.
The absence of electoral turnover in the House would attract a lot more attention and alarm if it weren't countered by frequent Senate and Presidential turnover. So that's Thing One.
Thing Two is that I only began with Gingrich because one must begin somewhere. I could begin with Nixon, if you'd prefer! But that's a little bit of snarky, unfair play on my part. Does 1994 really inaugurate some new, dangerous phase? I think so, but I'm open to the counter.
Lastly, "What did those norms ever do for the GOP?" Well, the Reagan Revolution comes to mind. The destruction of the New Deal coalition. The conservative capture of the SCOTUS, which was achieved in the 1980s, I'll remind you. Not the 2000s. And so forth.
Crisman's entirely reasonable complaint is that liberals downplay their electoral victories. @michaelbd's entirely reasonable complaint is that they downplay their CW victories. These entirely reasonable complaints are extremely reasonable!
@michaelbd But if you can't understand how a liberal might survey the post-1994 landscape of America with something less than total satisfaction, and perhaps instead something approaching alarm, you're missing a bit piece of the story.
@michaelbd I hasten to add that I don't attribute that naive position to either Michael or Alec. I'm just trying to explain how things seem to people on my side.
@michaelbd Last, and most important point: I encourage everyone to follow @AlecCrisman, especially if you enjoy (as I do) cantankerous right-of-center contrarianism. He's very smart, very fair, and very under-followed.
