Hubris

By Hans Meyer

Hubris: denotes overconfident pride and arrogance; it is often associated with a lack of knowledge, interest in, and exploration of history, combined with a lack of humility.

The 2006 election is now (mostly) history, and by all accounts it was a resounding victory for the Democratic Party and its candidates. Much has been said (and will be said) that 2006 was a defeat for the Republicans, not a victory for the Democrats. While this might be true it still translates to a victory for the Democrats (in the zero sum game of politics, when one side loses, one side wins).

Before we look at the 2006 election let's get some perspective:

1. In three of the last four presidential elections (2000, 1996 and 1992), the Democratic Party candidate received more votes than the Republican candidate. And in the fourth election (2004) the margin for the Republican was less than 3%.

2. In 2004, Democratic candidates running for the US Senate received 4,000,000 more votes than the Republican candidates.

3. Prior to the 2006 election the federal and state governments were broken down along these partisan lines:

US Senate: 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats and 1 independent (who caucused with the Democrats)
US House: 232 Republicans, 202 Democrats and 1 independent (who caucused with the Democrats)
Governors: 28 Republicans, 22 Democrats
State Legislatures: 20 controlled by Republicans, 19 controlled by Democrats, 10 split between the two parties, and 1 unicameral, non-partisan legislature (Nebraska)

As can be easily seen, the GOP had a majority across the country in federal and state elective offices, yet the margins were narrow to slim. And in some regards (total vote counts) Americans preferred the Democrats.

Just after the 2004 presidential election Karl Rove, the president's "brain," coined the phrase "a permanent Republican majority." This was despite the closeness of the presidential race that year, and the fact that Bush received the minority vote count in the 2000 presidential election. Kind of hard to have a permanent anything with a country so closely divided. It was this overconfident pride and arrogance, the lack of knowledge, interest in, and exploration of history, combined with a lack of humility, which led rightwing bloggers to proclaim:

"The Democrats can't win anything"

Many times, when confronted with this comment on various blogs, I would point out the closeness of races, going back to the 1992 presidential election, and how Americans seemed so split between the parties. Often, in reply, I would receive, "So? The Democrats can't win anything." After pointing out that there were thousands of Democrats elected to local, state and federal offices across this country, one blogger responded that the "Democrats can't win anything" sentiment was based on this:

President: Republican

US Senate: Republican majority

US House: Republican majority

Governors: Republican majority

The 2006 Election

Now, let's see what happened as a result of the 2006 election:

The US Senate switched from Republican majority to the slimmest Democratic majority (49 Democrats, 49 Republicans, with 2 independents who have indicated that they will caucus with the Democrats).
The US House switched from Republican majority to a comfortable Democratic majority (230 Democrats, 196 Republicans, with 9 still undecided as of the date of this article).
The election reversed the numbers in the governors' mansions, with 28 Democratic governors and 22 Republicans.
Across the country there were 12 switches in party control in the state legislatures, with 9 going to the Democrats, 1 going to the Republicans, and 2 moving to a split (between the parties) control. This means 23 are controlled by Democrats, 16 are controlled by Republicans, 10 are split and 1 is unicameral and nonpartisan (Nebraska).

So now we have:

President: lame-duck Republican

US Senate: Democratic majority

US House: Democratic majority

Governors: Democratic majority

Does this mean "The Republicans can't win anything?" Of course not. Anyone proclaiming such a thing would be demonstrating overconfident pride and arrogance, associated with a lack of knowledge, interest in, and exploration of history, combined with a lack of humility. In other words, hubris.

Smart people do not proclaim things like "a permanent majority," and that the other party "can't win anything." Smart people know that, sometimes, there are events outside the control of American politicians and politics which can change the outcome of elections. Smart people know that elections in this country swing back and forth, and that the American people know enough to reign in parties who come across with overconfident pride and arrogance. Smart people enjoy having an interest in, and exploration of history, and the lessons it teaches. Smart people display humility. Smart people eschew hubris.

Karl Rove looked across the political landscape in 2004 and proclaimed that he saw "a permanent Republican majority." I don't doubt that there were people like Karl Rove, who looked across the political landscape on Monday, October 28, 1929, and also proclaimed that they saw "a permanent Republican majority." After all, they were looking back at history.

But just how did the idea of "a permanent Republican majority" enter into the the rightwing consciousness? What propelled it to such acceptance as "truth?" Let's look at a few items.

Any discussion of this idea must start with the president of American Tax Reform, Grover Norquist. Starting in the early 1980s, after the election of Ronald Reagan, Norquist started beating the drum of the political supremacy of the conservative/Republican agenda. This was based on the results of the 1980 and 1984 presidential elections (conveniently overlooking the 1982 midterm elections, and then the 6th year midterms in 1986).

The 1994 midterm election seemed to seal in Norquist's (and now Newt Gingrich's) idea of Republican control of government. With the Republican successes in 2000 and 2002, Norquist was able to boast, in July, 2003:

"The Republicans are looking at decades of dominance in the House and Senate, and having the presidency with some regularity," Norquist told the New York Times last week. A few days earlier, he made the same point, with slightly less confidence, to CNBC Washington bureau chief and Wall Street Journal columnist Alan Murray: "For the next 10 years in the House and Senate, we're looking at Republican control." In the Washington Post last month, Norquist wrote of a "guarantee of united Republican government" that "has allowed the Bush administration to work and think long-term."

Decades of dominance in the House and Senate.

And Norquist's reasoning behind this assertion (from Slate.com, July, 2003)?

Among Norquist's reasons for predicting a Republican lock on Congress: Congressional redistricting after the 2000 census increased the number of safe Republican seats; Bush's narrow victory in the presidential election meant that he didn't usher in a lot of weak Republican congressmen who could be easily beaten; the liberal New Deal/Great Depression generation is dying and being replaced by younger, more conservative voters; and despite the 50-50 split in the popular vote in the 2000 presidential election, President Bush won 30 states, indicating that the Republicans should dominate the Senate for some time to come.

Okay, so in 2003 Norquist had the political landscape fashioned for decades of conservative/Republican dominance. And the Washington Times was willing to add to this drumbeat (from a June, 2003 editorial):

Majority Leader Bill Frist is setting aside a month for the Senate to hammer out a bill that will provide prescription drugs for seniors. The more conservative House Republican conference is trying to cobble together a prescription-drug package too, though many members still are not sure whether passage would be a good or a bad thing. The importance of the legislation adds up to more than the sum total of its legal provisions. Success on this issue could be the turning point to a permanent Republican majority.

The 2004 election results help to cement the idea of "a permanent Republican majority" into the minds of the rightwing punditry. From a late November, 2004 column by conservative columnist Fred Barnes:

KARL ROVE SAID LAST YEAR that the question of realignment--whether Republicans have at last become the majority party--would be decided by the election of 2004. And it has. Even by the cautious reckoning of Rove, President Bush's chief political adviser, Republicans now have both an operational majority in Washington (control of the White House, Senate, and the House of Representatives) and an ideological majority in the country (51 percent popular vote for a center-right president). They also control a majority of governorships, a plurality of state legislatures, and are at rough parity with Democrats in the number of state legislators. Rove says that under Bush a "rolling realignment" favoring Republicans continues, and he's right. So Republican hegemony in America is now expected to last for years, maybe decades.

Republican hegemony in America for years, maybe decades.

Such thinking ultimately led to a 2006 book, by Hugh Hewitt, Painting the Map Red: The Fight to Create a Permanent Republican Majority. From the Amazon.com description:

Painting the Map Red, the insider's guide to the 2006 elections and the crucial messages GOP candidates and activists will be adopting to foster the spread of Red States, is a must-read from Hugh Hewitt, nationally syndicated talk show host and political strategist.

The spread of the Red States.

In April, 2006, Hewitt even went so far as to say:

Unless and until the Dems return to their national security roots in the policies of JFK/Truman/FDR, we need a Republican majority.

And given the look of the Democratic Party these days, I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Even one week before the 2006 midterm elections the idea of "a permanent Republican majority" was evident, as in this article by Horace Cooper:

Here’s a prediction. This November, Democrats will pick up a few seats in coastal and urban areas. But Republicans will gain seats in the South and Midwest. And the trend will likely continue in successive elections benefiting Republicans and hindering Democrats until all potential seats are exhausted or the Democrats change course.

Republicans will gain seats.

Despite all the certainly of those proclaiming "a permanent Republican majority," the voters of America decided, in the midterm elections of 2006, that:

There would NOT be "decades of dominance in the House and Senate."

There would NOT be "Republican hegemony in America for years, maybe decades."

"The spread of the Red States" would be to color them purple, if not blue.

And the Republicans will NOT gain seats this year.

As I said in my last column, smart people do not proclaim things like "a permanent majority," and that the other party "can't win anything." And Americans are willing to demonstrate just how smart they are by rejecting any notion that one political party or another will be in permanent control.