Advanced Search

I am wrestling with two sets of questions as we reach Election Day 2008. First, will the fundamental election influences play out as predicted? Or will they be thrown off by the central characteristics of the current political landscape: the closeness with which the two parties are matched in voting strength today, and the degree of partisan conflict and polarization.

Second, regardless of who wins the presidency, will this conflict and polarization recede with a new administration in the White House? The political science fundamentals point to a straightforward victory for Democratic candidate Barack Obama over Republican John McCain. McCain represents the party of the incumbent two-term President George W. Bush, who will leave office with an abysmal approval rating, a dismal economy, and the likelihood that health care will be a fundamental issue for the next president. It is a situation very similar to 1992, when Republican incumbent George H.W. Bush was soundly defeated, except that then there had been an overwhelming military victory against Iraq.

In this election cycle, these indicators and the theories about them may depend on an historical political context that has changed. That came in 1994, when Republicans took control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. The parties had become evenly matched in both presidential and congressional voting as party politics became increasingly ideologically polarized and conflictual. This evolution began in the 1960s and accelerated in the 1970s, as the Republican Party became more solidly conservative across economic, racial and social lines, and the Democrats became more consistently liberal, especially as conservative Southerners left the party. The 2000 and 2004 elections captured both the two parties' competitiveness, ideological conflict and general incivility—remember Bill Clinton's impeachment, the 2000 election recount and the bitter 2004 campaign?

Given the Bush administration's debacle on so many fronts, and the fact that the number of self-identified Democrats has increased over that of Republicans in the electorate, it appears that Republicans will almost certainly do poorly in congressional elections. But I see these as short-term variations around the underlying tight partisan competition. In addition, McCain is a candidate who can be perceived by some Republicans as both sufficiently conservative and also sufficiently distanced from George W. Bush. That makes it a close race.

It is in close elections that campaigns matter most, as we saw in both 2000 and 2004. In 2008, Obama should be able to out-campaign McCain, capitalizing on the issues on which the Republican administration has done badly and for which McCain may not have an effective response.

The parties are far apart not only on domestic issues but also in foreign and national security policy, where it has long been the case that partisan politics stopped at the water's edge. This time, though, it's different. Obama has moderated his views toward the way troops would be withdrawn from Iraq, but all signs are that he has an evolving foreign policy that looks more multilateral than the Bush administration. For his part, McCain is running to the right of George Bush, as a hard-liner on Iraq who also wants to oust Russia from the G-8.

In the end, will this election leave the Bush years behind and turn back the forces that have polarized American politics? Having looked for this before, I will believe it when we see it.

 

Shapiro, a professor of political science, also is acting director of the Institute for Social and Economic Research and Policy.

Top   |    E-mail this story