A Good Night For The GOP.
Last night was a good night for the GOP, but perhaps not in ways that are immediately obvious. McDonnell's win in Virginia and Christie's win in New Jersey proved that conservatism can win if it moderates itself (if only in rhetoric). Perhaps more important, the seeds of a conservative revival will be found not in the ideological purity of the tea parties or candidates like Hoffman but in the application of conservative principles to actual governance -- this is particularly true for the GOP candidates who were elected last night, one in a blue state, the other in a state that is trending blue. Of course, if McDonnell and Christie are successful governors, and the conservative base retains its paranoid and conspiratorial tone, they may ultimately find themselves tagged as RINOs for the compromises they will surely have to make.
The biggest disappointment for liberals last night wasn't the outcome of races in Virginia or New Jersey but of the marriage-equality referendum in Maine. It never ceases to amaze me how conservatives manage to erect political-cultural barriers that seem only to apply to liberals -- conservatives have argued that any path to marriage equality that goes through the courts is illegitimate, "judicial activism" so to speak, even as gun-rights advocates fight for the incorporation of Second Amendment rights into the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The path to freedom through the courts is fine for the NRA, just not for people looking for the right to marry the person they love.
Marriage quality is ultimately inevitable -- but these referendums, which put up what should be individuals' inalienable rights up to a majority vote -- nevertheless mean a great deal, as they needlessly prolong an era of inequality which this country will someday look back upon in shame. Maine relaxed prohibitions on medical marijuana last night while voting down marriage equality -- it may be time to put a picture of the state in the Balloon Juice Lexicon under "glibertarian."
As for the biggest loser last night, I'd say the president, but not because these elections are a "referendum" on his agenda. That happened in 2008. Christie and McDonnell went easy on Obama -- and discontent with the president doesn't seem to have been a factor in their wins. Meanwhile, Hoffman, who was the protest candidate of the Obama haters, went down in flames in a reliably conservative district.
No, Obama is a loser for backing two losing Democratic gubernatorial candidates while staying relatively silent on Maine's referendum. Just as this country will one day look back in shame at discrimination against same-sex couples, so should President Obama feel regret, wondering if things could have been different had he intervened and put the full force of his office behind those fighting for their rights, rather than simply looking out for his party.
-- A. Serwer
Feeds: 


COMMENTS (6)
I pretty much assume anyone over the age of 45 is a bigot, and treat them accordingly.
Posted by: soullite | November 4, 2009 12:31 PM
@soullite:
Bad idea.
I'm a 67-year-old straight woman, and I wept when I heard the same-sex marriage results in Maine last night (but then recovered enough to cheer the results on medical pot). So did my friends.
A lot of us were hippies and potheads and peaceniks and civil rights marchers before you were even a gleam in your parents' eyes.
Posted by: Swift Loris | November 4, 2009 1:29 PM
Swift, the civil rights movement was lead by the generation BEFORE the boomers. Most of them are dead now.
I'm sorry, but your generation inherited a lot from the WWII generation. You inherited leaders and you inherited a movement. Our generation inherited a bunch of fractured, largely corrupt political organizations. We didn't get a movement, we got the remnants left behind after the last two generations just gave up on leftism altogether.
I think we have a right to be angry at the older generations. We've had to do a lot of work with almost no help from the older generation and no real allies within the Democratic party.
Now we see your generation thwarting a lot of our more cherished goals. They can't stand the idea that other people might get healthcare. They can't stand the idea gay people exist. They can't stand the idea that the world they were born into doesn't exist anymore. They don't seem to want to understand us, why should I bother understand them?
Posted by: soullite | November 4, 2009 3:19 PM
Non sequitur. You said "anybody over 45." I'm not even a boomer; I missed them by a few years (do the math, son). But I was a sympathizer, and I marched (and smoked) with them.
Yes, the boomers gave up, but not before giving it the old college try.
My point was, however, that you're painting with way too broad a brush, even if you meant to include only the boomers.
Start your own d*mn movement rather than blasting the previous generation for not handing you one ready-made.
But here's a tip: labeling everyone older than you as a bigot isn't the greatest way to attract people who could be your allies.
Goddess knows I make no excuses for the pathetic, dithering mess that calls itself the Democratic Party (including our current president). You got any up-and-coming leaders who might whip it into shape, or are you going to be content to sit around and whine and blame everything on your elders?
Once you've got something going, let me know. If I've been able to retire by then, I may join you.
Posted by: Swift Loris | November 4, 2009 5:08 PM
sesli sohbet sesli chatt
Posted by: sesli sohbet | November 6, 2009 7:34 AM
I think we have a right to be angry at the older generations. We've had to do a lot of work with almost no help from the older generation and no real allies within the Democratic party.
Posted by: air compressor | November 19, 2009 8:38 PM