Power Vacuum
The law of Entropy says that everything in the universe migrates toward a state of disorder. In other words, everything seeks a state of equilibrium. For instance, when you have a vacuum adjacent to a pressurized space you have system of order. It took work to pressurize the one space and work to create the vacuum. When you break the seal between the two, the law of Entropy says gas from the pressurized chamber will flow to the vacuum chamber until the two pressures are equalized. Thermodynamics aside, the same is true in politics sometimes. When one party moves too far to the left or right it creates a vacuum on the other side that fills in with people of a more moderate nature. This in turn pulls the more radical party back toward the center to move closer to equilibrium.
Recently since the Republicans managed to take the House, Senate, and the Presidency I have seen liberals desperately looking for a chink in the armor. Every time a Chuck Hagel, John McCain or Arlen Spectar goes against the President they dance with glee as if the Republican hold on power is about to crumble. The problem is if these men had truly broken the seal, the rush of energy to achieve equilibrium would be noticeable. But there is no rush. There is no large rush of Republicans jumping ship to support them.
What's ironic is, within the Democratic party right now there is a rush to fill a vacuum and most liberals can't see it happening. Pat Buchanan pointed it out in his article this week. Several people in the Democratic party feel disenfranchised by their party leaders. John Kerry voted for the Iraq war. All through the campaign he said we need to stay the course. This angered many on the far left who felt we should not have gone to war in the first place and now the best course of action is to pull out immediately. Hillary Clinton also voted for the war. Now as the heir apparent to the 2008 nomination, she is trying to look like a hawk and refuses to call for withdraw in order to play to the pro-war moderates she will need in the general election. The position of these and other party leaders has created a large mass of people on the left looking for a candidate that will fill the void of political leaders who oppose the war.
Evidence of this void can be seen in Crawford Texas right now. Cindy Sheehan has become a rallying point for those disenfranchised anti-war liberals on the left. These people have been looking for a home for three years now. They had one briefly in Howard Dean, but they chickened out and decided to gamble that John Kerry would go against his vote and against his word to get us out of Iraq. Now with these large demonstrations going on and getting favorable press, politicians are beginning to flirt with this radical left wing agenda. On Meet the Press last weekend Senator Russ Feingold flirted with it. Last night on the radio I heard Arianna Huffington say Hillary Clinton doesn't represent Cindy Sheehan and her followers. Most liberals see the demonstration in Crawford and all the favorable press and think their strength is growing. In fact, their party is dividing.
Time will tell how this plays out. I suspect if we still have a significant troop level in Iraq in the 2008 primaries we will see a similar battle on the left as we saw in 2004. Expect to see an anti-war candidate get much of the early support all through 2007. But the test will be Iowa in 2008. Will the democrats have the guts to stick with an anti-war candidate through the election or will they hitch their wagon to another John Kerry? Either way the liberals are in a catch 22. Do they go with an anti-war candidate and instantly write off those who support the war but just have issues about how it is being handled? Or do they go with a candidate that has to talk out of both sides of their mouth to please the rabid anti-war crowd while also appealing to the moderate pro-war type? Either way it doesn't look good for the Democrats.
Recently since the Republicans managed to take the House, Senate, and the Presidency I have seen liberals desperately looking for a chink in the armor. Every time a Chuck Hagel, John McCain or Arlen Spectar goes against the President they dance with glee as if the Republican hold on power is about to crumble. The problem is if these men had truly broken the seal, the rush of energy to achieve equilibrium would be noticeable. But there is no rush. There is no large rush of Republicans jumping ship to support them.
What's ironic is, within the Democratic party right now there is a rush to fill a vacuum and most liberals can't see it happening. Pat Buchanan pointed it out in his article this week. Several people in the Democratic party feel disenfranchised by their party leaders. John Kerry voted for the Iraq war. All through the campaign he said we need to stay the course. This angered many on the far left who felt we should not have gone to war in the first place and now the best course of action is to pull out immediately. Hillary Clinton also voted for the war. Now as the heir apparent to the 2008 nomination, she is trying to look like a hawk and refuses to call for withdraw in order to play to the pro-war moderates she will need in the general election. The position of these and other party leaders has created a large mass of people on the left looking for a candidate that will fill the void of political leaders who oppose the war.
Evidence of this void can be seen in Crawford Texas right now. Cindy Sheehan has become a rallying point for those disenfranchised anti-war liberals on the left. These people have been looking for a home for three years now. They had one briefly in Howard Dean, but they chickened out and decided to gamble that John Kerry would go against his vote and against his word to get us out of Iraq. Now with these large demonstrations going on and getting favorable press, politicians are beginning to flirt with this radical left wing agenda. On Meet the Press last weekend Senator Russ Feingold flirted with it. Last night on the radio I heard Arianna Huffington say Hillary Clinton doesn't represent Cindy Sheehan and her followers. Most liberals see the demonstration in Crawford and all the favorable press and think their strength is growing. In fact, their party is dividing.
Time will tell how this plays out. I suspect if we still have a significant troop level in Iraq in the 2008 primaries we will see a similar battle on the left as we saw in 2004. Expect to see an anti-war candidate get much of the early support all through 2007. But the test will be Iowa in 2008. Will the democrats have the guts to stick with an anti-war candidate through the election or will they hitch their wagon to another John Kerry? Either way the liberals are in a catch 22. Do they go with an anti-war candidate and instantly write off those who support the war but just have issues about how it is being handled? Or do they go with a candidate that has to talk out of both sides of their mouth to please the rabid anti-war crowd while also appealing to the moderate pro-war type? Either way it doesn't look good for the Democrats.
posted by Mike at 8:42 AM
<< Home