One of the most serious problems with the major shift in the youth vote in favor of the Democratic Party in recent years is its long term consequences — now it’s just the 18-29 year olds, but a couple election cycles down the line they’ll be middle aged and having children…who will be raised in a Democratic household and grow up to perpetuate the trend. And even if the Republican Party had no redeeming values whatsoever, complete single-party dominance of government (assuming there really are two separate major parties, that is) is always an unfortunate state of affairs.
Ron Paul has long argued for the institutional necessity of working within one of the major parties, and based on his 2008 run for president and the subsequent increase in attention he has received in both the media and Congress, he appears to be right. Patrick Buchanan argues on the @TAC blog that despite Obama’s overwhelming electoral victory, it is not at all inconceivable that the GOP could make a comeback as early as 2010:
After all, in 1952, Eisenhower was elected in a more impressive victory than Obama’s, and ended the Korean War by June. And, in 1954, he lost both houses of Congress.
Lyndon Johnson crushed Goldwater by three times the margin of Obama’s victory. He got Medicare, Medicaid, voting rights, and a host of Great Society programs. And, in 1966, he lost 47 House seats.
Ronald Reagan won a 44-state landslide in 1980, cut tax rates — and proceeded to lose 26 seats in 1982.
Bill Clinton recaptured the presidency for his party in 1992 after 12 years of Republican rule. In 1994, he lost 52 seats and both houses of Congress.
If that is to happen, of course, the Republican Party must actually be consistent, reasonable, and principled in its role as opposition party…to be controlled by Ron Paul Republicans, perhaps. Read the rest here.Published in