The WaPo’s David Broder is almost obsessive about his moderation — he hardly ever criticizes one party without disparaging the other — but today’s column is just puzzling. Broder’s point seems to be that Republicans have screwed up badly since they took control of every branch of government, but voters will be reluctant to change leadership because Dems’ popularity dropped 12 years ago. Or something.
The overall economy has grown, but — in part because of tax policy — the gap between the rich and the rest has increased. The nation, caught unawares, has suffered a grievous homeland attack, and the chief instigator of that Sept. 11 savagery remains at large. We have invaded two countries seeking out terrorists — and years later, violence continues to cost the lives of Americans trying to pacify both Iraq and Afghanistan.
President Bush’s chief domestic initiative — reform of the Social Security system — suffered the same fate as Clinton’s health care effort: so little agreement within his own party that he was never even able to bring it to a vote.
The self-described “compassionate conservative” has been so lax in his budgetary policy that deficits have reached dismaying levels, and compassion was compromised by gross incompetence in the response to Hurricane Katrina.
Meanwhile, after 11 years of unbroken majority, congressional Republicans are displaying the same personal arrogance (in grabbing for favors) and the same penchant for petty scandals that plagued the Democrats after their 40-year run.
Sounds about right, until the closer:
Leaving behind one big question: When both parties have lost public confidence, where do voters turn?
As Broder sees it, Clinton faltered early on over issues like health care and gays in the military, leading to the GOP takeover. According to his argument, this meant a lingering belief among voters that “Democrats may talk a good game, but they don’t deliver.”
So, the Dean of the DC Journalistic Establishment believes the electorate won’t vote for Dems in 2006 because they’re still disappointed by Dem performance in 1993. Voters, who seem to have limited memories and are often swayed by last-minute ad blitzes, were so traumatized by the events of the early ’90s that they still aren’t ready to pull the lever for Dems now, more than a decade later.
If someone could explain to me why this makes sense, I’d sure appreciate it. I realize Broder is anxious to cast a pox on both houses, but this is completely incoherent.