Election 2006: What does it mean? (Part I)
As the above Time Magazine cover indicates, some members of the media are portraying the latest election as a victory of moderates. There claim is not absurd (part II of this series will examine this election as a rejection of radicalism, and a victory for more moderate policies). But the way the election is being spun by many fails to accurately represent how big of a victory the last election was for progressives, and marginalizes their role in changing this country.
This Time cover gives the impression that Democrats and Republicans are now on equal footing. It implies that the appropriate legislative agenda would not be substantial progressive reforms but more triangulation, DLC style.
But so-called "moderate" Democrats, in many cases, enabled this war and the Bush agenda in general; in that respect this election was a condemnation of those, even Democrats, who were complicit in the failures of the last six years, especially on Iraq.
Bagnewsnotes proposes a couple of other possible covers that may have been more appropriate.
And here is Time's cover after the GOP won big in 94.
Notice a difference?
This is the first of several posts which will take a look at how politicians, the media and the public are interpreting the results of the election and the changes in leadership and policies that will follow.
Part 2: Whose victory? What this election means for moderation.
Part 3:Howard Dean v. Rahm Emanuel: The logic of the 50-state strategy
Part 4: The Woman in Charge: Pelosi's role
Part 5: Crashing the Gate or stuck at the kids table? The role of the netroots in the 2006 election and beyond.
Posted by Michael Corcoran at 5:50 PM