I have been thinking about this for some time, and I have come to the conclusion that our current president is actually a Republican.

I know, this sounds absurd, but let us look at the two parties.

The Democrats, despite their string of losses early in the decade, are quite adept at learning lessons from defeats. They may still lose due to their overall message, or when facing a stronger competitor, but they rarely lose due to the same obvious mistake*. Take Bill Clinton for example. After the twin fiascoes of Mondale and Dukakis, Clinton learned quite well that blatantly left-wing platforms were losers. And so, from Clinton onward, the Democrats ran a platform far left of their real beliefs. "Liberals" became "progressives", everyone began mouthing platitudes about "welfare reform", even if that meant stealthily expanding it, and, in general, the Democrats adopted a more centrist public face, even if their actual policies once in office changed very little**.

The Republicans, on the other hand, seem to be incapable of learning from an election defeat. Or, to be entirely accurate, they learn, but they learn the wrong thing. Look at the Reagan victories. Having run a candidate who fits none of the usual criteria of "electability", a man with strong conservative opinions, who voices them plainly, who is openly critical of many cherished liberal programs and says that the government should not be doing certain things, the Republicans enjoyed two of their greatest presidential victories in history. In fact, the man is so popular even his VP, who shared none of these traits, sails into office on strong electoral numbers. So, what does the party conclude? They need to nominate moderates who are more like the Democrats. And when that leads to defeat, what is their conclusion?*** They weren't far enough left!

So, why does this make me conclude that Obama is a Republican?

Well, let us look at his recent behavior. First, having won by running on a positive, optimists platform, having defeated McCain who ran on a platform which eventually settled into declarations of doom, what did Obama do? He immediately gave up his upbeat tone and started telling us we needed to pass his reforms or face instant destruction. ("Why Obama Won, And Why He Is Losing Support Now") In other words, he adopted his opponent's losing platform as his day to day position.

Nor is that the only lesson he learned from McCain. One of McCain's biggest problems was his inconsistent message. While he had done well early on, McCain was unsure how to handle growing economic problems, and he lost a lot of support by changing his position several times, repeatedly abandoning an unpopular statement in favor of one he thought might get more support. So, what does Obama do when confronted with the current crisis in Iran? When his initial statement proved unpopular, he adopted another position, engaging in a McCain-like chase after approval, rather than holding to a single position. Oh, his supporters have tried to hide this, claiming he was adopting a "nuanced" position, or modifying his position as the situation changed, they even marched out Iranian shills to say it was "just right", but none of that can hide the fact that his "nuanced position" consisted of several contradictory statements, nor that the president was plainly changing course to try to win favor with the public.

I could continue, but I think it is clear, Obama is just not a Democrat. Democrats are just not given to that sort of foolishness. That is not to say that Democrats are perfect, or always win, the past 8 years show they can easily lose. But they lose on the merits, on the unpopular nature of their beliefs, not by making stupid mistakes they made before. That is the province of the Republicans, the party which has a considerable conservative base, sees Democrats running to the right, and decides they need to move left.

And looking at his recent behavior, I have to conclude, Obama is a Republican.

---------------------------------------------------

* The one apparent exception, Gore, really is not. Gore was a sitting VP, so his nomination doesn't really reflect the choice of the party. Just as the first Bush seems an aberration for the Republican party of the 80's, Gore's does not fit the Clinton-era Democrat plan of triangulation. But since nominating a sitting VP is almost a foregone conclusion in modern times, provided he decides to run, I think they can be safely discounted. They don't represent the party, but the political necessities of the previous office holder.

** The "blue dog Democrats" of 2006 are a continuation of the same trend. Realizing that far left positions were not just losing platforms for presidents, but also for candidates in districts outside of the northwest and west coasts, the Democrats decided to apply Clinton-style  triangulation to local elections, running congressional candidates who talked centrist or even moderately right wing, but could be counted on to support the party once in office.

*** The party continues this tendency to this day. Read "Some Confirmation", "Winning By Losing? Not A Chance!" and "Need to Change Direction?" to see my arguments against the modern Republicans who argue that our problem is that we are "too negative" and that we need to "be for something". As if George Bush's "compassionate conservatism", a disguised version of liberalism, had brought him great popularity.

----------------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

Some may conclude from this post that I think both parties need to be to the right. And they would be correct assuming they understood that to meant "to the right of their current position". I do not say so because I think the right is the ideal position, in fact it has no ideological foundation at all. The reason I think the move to the right is necessary is because of the post-FDR shift. Between FDR's victory in 1932 and Reagan's in 1980, both parties drifted leftward pretty consistently. Which meant that both ended up somewhat left of the political mainstream of voters. (After all, if a Republican like Nixon is imposing price caps, ending the gold standard and encouraging massive inflation, what is left for the liberals to do?) That is why when either party shifted right throughout the 80's and 90's they picked up votes. I am not saying the American public is inherently "conservative", just that the leftward drift of the parties took them both to the left of the public. And, as the 90's and this decade saw something of a reversal of the half-hearted rightward drift of the 80's, it appears the parties may have reverted to those old positions, making the time ripe for a party to win votes with a move right.