07 November 2012

Permanent majorities are as permanent as high tides and hemlines

Let me just call bullshit on any "permanent Democratic majority" ideas right now.

It seems inevitable that the hacks of whichever party wins right these after nearly every election. They're always wrong. Always. I must have lived through a ten "permanent majorities" in my lifetime already, including all of the last three elections. The fashionable width of men's ties is more constant than the American "permanent majority" is.

I'm not going to bother arguing why they're wrong this time. (Go read this if you're interested.) In fact I'm not wasting another cognitive cycle on this.

I just want this post to exist so that 2n years from now, when stuffed shirts start talking about "permanent GOP majorities," as they inevitably will, I can link back to this to use as my i told you so.


  1. I have to disagree. While the party in power may, and mostly likely will, swing back and forth between the two parties, the game will be played between the far left and and the ever-so-slightly left of center. The goal posts keep getting moved further away from constitutional limited government. It won't be long before the GOP is claiming they can better administer Obamacare than the Democrats.

    The great equalizer, of course, is when the federal government eventually collapses under the weight of its own debt and entitlements. The currency will collapse and the system will reset. Maybe then we can finally return to the federal government of the Calvin Coolidge era.

  2. I don't think policies necessarily swing back and forth. (I'll probably post more on that today or tomorrow.) But which party wins elections definitely will ebb and flow.

    I agree that things have and will become more statist, but I don't consider that to be a shift to the left. If I did, I would have no way of explaining Bush43. Both parties have managed to shift the goal posts away from limited government, typically with great enthusiasm.