2006 will not be like 1994 in reverse. Probably.

I started to put a comment on this post, which asserts that 2006 will be the GOP’s 1994. My response to that suggestion follows.

The Republicans have the weaknesses inherent in being a majority party — the ideologically committed people in it all feel short-changed. That is nothing new. The libertarian type GOPers don’t like the religious people and think Bush gives them too much. But, I know from my own email inbox, the religious right is hopping mad at Bush for not doing enough for them. The small government GOPers are mad at all the spending. Everybody is getting at most a tiny bit of what they want, and they want a lot more. But they all know the Donks would be worse, or they should know that. Look back at your political history, at how liberals felt about Franklin Roosevelt — they constantly thought he was selling out to the other factions in the party. Maintaining a majority political coalition is hard to do. Usually, you cannot give everybody something at the same time. So you do things one at a time and you even sometimes do inconsistent things one at a time.

So Bush is not disintegrating, he is holding a coalition together. Does this mean the Democrats are in a position to pull off a big upset? How? To do that they’d need to break up the majority coalition. Specifically, the Democrats would have to offer some element of the GOP coalition something it really wanted, that Bush can’t or won’t give them, and be more credible than the GOP is on that issue. The Democrats are no longer a coalition, but an ideology with a few interest groups attached. It is difficult for them to run to the center these days, let alone run to the right of the GOP on some issue or issues. It will be hard for them to come up with an appealing issue that would allow them to nationalized the election the way Gingrich did in 1994 and break off a chunk of the GOP coalition.

Conclusion: Unless we see (1) surprisingly strong and clever leadership on the D side, and (2) some new and powerful ideas or proposals, barring some outright disaster for Bush, then 2006 will be a typical midterm election, and the GOP may lose seats. But the total change will be small. So I fearlessly predict. We’ll check back in November ’06.

TV-B-Gone v. Glock: Compare and Contrast

What follows is simplified, but based on the true facts, i.e. the responses to the posts linked to here. I am really trying to be fair. Really.

1. The simple, random ChicagoBoyz reader is asked this question: “Should Jane Q. Public be allowed to carry a concealed TV-B-Gone?

His answer would go something like this: “Are you mad, sir? Why, think for a moment of what you are suggesting. She could use such a device irresponsibly and without express permission! In fact, I can imagine a hideous scenario that should give you pause. She might walk into a crowded sports bar full of cheerful and unsuspecting patron, and when no one was looking at her, at a key moment in The Big Game, reach into her purse, take out the infernal object and turn off the TV! That is the kind of atrocity I am contemplating! Do you grasp that, you irresponsible maniac? No private citizen can possibly be trusted with such awesome power!”

2. The simple, random ChicagoBoyz reader is then asked this question: “Should Jane Q. Public be allowed to carry a concealed Glock?

His answer would go something like this: “Are you mad, sir, to ask such a question in this venue, this haven of Second Amendment absolutism? I will have you know that the right to keep and bear arms is one of our most precious freedoms! How dare you suggest that Jane Q. Public, a law-abiding citizen, might be denied her natural right, in fact her Constitutionally enshrined right, to possess a concealed firearm, so that she may have instantly at her disposal such lethal force as she alone shall deem necessary for the defense of herself and her loved ones in any contingency. I resent, sir, the merest suggestion that any citizen or our great nation shall not be presumed to be able to carry and use a firearm responsibly and sensibly.”

I agree with 2, by the way.

Swords, Shmords. . .

I just got sucked into watching part of one of the Lord of the Rings movies on TV. Lots of mysterious blue light, long scraggly hair, portentous music and swordplay. Good and evil with a deal of Hollywood bullshit thrown in.

Swords, spears, bows and arrows — all well and good. But, I kept thinking, this is America. We can do better. What the good guys really needed was a few of these.

Of course, I have the same reaction to most stories of good vs. evil.