An end to political polarization

Michael Barone wrote in USNews For 10 years American politics has been sharply polarized, with just about equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats arrayed angrily against one another. We have come to think of this as a permanent condition. Yet by the next presidential election that may very well change. The reason: The leading candidates for both parties' 2008 nominations are in significant tension with their parties' bases--and, in some cases, outright opposition.

And Hell may freeze over, and pigs may begin to fly.

This is most clearly the case on the Republican side. The consistent leaders in 2008 polls are John McCain and Rudolph Giuliani. Of the two, Giuliani is most sharply out of line with the cultural conservatives who have been the dominant force in Republican primaries and provided a large share of the Republican majorities racked up in 2002 and 2004. Giuliani is pro-choice on abortion, opposes the "partial-birth" abortion ban, and opposes a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. McCain's differences with the Republican right are more subtle. He has consistently opposed abortion rights but doesn't seem comfortable talking about the issue. He has taken the lead on campaign finance regulation and on Kyoto-like responses to climate change, in opposition to most of his Republican colleagues. At a critical point in the 2000 campaign, he made a point of denouncing evangelists Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.

What makes you think either could get the nomination? Just because the MSM loves them does not mean they will be nominated.

As for the Democrats, Hillary Rodham Clinton is in significant ways out of sync with the Bush-hating left. She voted for the Iraq war resolution and for all the appropriations to fight the war, and she has shown no sign of apologizing for these stands. She spoke approvingly of the moderate Democratic Leadership Council at its most recent meeting--and got attacked in the left-wing blog "Daily Kos" for it. From time to time, she has issued sharp partisan attacks on the Bush administration, but she has been careful to distance herself from Michael Moore- or Cindy Sheehan-type rhetoric. You will not catch her calling George W. Bush a maniac or a war criminal.

She is trying to position herself as a moderate, but I doubt she will be able to fool people through the nomination and election process

Paul @PowerLine blogged With respect to the Democrats, the question is whether Clinton actually is in real tension with the party's base and will remain so into 2008. It's true that she hasn't adopted the strident pacifist posture of the Democratic left. But neither did John Kerry. His pacifism was inferred from his past actions, not from anything that he consistently said during the presidential race.... Democrats are violently opposed to the Iraq war, I think, because it is being conducted by a Republican. If the President were a Democrat, the Democrats would support the war just as they did every one of Clinton's military adventures. In other words, I don't think liberals hate George Bush because of the war; I think they oppose the war mainly because they hate George Bush.

Betsy Newmark blogged If the candidate is someone like Giuliani versus Clinton, then I bet the base would turn out mostly for Giuliani. It might be more of an anti-Clinton vote than a pro-Giuliani vote, but those are counted just the same in the end. And Hillary is the one candidate who could maybe motivate pro-life and religious conservative voters to turn out for someone who is not pro-life or a religious conservative.