The Northeastern Political Realignment of 2006

An American political realignment has truly come into fruition in 2006. No, it's not the great Conservative majority prematurely chattered about in 2004, following Bush's razor-thin electoral victory, or the Republican Party's retention of the Senate where the Democratic minority had more actual votes from the American people. The untold narrative of 2006 is the Democratic consolidation of the Northeast into a largely one-party region.

In New England, only one--one!--Republican representative remains: Chris Shays of Connecticut, a moderate (although a supporter of the Iraq War) and well-respected Republican from the Connecticut suburbs of New York City. Shays has fought two close battles for re-election in the last two cycles, after cruising to victory in elections past. And he is the only one left in the whole New England Republican delegation. Furthermore, when New York is added to the equation, the picture looks even bleaker. There are now 23 Democrats and only 6 Republicans representing the State of New York, after an election where a retiring moderate Republican (Sherry Boehlert in NY-24)was replaced by a Democrat, and two longstanding incumbent Republicans were defeated by Democrats. Sue Kelly, representing Westchester and Putnam counties in suburban and exurban areas near New York City, was the victim of changing demographics; John Sweeney's defeat in a massive gerrymandered district stretching from the Catskills to the Adirondacks portends a much more ominous future for Northeastern Republicans. Sweeney's district was gerrymandered with input from the Republican-controlled State Senate. That district should have never even been within the realm of possibility for Democrats.

But it was, and to the surprise of many, Kirsten Gillibrand managed to capture a district that stretching through hundreds of miles of forests, farms, and mountains. Granted, all the other competitive races in upstate NY in seats held by Republicans stayed Republican. But they barely did so, most winning races by less than 5 percentage points.

The South and the Northeast are, once again, exhibiting antithetical voting patterns . As the South is now a mostly one-party region, except in African-American districts,the Northeast is now similarly uncompetitive for the vast majority of its districts. That is, with this major exception in mind: Democrats are winning in rural areas that have long been comfortably Republican--look at the ouster of both of New Hampshire's Republican representatives this election--while the racial divide will continue to dominate Southern politics. There will always be African-American Democrats representing (hideously gerrymandered) Southern districts. There may not, however, be anyone, of any creed or color, representing a Northeastern district soon who is not a Democrat. We should simultaneously lament the loss of two-party competition in the region, and the existence of a Republican Party moderate enough to house the descendents of the proud Northeastern Rockafeller Republican tradition.

Landscape Maintenance

Excuse my tardiness in not updating this site more often; It's been hectic here, and I'll try to update at least twice a week in order to facilitate more discussion.


Much has changed in the American political landscape since my last post, the major news being the Democratic takeover of both the House and the Senate. The House takeover was indeed the predicted wave, higher than my prediction of 25 seats, although not by much (the current count stands at +29, with 8 close races undecided. Each undecided race has a Republican in the lead. Only candidate Darcy Burner in WA has any chance of coming from behind). A 29 seat pickup is a serious, rare electoral event, but well behind the 50+ seats the Republicans picked up in 1994. Why did the Democrats fail to pick up as many or more seats in such a poisonous political environment for Republicans? For one, redistricting has made more and more seats off limits to real competition--a fact that I think, whether one is from the Left or Right, is anathema to democracy. But what is haughtily termed Political Science cannot allways predict people's behavior; thus the unexpected tossing out of longtime incumbents long rated 'safe' in their pork-fed districts.

Another difference between 2006 and 1994 was that in 1994, the Republican party consolidated its power in the South, defeating scores of conservative Democrats(the Democrat's consolidation of the Northeast in 2006 is the most important and least talked about facet of the election, and I will explore the topic in a later post). The South was on its way out for the Democrats, and they were going to lose it sooner or later anyway. 1994 was a bad political year that coincided with a somewhat independent ideological, historical shift. The same cannot be really said for the Democratic party's gains in 2006. The shift in the Northeast is not analogous to the South in 1994.

Now, these factors considered, it's fair to say the Democrats had a very strong showing this year, given the structural disadvantages built in to the system (i.e., capturing Senate seats in Missouri, Virginia, Ohio, and defeating 3(!) incumbents in Indiana). Don't let the apologists on the Right fool you--Krauthammer, Hannity, etc., this was a disaster not only for the corrupt Republican party of 2006, but for modern conservatism as a viable movement.

Articles of Faith

Much has been remarked about the growing power of the American Evangelical movement, and its growing power within the Republican party. No religious practice or philosophy, however, is historical (arguments for the eternal truth of a metaphysics not considered here). Religious practices arise, change, and cessate depending on external societal, economic, environmental, and political conditions. Of course, religious beliefs effect these factors as well, creating a complex feedback mechanism where inputs are everywhere but a linear 'beginning' and 'end' is nowhere.

Contemporary Evangelicalism provides a fascinating example of a belief system where foreign, but deeply ingrained, societal and political ideologies have become so incorporated into the religious doctrine that the order of their inception has been inverted, and the external political ideology has become a central, internal, metaphysics. The outside has become the inside.

Looking at the vast megachurches especially predominant in the South and West, we witness the commercialism of religion. These communities are fostered with an eye towards the maximization of spiritual consumers, with a delectable, metaphysically cheapened message edible for common consumption. We are asked to give nothing but a few hours of our time a week in exchange for eternal salvation. Religion is compartmentalized--the sacrifices asked of us are few, but the ostensible benefits are manifold.

Here I may be accused of being anti-religious, or condescending towards 'people of faith'. On the contrary, my critique is aimed at pulling out the inconsistencies of modern faith in America to allow for the reemergence of a new, invigorated American spirituality. Our shared faith in democracy and egalitarianism should not be confused for a metaphysics. Indeed, it is the infiltration of these political and social ideologies into religion and their seemingly God-given status that retards our ability to think beyond them, and towards the cultivation of the religious, and towards a betterment of liberal democracy. If democracy is taken as religion, then there will be heresies taken advantage of by politicians attempting to subjugate the people. It works to their advantage to take certain choices from us completely by pretending that they are not in fact choices. Couple this with these very political ideologies masquerading as intrinsic articles of faith, and a very dangerous, if not ironic, subversion of democracy occurs from the purported guardians of faith and politics, our spiritually democratizing megachurch pastors preaching a cheapened and impotent faith, and our democratically elected leaders that work systematically to suppress true democracy, both at home and abroad.