A New Progressive Mandate for Millennials... Thanks to McCain?

David Sirota has a very thought-provoking post up at Open Left pointing out that McCain and his advisers, in the last throes of this campaign, are actually helping Obama, his would-be administration, and the Democratic Party with their polarizing approach. Sirota observes the McCain campaign forcing the electorate to choose between someone very far left and someone very far right:

Indeed, in tacking to the hard economic right and focusing the presidential debate on "socialism" and "wealth redistribution," McCain is creating a very clear decision for our country: Either we reject his neo-Reaganism and the regressive redistribution machine that I describe in my new newspaper column this week. Or, we vote to preserve the regressive redistribution machine that has created the most economically unequal America since the Great Depression.

Sirota goes on to point out that while McCain and the GOP might think it beneficial to make people choose (thinking like Jon Meacham, Pat Buchanan, and the rest of the inside-the-beltway blowhards that this country is "center-right"), they seem to be ignoring the implications of the likely possibility that the voters overwhelmingly reject the Republicans' offer. Barack Obama's plan was relatively moderate in the first place, and so the GOP may have had an easier time with their campaign setting up shop in the middle, being more competitive with the independents. An election fought in the middle would have suited the GOP better than the current campaign topography. Because in that case, it would be hard for either party to claim a mandate, as no ideology would be so vulnerable. And in this political environment, the GOP would have to call that a win. Perhaps, if the election was less polarized, the McCain campaign would have been more successful at constructing a narrative that was based on the personalities of the two men -- the only turf favorable for the GOP this cycle. Even with the economic crisis, perhaps McCain would have appeared less political and more statesman-like; less senile, and more knowledgeable. The campaign may have actually appeared to be more strategic and less tactical. But the GOP (Steve Schmidt and the rest of Karl Rove's cronies) wanted a polarized electorate. They went with the divide and conquer card again. Unfortunately for them, it's not working.

So what are the implications of the Republicans continuing to polarize the electorate in the face of an oncoming Democratic tidal wave? Well, if they're not careful, their prevailing principles and ideological narrative will be washed away. Sirota explains that the McCain campaign, while not too successful the past couple months, has succeeded at "...framing the choice as one between a Republican presidency to the right of Ronald Reagan on economics or a Democratic presidency to the left of Franklin Roosevelt on economics..." This framing is essentially McCain saying "all in." By using the word "socialism," and using the "redistribution" line, the GOP, the McCain camp, and its surrogates, are laying it all on the line for voters: it's the choice between socialism or more trickle-down. Of course, Sirota's thesis notes the inherent irony: with Obama poised to win in eleven days barring a true game-changer, McCain's aggressiveness is actually pushing liberalism forward, not Obama. Obama's moderate agenda has become radicalized by the GOP in hopes that it might scare voters, but if it doesn't and the voters rubberstamp it with a huge landslide, doesn't this actually allow the Obama administration to be more radical thanks to McCain and the Republicans? David Sirota thinks so, and I agree.

But building off of that, what's even more important is the cataclysmic stature of this cycle. If 2008 turns out to be anything like 1932, the electorate that would overturn decades of Washington conventional wisdom would be rewarded for their civic participation and their game-changing activism -- their votes created history, and just like the New Deal Coalition, the "Yes We Can" Coalition could stick around for decades to come. For those Millennials that have been around since 2004, this will be the third election in a row in which they've heartily supported the Democrats, and with such a huge victory on the horizon, one could surely assume, their support for Democrats and progressive causes would be cemented. So in an election that is already shaping up to be one of those transformational moments in American history, the Republicans are upping the ante and going "all or nothing."

What we have developing in front of us, now that the Republicans are willing to risk a mandate for true change, is an opportunity for the values that Millennials espouse to guide this new ruling coalition for the next forty or fifty years. So while McCain's gambling all that he has left, we're all poised to reap the benefits. Someone tell John Mayer he might not have to wait much longer.

Update: Political Wire brings attention to a David Frum quote reflecting the theme of this post.

Former Bush speechwriter David Frum: "There are many ways to lose a presidential election. John McCain is losing in a way that threatens to take the entire Republican Party down with him... I could pile up the poll numbers here, but frankly... it's too depressing. You have to go back to the Watergate era to see numbers quite so horrible for the GOP."

Emphasis added.