With the British elections just a few hours away now, the final polls indicate that Tony Blair and Labour are headed for a third term, as late deciders break towards Labour and the Liberal Democrats. A Populus poll for the Times of London has the Tories dropping to 27 percent, with Labour at 37 percent and the Lib Dems at 21 percent. In other words, the Tories are again showing that they are not an effective opposition party, even with marginally better leadership than they had in the last two elections.If the polls are accurate, Labour could come out of this election maintaining a better than 100 seat majority in the House of Commons, despite Blair’s personal unpopularity and much voter angst over Iraq. It’s been a while since any national election pretty much anywhere has given me much reason to smile, so I’m looking foward to tomorrow.

I’ve finally gotten around to reading a book that’s been much-discussed in the blogosphere: Rick Perlstein’s Before the Storm, an account of the Goldwater campaign of 1964. I’m doing a review of the book for Blueprint magazine (in tandem with Craig Shirley’s recent history of the 1976 Reagan campaign), but wanted to offer a couple of observations that are largely outside the ambit of the review.First of all, Perlstein is a truly gifted writer and historian. I didn’t read the book when it first came out, exercising the kind of literary triage that old folks like me implicitly apply. I know a fair amount about the 1964 campaign, and the roots of the conservative movement; there are many avenues of political history that I’ve never trod at all. So I’m more likely to pick up a book about Martin Van Buren than about Barry Goldwater, and I initially assumed the enthusiasm for Perlstein’s book among Kid Bloggers represented an exposure to an episode of history as alien to them as the 1836 campaign is alien to me.But man, this guy can really write. To cite just one example, he takes an obscure moment of Republican political history, the Fifth Avenue Compact of 1960 in which Nelson Rockefeller imposed his will on GOP presidential candidate Richard Nixon, and turns it into a stunning metaphor for every cultural cleavage in the GOP from Tom Dewey to Tom DeLay. I’d pay full list price for the book just to read that brief section.The second thing that surprised me about Before the Storm is that Perlstein does not make the argument that his book has often been used to advance: that the Goldwater campaign, and the conservative movement it brought to visible prominence, is some sort of template for the contemporary Left.Certainly Perlstein is a Man of the Left; he is a contributor to The Nation. Moreover, in the book’s Preface, he fully embraces the Nation-esque view that most recent political history, in the Democratic as well as the Republican Party, represents the triumph of the conservative movement. Obviously, the book was published in 2001, well before the Dean/Netroots insurgency that is now beginning to style itself after the conservative movement. But I’m sure Perlstein understands the seductive power of the Goldwater analogy for Deaniac activists who must struggle with the electoral rejection of their flawed-but-inspiring candidate, who, like Moses, has shown the way to a Promised Land he can never enter.Maybe Perlstein has written about this analogy somewhere, or may write about it in the future, but one of his book’s virtues is that he does not generally impose any revisionist view on the story he tells so well. You get the sense as he writes that he’s still absorbing the story himself, and expects the reader to do likewise. That’s the last of many reasons why I recommend Before the Storm to anybody interested in American politics or history.

Guest-blogging for Josh Marshall yesterday, Matt Yglesias gave me a shout-out for predicting several months ago that the administration’s proposal for limits on farm subsidy payments would get transmogrified by Congress into food stamp cuts. I wish this meant I was some kind of analytical wizard, but frankly, this development was all too predictable, not just because conservative Republicans love wealthy farmers more than po’ folks, but because the congressional budget process promotes precisely this kind of trade-off. If you are interested in this line of reasoning, and why progressives should embrace the kind of serious budget reforms that make it possible to establish national priorities beyond the cramped and parochial interests of congressional committee and subcommittee barons, check out my earlier post on the subject.Meanwhile, I am wondering more than ever if my other big prediction, that GOPers would eventually segue from Social Security privatization to a proposal for “tax reform” allowing high earners to shelter most of their investment income, will come true now that Bush’s SocSec campaign is way off in the high weeds.

There’s a blizzard of public opinion research making its way into publication that consistently makes one big point: growing majorities of Americans think the country is headed in the wrong direction (or, to use the train metaphor which a whole generation of pollsters has conspired to impose on us, America is on “the wrong track”). George W. Bush’s approval ratings have dropped to their pre-9/11 level, while his main priorities, especially Social Security privatization, are more unpopular every day. And the Republican Party and the Republican Congress are getting down there into the dangerous territory of being perceived as a menace to the country. But–Democrats are not yet benefitting from this wreckage. And it’s not too hard to understand why: for (largely) sound tactical reasons, they are focused on opposing the GOP agenda rather than projecting any positive agenda of their own. But that can’t go on forever. Negative perceptions of the Democratic Party on security, the role of government, and (to a lesser extent now that the GOP is lurching off the right-wing edge) culture have not gone away.How and on what set of issues should Democrats begin their crucial pivot to a positive alternative message and agenda? Regular readers probably know my answer to that one: we need a Reform message and agenda that (a) meshes with our negative critique of GOP misrule; (b) reminds voters who’s in charge in Washington; and (c) reassures voters we aren’t just itching to get back into power and substitute our form of special-interest pandering and fiscal indiscipline for theirs. As it happens, James Carville and Stan Greenberg of Democracy Corps agree with this argument, and in their latest strategy memo, lay out the evidence for it. A Democratic agenda that includes budget reform, lobbying reform, ethics reform, and tax reform, they say, could begin to connect the dots for voters skeptical of both parties and help Democrats finally get some tangible benefits from Republican misery. Will Democrats listen? There’s no inherent reason they shouldn’t. Most elements of the Reform agenda laid out by Democracy Corps (and earlier, by the DLC) don’t create any ideological divisions in the party, and are fully consistent with what Democrats want to say on other issues ranging from the economy to national security. The main opposition to a Reform message and agenda, so far as I can tell, is from political pros who learned in early childhood that these are boring “process issues” that don’t change voting behavior. That’s why it’s so helpful to hear otherwise from guys like Carville and Greenberg, who would probably make the case for an agenda centered on the Divine Right of Kings if they thought it would help Democrats win the next election.There’s a large segment of the American public right now that’s waiting for an alternative to Bush and the GOP, and is there for the taking for Democrats if they can walk and chew gum at the same time by combining opposition to Republican misgovernment with some clear evidence they could do better.

Britain’s general election is just four days away, and polls are showing a tightening race wherein Labour has a very small lead among likely voters. For complicated reasons involving party vote concentrations, Labour could lose the popular vote and maintain control of the House of Commons and hence the government, albeit with a greatly reduced majority. But Tony Blair himself, fighting a combination of Labour complacency and a threat on the Left to punish him by casting protest votes for the Liberal Democrats, is raising the specter of a Tory upset victory like that of 1970.There’s not much doubt that British voters generally endorse the direction of New Labour’s stewardship of the country, and reject the Tory message, which increasingly revolves around a backlash against Asian (and largely Muslim) immigration. But incumbency fatigue and lingering hostility to Blair’s decision to go to war in Iraq (aggravated by last-minute press reports that Blair failed to release a full report from his attorney general assessing the legality of the Iraq invasion) are giving Labour a great deal of stretch-drive heartburn.In other words, the Tories cannot win this election, but it’s possible Labour could lose–if not the govenment, then an effective majority. And that’s why the final days of the campaign will largely revolve around Labour efforts to boost turnout, savage the LibDems, and let voters know a decision to protest this or that aspect of Blair’s record could produce a government they don’t want.

I’m blogging today and for most of the next week from my favorite city, New Orleans. It’s a beautiful day here, the last day of JazzFest, which in terms of its impact on the city is sort of Mardi Gras Lite. For me, that means I will finally be able to get into my favorite restaurants without waiting for hours (last night at Praline Connection we were served our first bite of soul food as the clock struck midnight). It also means I’ll have time to catch up on last week’s political developments, including the Carl Hubbell screwball George W. Bush delivered on Social Security, and this week’s U.K. elections. Despite the general pre-modern ambiance of New Orleans, and its delightfully non-Washingtonian antipathy to workaholism, WiFi is becoming widely available, so I will not have to crouch in a cubicle at Kinko’s or rely on AOL dial-up to deliver pithy thoughts on a regular basis. I’m old enough to remember quite a few semi-vacations when I found myself dictating speech copy over a pay phone from late night scratchings on a yellow legal pad, much as New Orleans’ favorite fictional character, Ignatius Reilly, condensed his twisted observations on Big Chief writing tablets. So even here progress marches on–but praise God, not too much.

Please excuse the lack of posts the last couple of days, but I’ve been dealing with a family medical emergency down in Georgia, and juggling various Day Job responsibilities. But my immersion in America, as opposed to Washington, in recent days predisposed me to treat George W. Bush’s press conference remarks on Social Security last night with a certain sense of slack-jawed astonishment. He said what? Tell me if I’m missing something, but having failed for months to sell the country on a free-lunch vision of a privatized pension system in which private accounts would magically guarantee retirement security and pay for itself, Bush suddenly started selling broccoli instead of dessert. He’s now out there peddling benefit cuts for middle and upper income retirees, as though they represent some sort of inherent virtue.Now, you can make a progressive case for what the wonks call “progressive indexing,” but not in isolation from every other issue involving Social Security, tax policy, budget policy, and retirement security generally. Yet that’s how Bush is trying to sell this glass of castor oil. It is very, very unlikely to attact any Democratic support, and is very, very likely to produce a big revolt among conservative Republicans, especially in the House, who are still addicted to the free lunch mirage. I don’t know whether this gambit is just part of an exit strategy where Bush is laying down “responsible” markers for the future (given his chronic inability to admit defeat), or some sort of tactic designed to peel off a few Democrats who have been complaining about the administration’s unwillingness to embrace any policy that would improve rather than weaken Social Security’s solvency. But still, it’s a strange move, and out here in America, it seems to be playing about as well as the Cookie Monster’s recent emergence as an advocate for healthy food.

The most egregious aspect of the Family Research Council’s “Justice Sunday” televised conference supporting the GOP’s “nuclear option” on judicial nominations was the argument that Christians as a faith community are being excluded from the judiciary. Thanks to The Kentucky Democrat, we have an interesting blow-by-blow account of how particular Christian leaders in one community dealt with this argument, in the context of a decision about carrying the FRC self-pity party on a church-backed cable station. Note the relatively passive statements by Southern Baptist spokesmen, who support the “nuclear option” cause but don’t sound that excited about it.

This is an interesting moment in the history of the Republican Party. On the one hand, Republicans have already lost their much-vaunted unity and discipline since last election day (the unity and discipline that some Democrats think we should emulate); they are fighting internally over Social Security, the “nuclear option,” and the budget, which just happen to be their main public priorities right now. But on the other hand, they are clearly being tugged in the same direction: to the Right. DeLay is succeeding in dragging the whole conservative movement into the cesspool of his ethical problems. Frist is clumsily but relentlessly trying to inoculate himself with the Christian Right in preparation for a presidential run. And George W. Bush is defending and abetting his congressional buddies at every turn. Check out today’s New Dem Dispatch for a summary of where this series of development is leading Republicans, Democrats, and the whole country.

The increasingly intense intra-GOP bickering over Social Security tactics, strategy and substance continues, and is rapidly descending into finger-pointing now that the whole campaign appears to be heading south faster than a Purdue student on spring break.I’ll let Josh Marshall chronicle the rich harvest of the anti-privatization campaign he helped rev up, but I did see an interesting example of how nasty the Republican divide on this issue has become. This is from a Bob Cusack piece in today’s edition of the Washington insider tabloid, The Hill, which quotes the chief architect of the House GOP’s incredible free lunch proposal to dump half of all payroll taxes into private accounts with no benefit cuts and no new revenues:

Peter Ferrara, a senior fellow at the Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI) who is credited as the author of the Ryan-Sununu bill, wrote an op-ed in The Washington Times two months ago that mocked the White House for trying to send the president out to sell personal accounts with a message that they don’t really solve the problem. Ferrara wrote, “Is it any wonder then that the more George W. Bush talks about personal accounts the lower they sink in the polls?” Ferrara told The Hill he is trying to help Republicans get on track on Social Security. He accused top Bush administration officials — including Rove and White House Chief of Staff Andy Card — of urging people to tell him to “shut the hell up.”Ferrara, who is scheduled to testify on Social Security before the Senate Finance Committee today, said Rove, Card and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Josh Bolten lack expertise on the entitlement system and mistakenly believe some Democrats are close to embracing the president’s plan.“Rove thinks he’s been beatified by the last election,” Ferrara added.

Even in today’s GOP, is nothing sacred?