I've been noticing some interesting parallels between the Republican party of 2000 and the Democratic party of 2004 (and vice-versa). And this has led me to some observations....

Observation 1: Neither major party represents an absolute majority of Americans. In some respects, this is probably inevitable in a two-party system where there's no external force uniting the country. Probably the last time that one party truly spoke for more than 50% of Americans was during World War II. The fact that the Republicans currently control both the White House and Congress is misleading, since polls consistently show the country very evenly divided, with less than half the population identifying themselves as either Republican or Democrat.

Observation 2: When a political party does not have a natural majority, there is internal tension between getting elected and ideological purity. In other words, some people in the party will care more about winning elections, even if it means compromising on some issues. Others will be unwilling to make certain compromises, even if the price is losing. But as long as the party's natural constituency is less than 50% of the population, some compromise will be necessary to capture the middle-ground voters and win the election.

Observation 3: When a party wins, it is less willing to compromise on issues. Winning an election is (naturally) seen as a mandate for the party's ideology, even if the victory was more due to artful choices in candidates or a failure in the opposition. But because of the perceived mandate, there is more pressure to enact the party's agenda, and less willingness to take a pragmatic stance in order to win future elections. The more dramatic the electoral win, the bigger the perceived mandate, and the more emphasis on ideological purity. Conversely, for the losing party, a big loss leads to a strong desire to win, and a greater tolerance for pragmatic decisions which can deliver a future win.

Observation 4: Electoral victory sets the stage for future defeat. Absent some external force which will unify the country behind a single party or leader [September 11 was such an external force....for a while. I think the Bush administration has completely blown this advantage through its mishandling of Iraq], the natural course of politics in our two-party system is either split governance (i.e. Congress and the White House in different parties) or alternating leadership between the parties. This is simply because in order to win, a party has to capture the political middle ground, and the party out of power will be more willing to make the needed compromises.

A Political Narrative of the Past Few Years....
Until 2000, the United States had experienced decades of largely split governance, with only a few brief periods when one party controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. In 2000, the Republicans were sufficiently motivated to win that they put up a candidate who spoke the language of the center ("Uniter not a divider," "Compassionate conservative," etc.) against a Democrat generally perceived as more of an ideologue on the left. In a very tight election, the Republican won, despite fewer popular votes. Congress, however, remained divided.

Despite the close election and Bush's centrist language, many Republicans viewed their victory as a mandate for their ideology. Then September 11 happened, and the country rallied behind its leaders, and the Republicans captured both houses of Congress. This was also perceived as a mandate for conservative ideas. It also gave us the unusual (for the past few decades) and unstable situation of a single party having the hypothetical ability to enact its legislative agenda without having to compromise (much) with the other party.

Democrats, smarting from their losses in 2000 and 2002, have put their energies into choosing "electable" candidates, i.e. people who can capture the centrist vote and win the election even if they aren't "perfect" Democrats. Meanwhile, Republicans have been closing ranks and less willing to back moderates (other than longtime incumbents, does anyone see any pro-choice Republican candidates? Heck, there aren't even that many willing to publicly stand up against another round of insane tax cuts).

So where does this narrative end?

If you believe my thesis that victory plants the seeds of defeat, then we are likely to see the Republicans lose at least one house of Congress or the Presidency this fall. This for no reason other than the fact that divided government appears to be the norm, and one-party control appears to be unstable.

And were this to happen, it would be a good and healthy thing. I do not think it is beneficial for either party to not have to compromise.