The WSJ says that we're seeing the fourth Democratic crack-up since 1960. This is the fourth time that Democrats have swept into office with overwhelming majorities and pundits told us that the Republicans were just dead as a viable party. It happened with LBJ's landslide victory in 1964, Democratic victories after Watergate culminating with Jimmy Carter's 1976 election, Bill Clinton's victories in 1992, and most recently with Barack Obama's historical election in 2008. Each time the Democrats rather rapidly lost their edge as they overread the meaning of their victories and the country moved back to its natural central-right position.
John Merline makes much the same argument and adds in that the Republicans also have had their moments of hubris when they misread election results to think that they had entered an age of a permanent Republican majority. Well, our system is just not geared towards permanent electoral majorities. I don't think we'll see again a period of long, multi-decade dominance of the country by one party or the other. Each party, once it gets into office, tends to overreach and start the pendulum swinging back.
John Stossel offers up more evidence that giving parents choice of which school they can send their children to is the secret to improving education for all. And then he asks why we're still pouring money into Head Start when no data show that the program helps students.
The Democrats must be worried about California. They're launching preemptive attacks on Meg Whitman. Why anyone would want to be governor of that state is beyond me, but can Californians really want to send Jerry Brown to Sacramento yet again? Is that the best that the state Democratic Party can come up with?
Harry Reid desperately needs a jobs bill to improve his image back home where Nevada has one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation. But he just can't help bollixing things up by his clumsy maneuvering in the Senate.
Five ways that the Democrats could lose the Senate.
How cool is this? Justice Scalia responded to a letter asking for his opinion of whether there is a right for a state to secede. Scalia responded,
I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem, principally because I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, "one Nation, indivisible.") Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit.(Link via Orin Kerr at Volokh)