Post-Watergate, Republican party identification dropped to its nadir--24% and just 19% among 18-29 year olds. Yet less than a decade later, Reagan won a landslide reelection and party identification returned to its previous levels.

That was a pretty dramatic comeback, but the numbers suggest an explanation. While Republican party ID took a huge hit, so did Democrat party ID, although to a lesser degree. The voters didn't disappear, they just became independents, expressing their disgust with government and politics by disassociating themselves with the shenanigans.

The Vanishing Young Republicans-->

So how did Reagan rebuilt trust and confidence in American voters? The numbers provide insight into that question as well. While party ID is subject to some pretty wild swings, voter ideology changes incrementally.

Liberalism in particular hovers consistently around 20%, conservatives around 35% and moderates around 45%. In a presidential term interval, some liberals and conservatives may become more moderate, or some moderates might move right or left for a one or two point swing--that, and voter turnout is what accounts for shifts in Congressional majorities.

One clear trend since 2000, is that the pool of moderates is declining, and I have a theory as to why.

Blogs, talk radio and cable news competition.

In the 90s, you could have some interesting conversations about politics that were notable for one singular aspect--they were uniquely personal views. People talked about the policies that affected themselves--endless conversations about abortion, guns, closing federal lands to vehicle traffic, taxes, regulation, etc... I recall one gentleman who regaled me for two hours about his views on eminent domain, the status quo which, in his view, was responsible for the hollowed-out inner cities of the industrial northeast and mid-west.

I haven't had a conversation like that in years. Now its all thumbs up or thumbs down on Bush, Obama, Republicans or Democrats. The arguments are echos of the daily rhetorical memos from each side of the philosophical divide.

2008 saw a remarkable leap in Democrat party ID among the young--almost 10 points in since 2004. No doubt a lot of this had to do with how cool it was going to be to vote for a black Mr. Spock, and how lame it was to vote for an old guy like John McCain, but again--voter ideology, even among the young, hadn't changed all that much--a one point swing since 2004.

While the new partisanship careens undeterred through our political climate, its no longer being fueled by George W. Bush (who is wisely keeping his head down...) and the novelty of a culturally white, phenotypically black politician running for president. Obama is pictured in the media everyday, reminding voters who is in charge of this circus, while no Republican leader exists to provide a foil. Its no longer a choice between rivals, but a thumbs up or down on 'the guy we married'.

He ignores us, has B.O. and can't handle money--the marriage is rocky to say the least.

Four times in my life, Democrats have insisted on ramming liberal policies down the throats of Americans irrespective of their wishes. It suggests to me that liberalism is a honey-trap for narcissists. Ironically, the most notorious narcissist of all--Bill Clinton, had the good sense to abandon the reflex and move to the center. Not only was he rewarded with reelection, but he saw a similar spike in 18-29 year old Democrat party ID. Had he ignored the inner voice telling him "pants on the ground!", we might have seen a 12-16 year period of a Democrat in the White House.

With all this in mind, its the Republicans who have all the moves to make, and huge risks associated with those moves.

Republicans may seem to be on a glide path, but who they elect and how those elected Senators and Congresspersons think and act is going to have implications for the foreseeable future.

Its very clear that ideologically the country is right of center, and policies need to reflect that, but just as, if not more important, is that Republicans have to create and maintain trust with the American people--i.e. the Caesar's wife model. The fact that Democrats are corrupt by third-world standards is absolutely no protection against electoral reverses. The real key to stable and responsible center-right government for the foreseeable future is keeping the Tea Party movement actively holding Republicans responsible and driving a competitive primary process.

The internet has been used to the politicians benefit over the last 10 years. The people have to wrest control of that process in their own interests and make the politicians afraid of us, rather than of each other.

Next year marks the official start of the Republican presidential nomination process. Its the nature of the beast that any serious candidate has been laying a foundation for a candidacy since the day after Obama was elected. What scares the hell out of me is a nomination process like the last one, in which the media effectively made the choice for us. I personally like John McCain, but I have to wonder if it was even possible to nominate a worse candidate? (Mike Huckabee perhaps...).

I think its vitally important that the people, rather than establishment media, conduct a conversation examining the candidates, their personal qualities, their positions and their capacities--and there is little reason not to start right away.

Beginning later this week, I'll be posting the first in a series of profiles for each foreseeable candidate for the presidential nomination. I'm going to take my time because I want these profiles to be as clear-eyed and comprehensive as possible. I'm going to invite my colleagues here at Anatreptic to add their comments directly to the post rather than in the comments.

I'm also hoping that other blogs will follow suit so we can grab this process before the state media does.