Well, this is becoming a daily occurrence, the Washington Post with two interesting articles on Virginia that almost cry out to be read and thought about together. Yesterday, it was guns. Today, we've got: 1) "Why Kaine Is Different" by columnist Fred Hiatt; and 2) "Budget Proposals Reveal Discord: Va. Senate Seeks Tax Increases As House Resists". What's fascinating is that the two articles both reveal serious rifts within the Republican Party, and also strongly imply a Democratic success strategy to become the majority party again in America. First, we have Fred Hiatt's column, which discusses Tim Kaine's winning "urban-suburban" strategy, as opposed to Mark Warner's "urban-rural coalition." In the end, Kaine's strategy - emphasis on suburban "quality of life" issues like reining in sprawl - worked brilliantly:
[Kaine] polled better than 60 percent in Fairfax County, won similar suburban jurisdictions outside Richmond and Norfolk, and even carried "exurbs" -- such as Loudoun and Prince William counties -- where he had hoped only to narrow the Republican margin.
Since Kaine's victory, we have seen others, notably Democrat Mark Herring's crushing victory in a January 31 special election Senate contest with anti-taxer/flat-earther Republican Mick Staton. In other words, the argument made by people like Ruy Teixeira and John Judis about an "emerging Democratic majority" appears to be coming true in Virginia. Here's the Teixeira/Judis argument in a nutshell:
...the core Republican constituencies -- white men, rural people, small businessmen -- are being slowly but surely overtaken by a Democratic coalition of women, minorities, service workers and a new class of college-educated professionals, one more concerned with social justice and less likely to reflexively vote by tax bracket than the old doctor-lawyer-executive elite. In the post-industrial age, demography favors Democrats.
Which is why, according to Teixeira and Judis, Republicans should be "very afraid" that "long-term trends are all working against [them]." Succinctly stated, the suburbs (and exurbs) are growing rapidly with service workers and professionals, while the rural/agriculture/mineral extraction areas (e.g., Southwest Virgina) are shrinking fast, especially as a proportion of the overall population. Which means that Republicans can hold on only as long as they can shift their appeal from the "red/rural" areas to the "blue/suburban" ones. Which leads directly to the intra-Rebublican rift on taxes and spending.
This rift is exemplified by what article #2 describes - large differences between Virginia House and Senate budget proposals this year. Both chambers are controlled by Republicans, yet:
As they did in 2004, senators are pushing tax increases, this time to pay for billions of dollars in road and transit construction. The House is sticking to its contention that transportation can be financed without higher taxes.
No question, this is a fundamental division within the Republican Party, between the ideological "money from my cold dead hands" wing (e.g., Ken Cuccinelli, Leo Wardrup) and the "tax and spend, especially if the spending is popular with voters" wing (e.g., John Chichester, Russ Potts). In this case, we have a Republican Senate more concerned - as is Tim Kaine - with priorities like fixing transportation gridlock, cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay, giving teachers a 4% raise, and increasing mental health services than with cutting taxes. The House, meanwhile, appears more interested in getting something for (almost) nothing, while raiding the state's General Fund (that pays for Chesapeake Bay cleanup, teacher pay raises, etc.) and piling up debt "to provide a one-time jump-start for large road and transit projects." Gov. Kaine, needless to say, is on the same side as the Republican-controlled Senate. Ths House is on the other side, which in this case happens to be the losing side politically with suburban and even exurban voters.
Sure, there are other issues as well, like red-meat social conservative causes that appeal far more to rural residents than to urban/suburban/exurban voters. For instance, the rural right wing pushes anachronistic issues like the anti-gay "marriage amendment," harsh restrictions on abortion, measures to let Virginians carry guns whenever and wherever they want (yee-haw!), and others that are not high on the priority list - to put it mildly - of voters in the most populous, and fastest growing, parts of thes state. Democrats, meanwhile, largely work to neutralize and minimize the social issues while focusing on the "bread and butter" ones that most urban/suburan/exurban voters care about.
That's why I predict, in the end, an outcome in 2006 similiar to 2004: after much pain and extended General Assembly sessions, we'll get more tax revenues, more spending, and more bitter, internal reciminations among Republicans. Oh yeah, and more gains by Democrats in suburban/exurban districts. Message to House Republicans: be afraid, be very afraid. Or, better yet, change your modus operandus before you're as extinct as the dodo bird or the dinosaurs! Whoops, I forgot, you don't believe in the dinosaurs...T. Rex wasn't on Noah's Ark, was he? Oh well, those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Heh.