As you’ve probably heard by now, there’s a long history in American politics of the President’s party getting beaten up in the mid-term elections. It’s not news if it happens, it’s news if it doesn’t. But this year’s beat down was a little more dramatic than most as Republicans hammered Democrats in Congress and in many state elections at a substantially higher rate than is usual. So does this mean the rebirth of a hard-right Conservative movement in American politics, a second coming of the Reagan Revolution? Probably not.
For starters, Reagan and the so-called revolution named for him was far less conservative than many of today’s pie-eyed admirers are apt to believe, assuming they were even alive and old enough to remember the 1980s as an adult, which about half the country is not. On 
the economic side, Reagan cut taxes but also raised spending, particularly on the military, and federal deficits skyrocketed. On the political side, he grew the size of government instead of shrinking it. On the social side, he made very few moves to dismantle the social welfare systems put in place under FDR and LBJ. And on the cultural front, he talked a good game, but the man who had signed California’s liberal abortion law while governor, and who himself rarely attended church, was more than happy to tell the Christian Right what they wanted to hear and tally their votes while actually giving them very little in return beyond attention and political legitimacy.
Anyone who thinks the Obama Democrats are socialists should brush up on their terminology and theory
To understand what the Reagan Revolution was really about, you have to remember historical context. Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980 and his eponymous revolution was a byproduct of the 1960s and 1970s. It was about throwing detente out the window and returning to a hardline stance on the Cold War. It was about breaking up the Solid South by
exploiting Northern Democrats’ support of Civil Rights and affirmative action. It was about driving nails into the coffin of the fractious Democratic Liberal establishment, which was by then teetering, but had been so powerful for so long that Republican presidents as recent as Richard Nixon had in many ways simply taken its dominance for granted. It was about challenging Keynesian economic principles that had dominated American politics since the Great Depression and replacing them with supply-side economics. It was about repositioning the Republican Party by animating the Conservative base on the Right while refashioning the Conservative movement’s popular image to make it more palatable to the broad center: restoring pride to American patriotism after Vietnam; giving people an avenue to vent their anger and frustration amidst a crippled economy; returning unadulterated machismo to the White House after Carter’s 
dry, malaise-riddled stint; and getting people to forget about the movement’s failed, former front man, Barry Goldwater, and replacing him with the confident, charismatic, avuncular actor who knew how to hit his marks, smile for the camera, and deliver his lines to perfection. Reagan was charming and witty when happy, righteous and stern when angry, and always the voice of America with a capital A big enough to rule the world.
That was the Reagan Revolution.
And this? This midterm election that just took place? What is this? Well for starters, it ain’t that.
The Republican gains and the Tea Party’s debut in the halls of power is not about a return to what the Reagan Revolution actually was; that era has come and gone, and you can’t go back again. Nor is it about reviving a fantasy of the Reagan Revolution as some might imagine it; that era never existed. So what is it really about then?
This is about a schism in American politics, an enormous chasm between modern American Liberalism and modern American Conservatism, that will provide a tremendous opportunity for centrists to broker deals.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Senators Mary Landrieu (D-Louisiana), Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska), Olympia Snow (R-Maine), Susan Collins (R-Maine), and, God help us, Joseph Lieberman (I-Connecticut).
What do these five senators have in common? They are, each in their own way, firmly center-right. The rising Republican force, represented by both the newly elected Tea Partiers and GOP stalwarts like John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, is on the far right. The Obama Democrats are straddling the center. Anyone who thinks the Obama Democrats are socialists should brush up on their terminology and theory. While they lean left on social and cultural issues, they are center right on the economy (Keynesian capitalists, not socialists) and on foreign affairs (continuing the war in Afghanistan and detente with China, not withdrawal and a hardline on human rights).
They are crafty coyotes who can scavenge their way through the political arena without needing a pack of loyal followers
That means true center-right politicians are in a position to forge the compromises needed to create legislation that can: A) make it through a divided Congress, and B) not get vetoed by the president. We saw some of this in the last session when Landrieu, Nelson, Snow, 
Collins, and Lieberman were all instrumental in getting the health care bill passed. Depending on what you think of them and their actions, they either salvaged the bill and saved it from oblivion, or they held it hostage until they got their fill of pork. But either way, healthcare reform passed because they were the swing votes that made it happen, providing the numbers the Democrats needed for passage, while also demanding that the bill be watered down (perhaps so they could have something to wash down all that pork, which I hear can be quite salty) .
In the Senate, this quintet will continue to be pivotal. The House, however, is another matter since Republicans now hold a majority and the Blue Dog, center-right Democrats have been laid low. But if the Congress is going to move bills forward, it will require the House to get on board. And assuming that its Republican leadership is not actually willing to oversee a truly do-nothing session and possibly shutdown the government in an effort to de-throne Obama, as they have threatened, the House will also pivot at times on the remaining center-right members of both parties. This would be particularly the case when joint committees meet to iron out the differences between Senate and House versions of various bills.
In many state legislatures around the nation, single parties frequently dominate, and such is the case today. But in the half-dozen states with split legislatures, center-right moderates will be influential there as well.
Obama and the Democrats’ sweeping victory two years ago did not signal the return of a 
Liberal order a la FDR or LBJ. Likewise, the recent Republican gains do not signal a return of the Reagan Revolution. And when we put the two of them together, what we’re apt to find is that federal politics will pivot around a new axis: a collection of center-right politicians, little known outside of their home states, who are unburdened by rigid ideologies. They are crafty coyotes who can scavenge their way through the political arena without needing a loyal pack of followers or having to face the bloody fangs of a rabid opposition. They are the axis of center-right moderates.
What do Obama and Harry Reid want? It Doesn’t matter.
What do John Boehner and Rand Paul want? Who cares?
What you should probably start asking yourself is, what do Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu want? What do the Ladies from Maine want? And, God help us, what the hell does Joe Lieberman want?