>So what is the underlying movement here expressed through the mid-term
>election and the crisis in the Republican, not the Democratic Party?
I think it's yet another manifestation of the depressing centrism of the U.S. electorate, which is itself a function of the constitutional structure (the three branches, the Senate as a consciously obstructive body) and historical practices (restrictive ballot laws, the two-party system, the role of big money in politics). Clinton very successfully co-opted the parts of the Republican agenda - welfare and crime, particularly - leaving them with almost nothing to say, and which goes a long way towards explaining their visceral hostility to the guy. And he did it with the kind of good time Charlie geniality Americans like. That geniality was part of Reagan's success too. You could never call Gingrich or Republican class of 1994 genial. They're mean, often scary people. On top of that, the U.S. ruling class has done very well under Clinton; he's purged the last remnants of the social democratic and civil rights traditions in the Democratic Party. And the ruling class doesn't like the hard-right agenda at all; right after the 1994 election, Fortune ran a cover story on how unpleasant the Republican right was from a big biz/Wall Street point of view. Gingrich is one of the most unpopular political figures in the history of polling - I think his negatives are actually higher than Jesse Jackson's - and the folks to his right are even less popular, except with a hardcore lunatic section of the broad population and the business class. While that may seem like good news for the "left," such as it is, the "left," such as it is, would face the same constitutional and ideological constraints should by some bizarre accident it ever become a strong electoral force.
Doug