An essay in the latest issue of Commentary by Daniel Casse is a two coffee read. It is entitled "An Emerging Republican Majority?" Although Casses discussion is worth reading I think he doesnt really get the idea of a Republican majority (or realignment) right. He seems to argue that Bush has to stand closer to the center and garner bipartisan support for his policies and this will help make the GOP into the majority party. He also says that whether or not the GOP established a majority will depend on what the Demos will do. He thinks this in part because he sees the election results of last year to be "unexpected." I take issue with this, and think that the GOP victory was not unexpected and it had to do with presenting a real choice to the voters and thereby forcing the Democrats into addressing issues on Republican terms, unless they want to continue to lose elections. The Demos must be forced to recast themselves into a mold that looks more Republican; this is what happens in a true realigment, and, arguably, has been happening since the 1980s. (The less the Democrats become like the GOP, the more irrelevant they will become.) Clinton ran as a new Democrat in 1992 (once "liberal" became a term of dissaprobation) and was forced to at least appear to govern under the GOP created political universe; and then note both the GOP victory in 1994 and the Demos response to that. The minority party has to begin looking like the majority party, not vice versa. Steve Hayward argues that the 2002 election confirms that the election of 1994 was the biginning of a realignment. That the Demos are in denial over this is a good sign for the GOP; theyll become less relevant. I highly recommend his thoughtful piece. You might also want to see a talk I gave to the Ashland County Republicans in December of 1994. In this talk I tried to clarify the meaning of realignment and whether or not we were then in the middle of one, and/or what we must do in order to form such a realigning majority. Although there is nothing original in my talk (worth only one coffee), it being entirely derived from Lubell, Jaffa, Kesler, et al, it has the virtue of making clear what realignment means, I hope.