Updated - see below

The Minneapolis Star Tribune published an editorial discussing the demise of the Republican brand and Norm Coleman's chances of getting reelected. They pointed to a fascinating article in the New York entitled "The Fall of Conservatism" which describes the arch of American conservatism which we can now see ending through the incompetence, corruption and hubris of the Bush Administration. As a late-comer to the movement, Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) faces becoming a victim of the demise of the brand. He can only offer bland conservative platitudes and can only attempt to evade the nation's number one issue -- the occupation of Iraq.

But Coleman didn't say what a majority of Americans, and likely Minnesotans, now believe -- that the war in Iraq was a blunder for this nation. He paid homage to the virtues of a marketplace unfettered by government, without prescribing a remedy for the ill effects of capitalism's boom-and-bust cycles.

For the country's economic ills, he prescribed permanent tax cuts and smaller government, going so far as to rank "cutting wasteful Washington spending" one of the "great issues of our time." He faulted GOP leaders for budget-cutting timidity. But he offered no hit list of what should be cut -- though he said he'd assign an appointed commission to take a crack at shrinking future Social Security and Medicare commitments.
(Star Tribune)

Their analysis doesn't quite show how difficult Norm's position is.

George Packer's article in the New Yorker describes the rise of conservatism with Nixon's ascendancy after losing the 1960 election to JFK. He did this by exploiting the feeling that, as Rick Perlstein points out in his book Nixonland, "America was engulfed in a pitched battle between the forces of darkness and the forces of light." Reagan exploited this feeling at what turned out to be the peak of the cold war. As the Berlin Wall fell and the cold war ended, conservatives needed a new enemy.

After Reagan and the end of the Cold War, conservatism lost the ties that had bound together its disparate factions—libertarians, evangelicals, neoconservatives, Wall Street, working-class traditionalists. Without the Gipper and the Evil Empire, what was the organizing principle? In 1994, the conservative journalist David Frum surveyed the landscape and published a book called "Dead Right." Reagan, he wrote, had offered his "Morning in America" vision, and the public had rewarded him enormously, but in failing to reduce government he had allowed the welfare state to continue infantilizing the public, weakening its moral fibre. That November, Republicans swept to power in Congress and imagined that they had been deputized by the voters to distill conservatism into its purest essence. Newt Gingrich declared, "On those things which are at the core of our philosophy and on those things where we believe we represent the vast majority of Americans, there will be no compromise." Instead of just limiting government, the Gingrich revolutionaries set out to disable it. Although the legislative reins were in their hands, these Republicans could find no governmental projects to organize their energy around. David Brooks said, "The only thing that held the coalition together was hostility to government." When the Times Magazine asked William Kristol what ideas he was for—in early 1995, high noon of the Gingrich Revolution—Kristol could think to mention only school choice and "shaping the culture."
(New Yorker

Democratic Mayor of St. Paul Norm Coleman saw this wave sweep America and switched sides as conservatism seemed ascendant. Despite this wave, he stumbled in effort to ride that wave to the governor's mansion when he was defeated by Jess Ventura in 1998. As he was considering a second run for governor, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove convinced Norm to run against Paul Wellstone. He was trailing Paul by 5% when Wellstone died in a plane crash, gifting him the Senate seat. He joined the Senate in 2003 as the conservatives seemed in complete control of all aspects of government.

Though conservatives were not much interested in governing, they understood the art of politics. They hadn't made much of a dent in the bureaucracy, and they had done nothing to provide universal health-care coverage or arrest growing economic inequality, but they had created a political culture that was inhospitable to welfare, to an indulgent view of criminals, to high rates of taxation. They had controlled the language and moved the political parameters to the right.
(New Yorker

This became Norm's problem. The Bush Administration was not particularly interested in governing, but was interested in rewarding their cronies and the corporate backers. Their legendary incompetence after the battle of Iraq ended and the reconstruction of the country began and after Hurrican Katrina solidifed the Bush Administration status as the least popular presidency ever. Minnesota as a state believes in good government. The Republicans have proved that they are the antithesis. But this pattern has its roots in the behavior of both Nixon and Reagan.

Nixon himself was more interested in global grand strategy and partisan politics than in any conservative policy agenda. By today's standards, his achievements in office look like those of a moderate liberal: he eased the tensions of the Cold War, expanded the welfare state, and supported affirmative action (albeit in ways calculated to split the Democrats). "L.B.J. built the foundation and the first floor of the Great Society," Buchanan said. "We built the skyscraper. Nixon was not a Reaganite conservative."

Even Reagan, the Moses of the conservative movement, was more ideological in his rhetoric than in his governance. Conservatives have canonized him for cutting taxes and regulation, moving the courts to the right, and helping to vanquish the Soviet empire. But he proved less dogmatic than most of his opponents and some of his followers expected, especially on ending the Cold War. Reagan emphasized the first word in "positive polarization," turning the Nixon playbook into a kind of national celebration. Like F.D.R., he dominated an era by reconciling opposites through force of personality: just as Roosevelt the patrician became the tribune of the people, Reagan turned conservatism into a forward-looking, optimistic ideology. "We started in 1980 and played addition," Ed Rollins, Reagan's political director, recalls. " 'Let's go out and get Democrats.' We attracted a great many young people to the Party. Reagan made them feel good about the country again. After the '84 election, we did polling—Why did you vote for Reagan? They said, 'He's a winner.' "
(New Yorker

In retrospect, The Bush Administration instead of bringing the country together, instead of capitilizing on the unity of September 12, 2001, they exploited it for partisan gain, permanent war, corporate greed and cronyism. Their purported goal was to establish a one-party government. They may be in the process of achieving that. The only problem for them is it may be one hundred years of Democratic dominance of politics after the debacle that the Bush Administration has been.

In this light, can you see why Norm's chances aren't very good?

Update

It is not just lefty bloggers and a few journalists who are documenting the implosion of the Republican brand, the Republicans are also joining in:

Republicans have been known, from time to time, to use the politics of fear to get ahead. That, of course, includes scaring the bejeezus out of their own rank-and-file supporters, in order to get them to open their checkbooks.

But former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) seems to have laid it on pretty thick in his latest email missive on behalf of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, sent this week. The subject line read, “Democrats Win Landslide Victory.”

I have a real fear of waking up to this headline after the elections this fall. Make no mistake about it: If our grassroots teams fail to come together and work as hard as they did in 2000, 2002 and 2004, that headline could very likely be the result!

In key states, news accounts indicate Democrats are outpacing Republicans registering voters. We also know Barack Obama’s campaign is utilizing the Internet to raise record amounts of money to support his campaign and Democrats nationally … all in the hope that new voters and record resources will produce a Democrat landslide victory this fall.

There’s so much at risk, and conservatives I talk with from all across the country are feeling the rumblings of “what could be.”

Now, I’m obviously not the target audience of Frist’s message, but if I were a DSCC donor, and Chuck Schumer sent me an email about John McCain doing a great job registering voters, raising money, and rallying legions of supporters, all of which points to a Republican “landslide,” I might feel a little discouraged.

The New Yorker’s Hendrick Hertzberg offered some psychoanalytic observations about the email’s author.
(Crooks and Liars)