A new Byron York article in National Review raises interesting issues about the future of partisanship in the halls of Congress. It’s not hard to imagine North Carolina eventually feeling the impact.

The full article is available only with a subscriber link, but I’ll touch on issues that offer only tangential importance to York’s theme: the future of the Democratic Party in the wake of Lamont-Lieberman.

In describing the leftward movement of the Democrats, York cites interesting statistics:

  • More than 70 percent of the members of the U.S. House Democratic caucus have “liberal” ratings of 90 or higher, according to Americans for Democratic Action. Sixty-five members — almost a third of the caucus — have perfect “liberal” scores of 100. (Twenty years ago, just 20 Dems earned perfect scores.)
  • Ninety percent of Democratic senators score 90 or higher in the ADA ratings, and 22 of 45 (roughly half of them) earn the highest possible liberal rating.

In contrast, York asserts that Republicans have shifted to the right — but the ideological purity is not as pronounced.

  • About 55 percent of the members of the House GOP caucus score 90 or higher in the rankings of the American Conservative Union. Just 16 percent (38 members) earn a perfect 100.
  • In the Senate, 62 percent of Republicans earn ACU scores of 90 or better, while 22 percent earn the highest mark.

York cautions that the comparisons between the liberal and conservative ratings are “by no means scientific,” since ADA and ACU use different systems. Still, we can use his information to make some observations.

  • The numbers confirm what we have seen in recent years: an increased reliance on party loyalty and partisan votes. There are no candidates for office who want to be considered “Bush Democrats.”
  • Some of the partisanship is planned, as this week’s TIME profile of Nancy Pelosi describes. But we can’t chalk up all of the Democrats’ intransigence to political gamesmanship. A crowd that is as liberal as suggested by the numbers cited above is more likely to disagree philosophically with conservative ideas. In other words, Pelosi and her colleagues don’t have to twist many arms when they outlaw across-the-aisle deal making.
  • These changes could have a major impact on a state like North Carolina, where it’s hard to swing a dead cat without hitting a “moderate Democrat.” I’m talking about the people who pull the Democratic lever more for historical reasons than philosophical ones — the swing voters who’ll support Democrats for state and local races while preferring to send Republicans to the White House and U.S. Senate.
  • Of North Carolina’s 13 congressional districts, how many would consistently support the type of candidate who could score 90 or better on the ADA scorecard? Three of our current Democratic congressmen score 100s, another earns a 95, while the others score 85 and 70. Even with the best-crafted gerrymandering possible, could Democrats ever hope to elect the most liberal candidates to fill more than three or four N.C. seats?
  • It’s easy to stick with the national party when the main planks include attacking an unpopular war, blasting majority-party corruption, and decrying fiscal irresponsibilty. If Democrats take over the House again, will their North Carolina members be able to support the most liberal elements of the party’s agenda while maintaining a moderate image back home? How?

You’ll notice I don’t answer these questions. But I suspect some political strategists will be forced to answer them soon if the trends continue in the direction Mr. York describes.