For the rare few who do not avidly follow its politics, Montana is in the grips of a Democratic ‘revolution’. It has long been one of the reddest of Red states, voting for just two Democratic Presidential candidates in the past 60 years.

Yet, it now boasts two Democratic Senators and, in Brian Schweitzer, the most popular Governor in the Union, and a highly acclaimed speaker at the recent DNC. Furthermore, the 2008 general election saw it moved to the elusive category of ‘swing state’, with McCain scraping home by just 2%. I believe this transformation is not due to the type of great demographic shift outlined in Teixeira’s “The Emerging Democratic Majority”, nor merely to Howard Dean’s generous allocation of resources. Instead, Montana’s Democrats have made subtle changes to both their policy and their ‘sales pitch’, emphasising Democratic ideals at every opportunity.

Arguably, the lessons learnt in Big Sky could be used to discredit the essence of Republicanism, and in its place create a new national majority.

The crux of the Republican message centres on its conservative ‘heartland values’ and low taxation; historically, this has been a highly popular pairing in rural Montana, where Bush beat Kerry by 18-points in 2004. No issue illustrates the GOP’s appeal there better than gun control, in a state with 58% gun ownership and in which it is an election-decider.

For too long, Republicans have held an electoral monopoly, able to simply paint Democrats as anti-gun, and thus almost ‘anti-Montanan’. As ever, they have created the ‘culture war’ and they have been winning it with ease.

Yet Gov. Brian Schweitzer, also elected in 2004, has placed emphasis on his pro-gun credentials, presenting it as an issue of personal freedom; pithily summarizing this with his “You control your gun, and I’ll control mine” line. Crucially, he isn’t trying to play the Republicans at their own game, but instead boldly selling it as a truly liberal policy. Schweitzer places the right to bear arms alongside access to abortion, or freedom from draconian ID cards.

His 30-point re-election victory, in November, showed this could make a Democratic ticket, and its liberal ideals, electable in fly-over country; national Democratic leaders must learn to place the 2^nd Amendment alongside the 1^st, 13^th or 19^th.  By doing so, they remove what is arguably the GOP’s greatest weapon in the ‘Kulturkampf’, and have the opportunity to drastically re-draw the political map.

For Schweitzer tapped into the widespread libertarian mentality of the West; polling shows it is a region with far less support for conservative restrictions on abortion or sexuality than either the South or Midwest. Thus conservatism’s precariously artificial geographic, and intellectual, coalition has been exposed, and national Democratic pragmatism can ultimately shatter it.

This would leave a conservative GOP largely isolated to its Southern base, and its extreme, alienating attitudes to race, society and religion (potentially similar to the pre-New Deal Democrats). Whilst abandoning gun control would be a distressing move for much of the party’s base, such compromise is essential to the “Big Tents” that dominate political eras, and there is clear precedent. Yet I believe the appeal of a Democratic majority – based not only on the votes of Delaware, but also the Dakotas – should be too tempting to resist.

This re-shaping of the Democratic message cannot rely on a single policy change, even if it is as significant and iconic as gun control.  In Montana, Schweitzer has also emphasised his “fiscal conservatism”. This does not mean merely repeating the Republican obsession with low taxes (whose near-universal popularity is hardly a revelation). Instead, he highlights responsibility and prudence towards government borrowing, and this is highly popular in a state where Ross Perot won 27% in 1992.

Furthermore, it directly discredits the Republican’s irresponsible tax policies, which lead to the dangerous deficits of their last three Presidents. Thus, Democrats can portray GOP tax cuts as a violation of their supposed ‘heartland values’.  Equally, by leading to mass Chinese ownership of American debt (on a par with Bush’s flawed energy policy), Republican deficits also undermine their Nation Security credentials. Furthermore, this is a true Democratic policy; many see Clinton’s deficit reduction as his greatest achievement in office. Thus, no messy ‘U-turn’ is necessary; a change in emphasis could be enough to transform the Republicans’ greatest attraction into a clear sign of its hypocrisy.

Recently, several Obama decisions suggest he is now doing this, most notably through a move to improve automobile emissions standards. This, a true liberal policy, is of course worthy in its right, and represents the nation’s (and the world’s) interests. Yet it has a further significance, which I believe the Obama administration failed to fully exploit. For, he overturned a Bush policy, which denied individual states the ability to set stricter environmental regulations.

This should have been portrayed as a violation of state’s rights- a founding principle of Reagan’s ‘conservative revolution’, as shown in his infamous 1980 speech to the Neshoba County Fair. Obama could have exposed it as a great hypocrisy- not a position of principle- and ultimately nothing but a lazy excuse for Southern racism. Thus, conservatism would be painted as an intellectually, and morally, empty force, tied to a marginalized Deep South.

Whilst minor re-positioning is necessary to discredit this pillar of Republicanism, I believe events themselves will largely remove the other- low taxation. For long-term trends point to the frightening growth of the cost of Medicare and Social Security programs. In the

age of increased calls for universal health care, and polling in November showing heightened support for state intervention, it is unlikely we will see widespread cuts to popular services. Instead, (with an increased emphasis on ‘fiscal conservatism’), real tax increases will be necessary; and the GOP must join this consensus, or risk further drifting towards political irrelevance. Thus, the Democrats now have the opportunity to discredit, if not destroy, the conservative doctrine; by detaching its libertarian Western wing through a series of adept moves, it will be merely able to dominate its Southern base.

In its place, the Democrats will have the opportunity to form a new national coalition- and this will only be increased by the pace of demographic change.  Whilst hard work of course remains needed to sell the core of its message, the party has a chance, not seen for two generations, to transform America. This is highlighted by the case of Montana; its ‘revolution’ has played a part in the continued re-election of Sen. Max Baucus, who now is the most central figure in current moves for universal health care.

Naturally, like most pundits, I will have ‘jumped the gun’. The Republican Party, though weakened, is far from dead in Big Sky, and still holds a slim majority in the State Legislature. Ultimately, the true significance of these lessons from Montana will emerge over the upcoming election cycles and, possibly, over the upcoming decades in the nation as a whole.