Meaning: This quote by journalist Charles Krauthammer highlights the potential impact of a Democratic anti-Tea Party campaign in nationalizing the election in 2010. To fully understand the significance of this quote, it's important to delve into the context of the Contract with America, the Tea Party movement, and the broader political landscape in the United States during the mid-1990s and early 2010s.

In the early 1990s, the Republican Party, led by Newt Gingrich, sought to capitalize on public dissatisfaction with the Democratic-controlled Congress and the Clinton administration. Gingrich and other Republican leaders developed the Contract with America, a conservative legislative agenda outlining specific policy proposals that they pledged to enact if they gained a majority in Congress. This strategy was aimed at nationalizing the 1994 midterm elections, essentially making them a referendum on the Republican agenda and propelling the party to a historic victory, resulting in the Republicans gaining control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate for the first time in 40 years.

Krauthammer's reference to Gingrich's effort to nationalize the 1994 election underscores the strategic significance of framing an election around a unified platform. By getting Republican candidates to sign the Contract with America, Gingrich effectively coordinated a cohesive message that resonated with voters across the country, contributing to the sweeping Republican victory.

Fast forward to 2010, the Tea Party movement had emerged as a potent force within the Republican Party, advocating for limited government, fiscal responsibility, and a strict adherence to the Constitution. The movement was characterized by grassroots activism, with many candidates aligning themselves with Tea Party principles and challenging establishment Republicans in primary elections.

Krauthammer's assertion that a Democratic anti-Tea Party campaign could nationalize the 2010 election "gratis" speaks to the potential for the Democrats to capitalize on the polarizing nature of the Tea Party movement. By framing the election as a referendum on the Tea Party's influence within the Republican Party, Democrats could seek to portray their opponents as extreme and out of touch with mainstream voters, thereby nationalizing the election around the perceived threat of Tea Party ideology.

The term "nationalize the election" refers to the process of elevating broader national issues and themes above local or regional concerns, effectively making the election a referendum on a specific set of policies or ideological positions. In the context of Krauthammer's quote, a Democratic anti-Tea Party campaign could serve to nationalize the 2010 election by leveraging the Tea Party's influence as a focal point for mobilizing opposition and shaping the national narrative.

It's important to note that the 2010 midterm elections did indeed reflect a broader national discourse, with issues such as healthcare reform, economic recovery, and the role of government taking center stage. The Tea Party's impact on the Republican Party and the broader political landscape contributed to a highly charged and polarized electoral environment.

In conclusion, Charles Krauthammer's quote encapsulates the strategic implications of nationalizing an election by framing it around a unifying theme or ideological contest. By invoking Newt Gingrich's success with the Contract with America in 1994 and the potential for a Democratic anti-Tea Party campaign to achieve a similar nationalizing effect in 2010, Krauthammer underscores the dynamic interplay between political messaging, grassroots movements, and the broader electoral landscape.