Is it still the End Times for the Republican Party?
By most measures, this is likely to be a good — and maybe a great — year for Republicans. But it might be a terrible year for the Republican Party.
A couple of years ago, after the back-to-back debacles of the 2006 and 2008 election cycles, some pundits were opining about the end of the GOP, or its contraction into a narrow, regional movement.
That was premature and simplistic, to say the least, but it wasn’t entirely off-base.
What we’ve seen in the months since is both a re-energizing of the conservative movement and a profound and perhaps irreconcilable splintering of its core.
Before I go on, let me sketch briefly the way modern American political parties work. For the better part of a century now, the Democratic and Republican movements have been “big tent” affairs.
The make-up and balance of the political leadership, agenda, and regional tilt of the parties changed dramatically from decade to decade.
(Southern Democrats became Southern Republicans, while moderate Republicans in the Northeast became moderate Democrats in the Northeast…)
But the parties themselves had strong central institutions, iconic leaders, and some shared core principles. They also pooled their money and other resources fairly effectively, with stronger factions able to shore up weaker ones.
That formula still pretty much holds true for the Democrats. Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama and Harry Reid are very different politicians, with different philosophies and constituencies.
But at the end of the day, they can sketch a pretty clear line around the policy ideas and shared mythologies that unite them. When pressed, liberal Democrats lend aid and comfort to conservatives, and vice versa.
They can point to outsized political icons — Bill and Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Franklin Roosevelt, etc. — as widely accepted leaders.
I’m not sure that’s true anymore for the GOP.
Consider for a moment that the leader of the Republican National Committee is a figure largely scorned and marginalized by most elected Republicans.
Consider that the GOP’s last two presidents — George Bush Sr. and Jr. — are largely derided and dismissed within their own party’s rank-and-file.
Consider that the tea party movement (itself deeply divided along regional and ideological lines) has been working aggressively to defeat dislodge sitting Republican lawmakers.
Consider that some of the most active organizers of the Republican movement are now deliberately avoiding partnerships with core GOP organizations, fundraising and developing agendas independently.
Consider that there is no clear consensus about who should lead the GOP, in Congress or nationally.
Significant percentage of the conservative voter-base are devoted to fringe figures, including Ron Paul and Sarah Palin, who appear to have little chance of rebuilding the big tent.
What’s more, the clearest and loudest conservative voices now operate outside the Republican Party proper.
Opinions differ on the agendas of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity — but it’s clear that their chief desire isn’t to see the re-establishment of a broad, majority-building coalition.
(On the other hand, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich continues to raise the idea that conservatives will have to partner on some level with moderates if the GOP expects to return to power.)
It’s also worth noting that even in a year when the Republican Party seems likely to make significant gains, the party has had trouble recruiting and funding viable candidates.
Scandals from Colorado to Illinois to South Carolina have made the path to power far more difficult — and in part that’s because the GOP is no longer capable of vetting and filtering out non-viable candidates.
Finally, the right has been far less effective of late at marginalizing its more radical elements, a problem symptomatic of a deeper lack of a clear, confident mainstream identity and leadership.
It’s possible, of course, that a new, unifying voice will emerge — a Ronald Reagan-figure capable of articulating a broadly palatable conservative vision.
A victory in November’s mid-term elections could also nurture some unity, as could simmering animosity to Democratic policies.
But it’s also possible that we’ll see the continuing devolution of the conservative movement.
While the left remains organized within a “big tent” we could see the right represented by a much looser coalition of groups, organizations and formal parties.
Whether that would be good news or bad news for the conservative movement remains to be seen. But it’s hard to make a case that it would be good news for the GOP.
I think the Doheny / Hoffman conflict is a good picture of where the Republican party as a whole is at.
The party establishment seems to want to offer a Democrat-light version of a Republican candidate. If the recent poll is to be believed (and it seems the consensus is that it is not too far off), the Republicans in this district favor a more conservative Republican candidate to the middle-of-the-road type.
I also saw discussed on your blog that the farther left and the farther right have more clout than the middle from either end.
None-the-less, the Republican establishment seems bent on running a candidate up the middle.
Won’t work.
And it’s the Republican establishment party that is going to mowed down by the freight train this November.
Hoffman is a bad candidate so I am not sure that this race is really a microcosm of the national debate about the future of the conservative movement and the Republican Party.
I do agree that if the Republicans simply want to be conservative Democrats then who cares? I mean locally Owens and Aubertine are both more conservative than Dedie Scozaffava was, so what would the point of her running? Most conservatives feel that they have won with conservative candidates not middle of the road candidates. McCain, Ford, Dole and so forth were middle of the road. The last moderate Republicans to win the presidency were Nixon and Bush the first. Congress was won in 1994 by conservatives not by moderates.
As a conservative I will always vote for a conservative Democrat over a milk toast Republican.
Rush and Glenn and Sean, why are they spokesmen for any kind of movement? In reality all they are about is lining their own pockets. And what of FoxNews? Remember Dan Rather? Who’s head will roll over the Shirley Sherrod story? Or the ACORN fiasco? Why do so many allow themselves to be so easily manipulated by Fox? Even Obama seems afraid of those creeps.
Bush and the Republican party absolutely destroyed America as we once all knew and loved it during the Bush years. Obama has struggled, he has not been perfect and obviously needs to focus much more on jobs and the economy. Given all that, he is still head and shoulders, along with the Democrats in the House and Senate, above these obstructionist, filibuster, progress killing Republicans who want to keep America in the ditch. The Democrats have done alot to restructure and restore America already after the damage the Bush Republicans did to our country. Saving whole long standing industries like our auto industry, saving our entire banking system from collapse after Bush’s insanity, Health Care reform, Financial Regulatory Reform. The best thing that could happen in November for America would be more Democrats taking Republican seats in the House and Senate so we may continue to move America forward. Given time the Democrats will get it fixed and get it right, if we lose patience instead and vote Republican out of frustration or impatience, the Republicans like they did under Bush will surely destroy America further with their primitive, backwards ideology. We need to move America forward, not backward, stay focused, stay positive and stay progressive.
Okay, so I hadn’t read your post about lying media when I posted above.
Well CNN is just as biased as Fox just in the stories they choose to run how they manipulate their headlines, in some ways they are more sneaky in that they have a veneer of objectivity, at least with FOX you know this is a conservative slant, period.
Hopefully we will end up with a divided government in the Fall. The best government we have had for a long time was under President Clinton in the Executive Office and Republicans controlling Congress. Obstructionism when it comes to the boot of government is a good thing.
If people on the left cannot differentiate between Republican and conservative then the discussion can’t even start. That’s square 1. Modern Republicans, as a party, moved way to the left during the Clinton years in an attempt to gain voters. The “Big Tent” idea is disingenuous at it’s core. Yeah, welcome people of all types, but don’t give up up your core values to gain votes. They did just that.
So until the Republican party accepts that they can’t be conservative and act like Democrats at the same time they will continue to lose members. It’s that simple. IMO you can be pro-choice and conservative. You can be pro-civil union and conservative. You can be anti-big business and conservative. But you can’t be anti-Constitutional, ignore the deficit/national debt, be anti-capitalist, be pro-limited civil rights, anti-gun, anti-free speech, anti-Bill of Rights and be conservative. You have to be for fiscal responsibility and personal responsibility and that’s the type of thing that has doomed the Republicans to defeat because they lost their base in those areas.
I notice that Dede is touring with Cuomo in the North Country. So why would a conservative support her, what would be the point? Is that the future of the Republican Party to be good Democrats?
Calls for the Republican Party to become moderate are in my mind calls for the Party to fail, conservative Democrats already hold that space we don’t need moderate Republicans; they have no point of differentiation from a large block of conservative Democrats. What we need are true conservatives who offer a real choice. The choice of the country may be to reject them, but at least that would be a real choice.
As much as I like Dede she’s not a conservative, so her being seen with Cuomo Jr means nothing in that sense.
The proof that the Republican party is not even close to going down in defeat is in today’s Washington Times. Not one, but two op-eds calling for the impeachment of President Obama.
Remember a couple years back when the Republicans were afraid Bush/Cheney would be impeached if the Democrats gained control of the House? Democratic leaders basically pledged not to pursue impeachment of either man if they retook the House.
Republicans would never, ever make such a pledge. They know how to play tough and if it involves lying or outing CIA agents, they have no problem with that.
Notice one of the op-eds, by Tancredo, is basing his charges against Obama on something Obama never said. In other words, a lie.
“Republicans would never, ever make such a pledge. They know how to play tough and if it involves lying or outing CIA agents, they have no problem with that.”
Rebuttal- “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky”, “…well that depends on what “is” is…”, “There will be no new taxes on people making under $250K”, “This will be the most transparent administration ever”….need I go on?
BTW- Valerie Plame listed herself as a CIA Agent in Who’s Who long before her husband got his nose bent. How do you “out” something that’s already known?
Nope. Not end times. Too much money there. The GOP, like the poor, we will have with us always. Because they are rich.
I should correct that last line- Plame and her husband acknowledged she existed (apparently some sort of CIA violation) which lead to Novaks determining who she was and finding she worked for CIA. Again, how do you out a person who isn’t supposed to exist that allows themselves to be in Who’s Who?
It was Joe Wilson’s entry in Who’s Who. Not Valerie’s. And the only thing it mentioned was who he was married to.
While there may have been Washington and CIA insiders who knew what she did for a living, it wasn’t something that was known to any compromising level until Novak shined a spotlight on it. The sources for his story were later revealed to be Bush’s Deputy Chief of Staff and his Deputy Secretary of State.
http://article.nationalreview.com/316792/fitzgerald-ok-libby-wasnt-convicted-of-leaking-but-punish-him-as-if-he-had-been/byron-york
Dave, don’t bother, Bret has his narrative and the Bush administration history is being rewritten as we speak.
The point is, if the Republicans regain control of the House there will be investigation after investigation of the Obama administration. It will be the Clinton White House all over again. Just ask Michelle Bachmann or Darrell Issa, they have no problem admitting that will be the case (that is a fact by the way).
I’m guessing there will be a 50/50 chance of President Obama being impeached. Here’s the thing. If a Democrat gets elected, he/she needs to be impeached.
The point is that while some of Bushes cronies went to prison for doing wrong and then lying about it, Clinton committed treason by selling our defense secrets to the Chinese on exchange for campaign contributions and no one even got a slap on the wrist. I’m just pointing out the double standard. The left continually points fingers and speaks of corporate meddling in the Bush years and yet when the current President is run by hedge fund billionaire (and admitted Nazi collaborator) George Soros, that’s just peachy.
I’m for an end to this impeachment garbage. It’s just tit for tat. It should be caved for truly egregious crimes, like treason for instance. But the Republicans and Democrats have it in their play book now. All the more reason to dump the 2 parties and find a better alternative.
It is interesting that Wall Street was Obama’s largest campaign contributor as an industry with Goldman leading the way as a contributor to his campaign. I wonder if that had anything to do with the watered down financial reform bill that just got passed? They sure profited by the bailout and got rid of competitors who didn’t play obama ball such as Lehman Bros’.
But yes I agree the impeachment stuff is garbage. I don’t think if the Republicans get control next year they will go that route though hopefully they learned from the Clinton experience.
But at least they can slow things down. I think when middle class families start to see their health insurance rates increase radically along with their taxes next year we can look to repealing some of the mistakes that have been made.
Divided government is a good thing.
It won;t be just health insurance, it’ll start off with things like rising food and fuel costs, the Bush Tax cuts $1000.00 per child tax credit being lost, more lost jobs, Soda and Tanning taxes at the state level…things like that. Gov’t at all levels simply has to stop the growth of itself and the spending and taxing.
Bret, I think you’re wrong. Basic economics seems to show that we didn’t put enough money into the stimulus, and demand is falling, and so are overall prices. Government is shrinking, if you’ve been reading the papers and the internet. We’re looking at deflation ahead. Which will be really, really bad.
But it will be what conservatives think is best.
True, we know how to treat inflation, we don’t have a good monetary solution for deflation.
How does basic economics show we didn’t borrow enough money for the stimulus? Isn’t it just as possible the stimulus was part of the problem, long with bailouts and other poor ideas? Maybe the problem is that gov’t shouldn’t be supporting a system that is so very, very artificial.
I don’t see where gov’t is shrinking, where does that come from? Food prices are rising and cost are going up. Tax revenue is down and spending increasing. Business is holding their profits in a wait and see approach, wise thing to do but not good for the economy. When you consider what we owe there exists the very real possibility of our gov’t devaluing our currency. That will cause inflation.
Either way, inflation or deflation, we need some honest leadership in gov’t. I can only hope more of the Barney Franks of our gov;t finally get ousted and some responsible people put in their places.
To answer your questions, Bret, since you don’t like looking things up yourself:
1. Here’s how: http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20090108153545.aspx
2. No. See above.
3. I’ll answer your question with more questions: Artificial? As in man-made? If you don’t like “artificial,” then why do you live in a house? Any economy is “artificial.” Money is “artificial.” Government is “artificial.” The Internet is… Anyhow, not sure how that’s germane.
4. Shrinking? Yes. Here: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-06-04/states-shrink-unaffordable-benefits-to-bridge-1-trillion-gap.html
And here: http://pressrepublican.com/0100_news/x155050624/Layoffs-expected-as-City-School-finalizes-budget/print
Plenty more examples of state layoffs across the country.
5. Deflation is looking more likely than inflation, here:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/06/deflation_concerns_mount.html
The artificial Internet can be a wonderful thing.
Brian,
I must differ with you on your account of the last century of US political parties. For the last century, up until the last 4 decades, US parties have been largely fragmented / diffused institutions. This changed post 1968, initiated b/c of changes in the D party (see the McGovern Fraser Commission). The GOP got on the bandwagon too b/c of changes in state laws governing primary elections, their national defeats, and the pummeling they took post-Watergate. The GOP was instrumental in recasting their national committee as a service organization, beginning in the late 70s / early ’80s, when it centralized its fund raising efforts (largely through direct mail campaigns and computer technology – thanks to FECA 1974 & later changes in campaign finance) and began providing resources of different types to US Senate/House candidates and then later, governors and in some cases important state races. So, the degree of “nationalizing” of the two national committees is really a phenomenon of the last several decades, not century.
On this point, there’s 1 DNC, 1 RNC but 50 state D and R parties, that do not!!! take their marching orders from their respective national committees. This fact is a significant reason why our parties are so politically fragmented as they are.
From time to time a FDR, Reagan, or Clinton comes along to help build a broad coalition of voters but the “big tent” understanding of a party is only true to the extent that the coalition captures the median voter. Unfortunately for both parties the coalitions have been short lived. Unless something drastic happens in the early fall it appears as though the Obama “realignment” will have failed. Thus, neither party will have the distinction of having that “big tent” coalition that will realign national & subnational politics (like the New Deal Coalition did for nearly 40 yrs, for example).
My last comment. My criticism of your understanding of parties is that you like many people associate the party with one or even several individual leaders of a party. It’s easy to do. Parties are more than this – they’re – psychological attachments, shortcuts to politics, vehicles for organizing govt and reaching collective action (& etc.). I’m sure you know this but to frame the discussion the way you have is an over simplification.
Anon, people seem to expect me to back up my statements, why are you any different?
1+2. Here’s something a bit more recent that refutes your link. http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2010/06/10/economists-stimulus-not-working-obama-must-rein-in-spending.html
Keynesian economics has a lot of flaws in it’s premise. That’s just my opinion but many economists share it. However, politicians love the idea. Spending someone elses money to ensure or further their reelection chances is like cake and ice cream, or free money. I don’t think simply throwing gobs of (borrowed)money at our problems is a viable solution, much less a long term solution.
3. Artificial as in price supports, taxes, low to no interest loans to some industries and not others, political pandering to some industries, political “hit men” sent after others…in other words gov’t has it’s fingers in the capitalist system far further than needed and it hurts the system and makes it artificial. Oversight and laws to ensure a fairly even starting point are fine, as are laws and oversight to prevent fraud and abuse. But when the gov’t becomes a player in free enterprise then we have a problem.
4. Ah, you thinking at the State level where I was thinking of the Federal level. I’ll give you that one. But to be accurate we need to differentiate where the real problem lays. If Nebraska or even NY can;t pay it’s bills they can’t start up the presses and print out a few trillion Federal Reserve Notes to help cover their debt. And I don’t think Nebraska or NY have a $16 trillion debt at the moment with promises to spend anther $35 trillion in the future, do they?
5. Deflation or inflation, either can lead to a severe depression. And as I understand it one can lead to the other depending on how it plays out. Bad news no matter what.
And yes, the artificial internet is a wonderful thing. We wouldn’t get to trade barbs without it, would we?
OK, let’s agree to disagree. You can dislike Keynesian economics, and I’ll dislike Randian/Greenspanian economics. I’ll take the 1933 through the 1960s, when middle class incomes grew, over the evidence of the last 30 years, when the rich benefited and middle-class incomes remained flat, or fell, as a better outcome for society. Just a preference.
But there is no economic “state of nature,” free of artificial constructs. Reagan’s tax-cut-driven deficits and increased defense spending are no more “natural” than FDR’s rural electrification, farm subsidies and tax increases on the wealthy. People can disagree on what works better.
Can we agree on that?
Sure, I’m good with that. But I’m not sure calling what I would like to see “Randian/Greenspanian” ecxonomics. Ayn Rand wrote a book about extremes, that’s not an economic model. It was a fictional example of a possibility. Al Greenspan? The Fed needs to be audited, and possibly to be disbanded.
What points can we agree on? Lower taxes leave more money in the pockets of people, especially the middle class. Higher taxes hurt business and jobs. There are limits to what gov’t can do no matter how much power and money it has. Can we agree on that much?
Sorry. Middle class grew more during the 1950s and 60s when the highest tax brackets were well above 50%. Just facts.
And no, there are no limits to what government can do when it’s not overseen by the people. Look at the torture system we’ve created, in the dark. Our government, the good guys, has tortured and killed completely innocent people. Nobody cares, though.
Come on and answer the question- Do lower taxes leave more money in the pockets of the taxpayer or not? Do you really believe Gov’t just needs more money to make it all better?
The problem of course is that economists don’t agree, we have Nobel prize winning economists such as Lucas or Freedom on one side and people like Krugman on the other. The answer is in the middle most likely.
The interesting thing is what does middle class mean? During the 50’s and 60’s it meant a 1000sq foot home, one car, a job that would pay okay for one member of married family, usually the man and couple of kids. Today that whole model is gone expectations are very high and at the same time many people really are struggling. I don’t think government can solve our essential problems it can help or hurt for sure but the answer lies in the dignity, productivity and morality of our population. What we need money for is our social safety net which is NOT that expensive. What we need to do is cut government programs.
Our government has done some bad things but far LESS bad things than most other governments, I mean sure we could sit on our self righous weak buts like the French and Germans and watch a genocide happen in the Balkin, a couple of hundred miles from us; but no we stepped up and went to Europe and once again stopped a genocide.
We are not the bad guys we are however needed because people like to have someone to blame just like teenagers need their parents so they have someone to blame.
I was out in the barn last night thinking about Anon’s remarks. Yes, the middle class did grow. So did the wealthy. From about 1938 till the end of the War things were great, then there were some horrible problems in the post war recession. Things got better and in time the US was the biggest palyer on the world market. We made the best cars, the best machine tools and machines, we built the best ships and aircraft and we built the best appliances and heavy industrial equipment. Europe was a mess after the war as was Japan. China and Korea were still living in the 1880’s. The world came to us and bought whatever we offered. Of course the middle class grew! It wasn’t growing because of taxes on the rich or gov’t spending. It was growing because from 1938 to the late 1960’s we lead the world in production.