Once a referendum on Obama, 2012 now a watershed moment for GOP
We’ve been wrestling for a while here on the In Box with the crosscurrents that have torn the Republican Party in recent years, from Doug Hoffman’s insurgency in 2009 to the tea party revival in 2010 to the disastrous GOP primary now unfolding.
At least in the ranks of pundits, a consensus is growing that all this simmering turmoil is leading something profound, a shift in the long-term fortunes of one of America’s two major parties.
Leading the way is the Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza, one of the country’s most influential political reporters. He writes that some GOP insiders are actually hoping for a full-scale collapse this year, so they can rebuild their movement with a clean slate.
In “Batman Begins” — the 2005 movie about the origins of the caped crusader — there is a group of villains who believe the city of Gotham is beyond saving and that the only way to fix it is to first destroy it.
As the Republican presidential race has worn on (and on), there are some within the party wondering — privately, of course — whether the only way for the party to face the growing divide between its moderate and conservative wings is for the 2012 election to be its Gotham moment.
Conservative writer George Will has been echoing those concerns, comparing this year’s campaign season to 1964, a defining moment when Republicans lost by landslide margins.
Only in 2012, Will warns, the GOP standard-bearer might not be a candidate like Barry Goldwater, a quixotic figure who lost big but planted the seeds for future conservative victories.
[S]uppose the accumulation of evidence eventually suggests that the nomination of [Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum] would subtract from the long-term project of making conservatism intellectually coherent and politically palatable.
“[House Speaker John] Boehner comes out and says Rush’s language was inappropriate. Using the salad fork for your entrée, that’s inappropriate. Not this stuff,” Will said.“And it was depressing because what it indicates is that the Republican leaders are afraid of Rush Limbaugh. They want to bomb Iran, but they’re afraid of Rush Limbaugh.”
Interest groups and partisans, like the ones who organize and attend CPAC, care a great deal about policy and ideology, not just about electability, and they decide who gets nominated.
The Republican Party had increasingly found itself confined to white voters, especially those lacking a college degree and rural whites who, as Obama awkwardly put it in 2008, tend to “cling to guns or religion.”Meanwhile, the Democrats had increased their standing among whites with graduate degrees, particularly the growing share of secular whites, and remained dominant among racial minorities.
“We have to fix our problems with the Hispanics,” said John McCain last week when asked by MSNBC’s Chuck Todd about the Republican Party’s competitiveness in the Southwest in the 2012 election.
Leaders of a party are supposed to educate the party, to police against its worst indulgences, to guard against insular information loops. They’re supposed to define a creed and establish boundaries. Republican leaders haven’t done that. Now the old pious cliché applies:
First they went after the Rockefeller Republicans, but I was not a Rockefeller Republican. Then they went after the compassionate conservatives, but I was not a compassionate conservative. Then they went after the mainstream conservatives, and there was no one left to speak for me.
That’s a lot of hand-wringing. What does it all add up to? We’ll find out for sure this summer at the GOP convention and then in the November election.
What’s clear now, though, is that more and more astute political thinkers are viewing 2012 not as a referendum on Barack Obama’s first term, but as a defining moment for the Republican Party
Tags: analysis, election12, politics
Its a healthy sign that the “moderates” like David Brooks are finally facing up to whats going on in their party. I don’t know how they get back on track though. They have become a mindless reactionary party.
“the disastrous GOP primary now unfolding”. We will have to see. It worked pretty well for the democrats in 2008?
I agree with the premise here. I think that a guy like Mitt Romney can talk the GOP off the ledge so to speak. I think that he has a shot at getting the tea party types to come to their senses (at least the ones in office). That would get the wheels of government back on the tracks. The current president has no chance at accomplishing this task.
As Ron White says, “You can’t fix stupid” and that is what Rush and the Tea Party are.
Are there Republicans who are reasonable? Sure. But with the far right holding court, not much can be done until the Tea Party Republicans are driven from office. The problem could result in some reasonable Republicans going down with them.
The stage was set when the Republican Party welcomed in Dixiecrat Republicans, those who were of the opinion the only good black person was a dead black person.
“And where are the clowns?
Quick, send in the clowns.
Don’t bother – they’re here.”
Thank you TEA party.
This is an interesting post. I have had a chance to look at some of the links. Last year I heard Marco Rubio give a speech where he also suggested that the only way to end the grid lock is to have one or the other party have all the “reigns” (my word). If you listen to the far right if the democrats get them we are doomed. If you listen to the far left if the GOP gets them we are doomed.
The only problem with many of these stories is that if things were so bad and the GOP is in such desperate straights why do they have so much power in Congress? Also, why don’t the polls show the president crushing Romney in a landslide in their imaginary scenarios?
But how does this explain that the Republicans just won big in 2010? They gained under these guys, not lost. If they are imploding under these “radicals” how is it that they electorally imploded in 2008 under McCain a moderate; and NOT 2010 when the supposed breakdown was in full force?
T.V. and pundits are not voters. The Republican race for President could very well just be about a bad round of candidates this year.
I don’t really believe a lot of demographic analysis in that it assumes demographic groups are static over their life in how they vote. If that were the case given the political thinking of the 1960’s left wing students we should have never had a Conservative resurgence. I mean who is voting for these conservatives? A demographic that in 1969 pundits said signaled a huge left wing tilt.
Paul –
Your second question is interesting and compelling. If the GOP is so broken, why is the race so (apparently) close.
I think there are some obvious answers (though I don’t think this gets at all of it).
America’s economy is still pretty painful. Americans generally punish incumbent presidents when unemployment is high.
It’s also a simple truth that the country is evenly divided. Roughly half of us never, ever, ever vote for someone with an R by their names, no matter how kooky the D-guy is.
And the other half of America votes in exactly the opposite way.
Let me put this another way: The GOP may be strategically broken, but for roughly 45% of Americans, the Democratic party is equally broken ideologically.
Then there’s the complication of the fact that Barack Obama is a black man, the first ever in our history.
If you don’t think that matters, go back and listen to Rush’s commentaries about race, or read the baldly racist joke that a Federal judge emailed recently.
So, yeah. This won’t be a cakewalk for Obama even if the Republicans keep up with the circular firing squad.
One other point: You compared this GOP primary to the 2008 Democratic tussle.
There’s no comparison. In this case, the winner of the GOP race goes up against a rested, cash-rich incumbent president.
In 2008, the winner of both primaries were battling for an empty office.
The other difference is that in 2008, the primary race actually boosted Obama’s likability ratings. People liked him the more they saw him.
The latest polls show that all the major Republicans are going in the opposite direction.
They’re all “underwater” with more Americans disliking them then liking them.
Whatever else happens, those will be deep holes to dig out from…
–Brian, NCPR
“What’s clear now, though, is that more and more astute political thinkers are viewing 2012 not as a referendum on Barack Obama’s first term, but as a defining moment for the Republican Party”
It’s March, and the economy “looks” good. We’ll see how it is in September. That will determine the Obama outcome.
I think it is also a battle for ownership of GOP party. “astute political thinkers” tend to stick their fingers in the wind for direction. Right now, they are beating their chests, confident that Romney will win.
I hope they are misreading their fingers.
The republicans have two serious problems they are well aware of. Demographics are not on their side. Their supporters are mainly older white men. The groups that are younger and having lots of children tend to support Democrats. The Republicans have also been forced to move to the far right of the political spectrum. That means its much harder for them to recruit groups that might otherwise support a more conservative agenda e.g. religious conservative African Americans, or most of the non-Cuban Latinos. Plus they have alienated virtually every minority group, and after a while no one is left.
I guess nothing a liberal says counts until George Will or David Brooks or David Frum repeats it.
“Roughly half of us never, ever, ever vote for someone with an R by their names, no matter how kooky the D-guy is.
And the other half of America votes in exactly the opposite way.”
Actually, roughly half of us never, ever vote. And of the other half your comment holds true.
“But how does this explain that the Republicans just won big in 2010 [with the Tea Pary]?
I dunno, but I would guess it had a lot to do with the usual pendulum thing American voters are so fond of. You vote Democrat because you don’t like where the Republicans put us, then you vote Republican because you don’t like it that the Democrats haven’t fixed everything yet. So on the pendulum theory, its time to swing Democrat again.
I suspect too that the Tea Party may have been at the peak of their influence about then– it hadn’t yet become obvious to all that they exist as puppets of the Koch brothers and other one percenters.
Of course, I could be wrong.
Wasn’t the Tea Party only in its infancy in 2010? I seem to remember them gaining a real foothold in the party only AFTER that election…. Remind me.
Mike, I’m no expert, but it seems to me that it was the 2010 freshman Republicans that gave the party it’s first taste of revolt against business as usual. Many of them owed allegiance to Tea Party organizations back home.
some wake up when this nonsense is all over.
“What’s clear now, though, is that more and more astute political thinkers are viewing 2012 not as a referendum on Barack Obama’s first term, but as a defining moment for the Republican Party”
I am not very astute but maybe both?
It sounds like among GOP voters that top issue is still who can defeat the president. That will probably intensify once that a nominee is selected. At that point the water will be shed. The question as always will be what do independents think. Young voters again will probably be key for the president. Will they be as excited or more excited or maybe less than that were in 2008. That is the “referendum” part.
Young voters again will probably be key for the president.
Paul, I believe women also voted for Obama in larger numbers. Have you seen the difference in women’s support of Obama vs. Romney lately (54 – 41% in one poll)? This makes a Romney win very difficult. Conservatives aren’t helping themselves among independents with all their TEA party crazy talk either.
I never like to predict anything. Therefor, I won’t.
If I’m still alive, I’ll probably vote for Obama even though I disagree with him in several areas. I especially don’t like his kissing up to Israel but so do all the Republicans, except maybe for Ron Paul.
The question as to why the race would seem to be so close (between the elephant and donkey options) is partially owing to a combination of racism and the affects of republican obstructionism–they have in many cases stalled government itself, diluted democratic positions that weakens their effectiveness (health care, taxes, wall street reform), resulting in voters of both stripes becoming cynical about government itself—and hence, making many favor simply less government, i.e., become a republican supporter (or remain one).
Who cares how many women nationally support Obama? We don’t have a national election we have an electoral election. I mean if NY women vote for Obama 10:1 which would be a huge number of women nationally and probably impact the national number; it won’t make any difference; the key is what will be happening in Ohio, Virginia and Florida etc.
Three states representing 26% of the US population are effectively out of the race, NY and CA are a lock for Obama and Texas is a lock for the Republican. So the polling on women that is key is going to be what do women in Florida or Ohio or Virginia think?
Also from a demographic standpoint young voters as your base is NOT good. Old people are the fastest growing demographic in the US and they also turn out to vote more.
It is not a crazy strategy to focus on middle and upper income old white men.
Mervel,
We could solve the old people vote by not allowing people to vote after they turn 65. That would include me. But I think that would be fair since we don’t allow people under 18 to vote.
I might be joking and then again, I might not.
I am certainly not joking when I would be in favor of not allowing anyone to run for any office or serve as an appointed Chief Justice beyond the age of 65.
This is not to say every old person gets stuck in “the good old days” but many do.
You mention “Florida or Ohio or Virginia.” Except for Cleveland, you might as well right off Ohio as part of the south.
I have often wondered if the North might be better off if it had left the South secede. Eventually the blacks would have eaten the whites alive and gained their freedom on their own. The South likes to pretend it is the true America but I never have bought into that fiction.
“Who cares how many women nationally support Obama? We don’t have a national election we have an electoral election.”
Good point, Mervel. What ever happened to the “one man, one vote” cry? More and more, our claims to be the world’s shining beacon of Democracy ring hollow.
I guess Obama cares how many women supported him. Women were one of the demographic that helped him win and he has even more support from women now.
As long as they live in the right states I agree.