GOP outflanked in NY and nation
The Republican Party’s brand new crisis in New York state is a metaphor for what’s happening to the GOP nationally.
In case you missed it, while Mitt Romney and Senate Republicans were getting spanked around the country, Democrats were also quietly making moves to take final, complete control of the state legislature in Albany.
Yes, the votes are still being counted, but make no mistake: New York Republicans thought they had this election in the bag and were convinced, especially after this year’s redistricting efforts, that their state Senate majority was safe.
What went wrong? It’s pretty simple, really. The Republican Party has been outflanked in the American political scene, not once but twice, and we’re seeing the impact here in the Empire state.
On the right, Conservatives and tea party activists are increasingly well organized and dogmatic.
Republicans who don’t toe the inflexible line carved out by purists will be punished, either with primary challenges or with third-party attacks during the general election.
We saw this drama play out through the spring in the GOP national primary, with Mitt Romney swatting desperately at ultra-conservatives who were unelectable, yet who held broad appeal with many voters inspired by tea party rhetoric.
Even after Romney moved to center himself for the final push to the White House, fringe Republicans kept popping up with loony arguments about “legitimate” rape and pregnancies caused by rape being “God’s will.”
Here in New York, meanwhile, conservative Republicans went hard at moderates in the state Senate, unseating Roy McDonald in Saratoga county in the primary.
Then Conservatives ran a third party challenger against Poughkeepsie moderate Stephen Saland in the 41st district Senate race.
Saland’s crime against conservative orthodoxy? The Republican supported same-sex marriage. Without that challenge, Saland would have won handily.
In an interview with Gannett, Conservative Party chairman Mike Long was unrepentant about attacking the GOP from its right flank.
“I want [Republicans] to keep control but I was not going to throw the principles of the party out the window for the purpose of keeping control,” Long said.
“That’s the lesson that legislators have to understand. They have to understand that when they vote—many times, not all the times—votes have consequences.”
Meanwhile, however, Republicans are also being challenged on their left flank.
The Democratic Party, which is less purist, less insistent on orthodoxy than the conservative movement, has been running more moderate candidates.
Many of them are pro-business centrists. They’re following Andrew Cuomo’s lead, taking a progressive line on social issues, while embracing regulatory and tax reform.
Terry Gipson, the man poised to steal away the traditionally Republican seat in the Hudson Valley, is a businessman and a moderate, who campaigned on jobs and the economy.
No longer are Democrats offering up candidates in upstate races who have no funding, and who campaign exclusively on liberal causes that give them little chance of winning.
With Democrats willing to move to the center, the electorate in New York state is also becoming more and more Democratic. That combination gives them a powerful edge in elections.
In an interview yesterday with NCPR, state Senator Betty Little said her Republican Party will have to change to compete in this new climate.
“I think [party leaders] have to look deep and look at where the country is going. And I think they need to be a little more centrist than what they have been in this election. They do need to be more inclusive,” she argued.
But in the months and years ahead, the path walked by the GOP will likely grow narrower and narrower. Welcome to the razor’s edge.
If Democrats continue to gobble up moderate positions — pro-business, pro-growth — while Conservatives continue demanding hard-line social stances — anti-abortion, anti-same-sex marriage — Republican lawmakers may find themselves toppling.
Indeed, we’ve already seen some talented, moderate Republicans leave the scene or change flags altogether. Dede Scozzafava now works for Democrat Andrew Cuomo. Teresa Sayward endorsed Democrat Bill Owens and Barack Obama.
Those are the kind of women who might have been the future face of the GOP.
Now, instead, they’ve moved on — weary of ferocious attacks from conservatives. The fear for Republicans is that more and more voters will do the same.
Tags: analysis, election12, politics
.jpg)
It would be great to have the Republican Party that Lincoln and Teddy Rooselvelt could feel comfortable in again.
The lesson here? Abandon your principles, do and say anything to get elected.
Larry –
Maybe that’s the lesson. Maybe life is as simple as you’re always right or always wrong. Or maybe in a big, complicated society filled with lots of thoughtful, complicated people there are moments where the facts on the ground change, when attitudes change, when the cultural landscape changes.
Political parties aren’t churches. They don’t receive divine truths that are immutable and perennial. The most influential and important political figures in our history — from Washington to Roosevelt to Reagan — compromised, flexed, changed.
Were they sell-outs? That’s one way of viewing them, sure. But at this point, I’m not sure that conservatives have much of a choice. You can be relevant or your can be pure. You can hang onto positions that most Americans find increasingly icky (gay people are bad, for example) or you can adapt.
Where I agree with you is this: I don’t think any Republican has yet formulated a good vision of a new brand of conservatism that would be palatable to the broad coalition of people who have long backed the GOP. That is, a vision that would attract minorities, moderates and women, without alienating people who believe that the “real” America is slipping away.
As Republican moderates are voted out or leave the party, I think articulating that vision might be harder and harder.
–Brian, NCPR
Today’s Republican party abandoned many of the principles of yesterday’s Republican party. It has moved so far to the Right that even their Holy One, Ronald Reagan, couldn’t have won the party’s nomination this year.
California has gone to an open primary system where the top two run against each other, even if they are the same party. We will see how that works, but it should stop this attack from the right or left orthodoxy.
The current Republican Party (Tea Party, Christian right) is following the same path into oblivion as the Green Party and extreme environmentalists are and have been doing.
I think the current state of the Republican Party is just fine, everyone should let them continue along their current path, let them do what they want, leave them alone. The country as a whole will be better off.
It seems to me that the right has lost sight of the role of government which is to provide a stable system within which citizens can pursue life, liberty and happiness without stepping on one another’s toes like a bad dance partner. The role of government is not to enforce anyone’s religious beliefs on the rest of society or to limit other’s freedom simply because you disapprove of what they choose to do even though it has no effect on you, except to offend you. They need to remember when talking about “sticking to my principles” that not everyone believes in those principles, indeed the election should serve as clear evidence that more than half the electorate does not or at least sees them as personal guides rather than something to be imposed on others.
If the Republican party wants to stick to its core principles it would do well to remember that it was a Republican who freed the slaves and another who championed conservation and the established the first of our national parks. Since then they have moved more and more away from that philosophy and toward one that promotes a corporatocracy with limits on individual freedom except where it involves the accumulation of money.
As I’ve said before, this election was really driven by social issues. The “less purist” Democrats want what they want in keeping their social concerns front and center and they got it.
A few thoughts, Brian, in regard to some of your statements:
Political parties are not churches. True. But it’s interesting how many liberals will look away when you quote past presidents and their reliance on God in terms of governing the country. Time and time again the Constitution is brought into the discussion as to why religion has no place. Yet, public speeches and writings were clear regarding the relevance of God’s involvement. The Founders deferred to the states and every state constitution is filled with references to God and religion. How is it that this is rejected and ignored in the discussion?
… from Washington to Roosevelt to Reagan — compromised, flexed, changed. The question today is, how much is too much? When does it become a detriment to society? What happens if a line is crossed? Or do the liberals think there is a line? The earth abides by physical laws just “are”. There are spiritual laws in effect, too. And just because someone doesn’t like the tone of how the message is delivered doesn’t change the truth. Change is inevitable and necessary. But people who wish to anchor themselves to tried and true principles, who are not willing to reject their conscience in order to be relevant to cultural changes or whims, are not wrong.
You can be relevant or your can be pure. Both are extreme.
Lastly, the vision that would attract minorities is: give us amnesty. The vision that would attract women is: give us birth control and keep abortion legal – even if it means babies rocked by nurses until they die at 22 weeks and up.
The nation has lost its conscience. Until we all find it, we will not be strong. Band-aids is all I see being put on the troubles we are facing.
Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire, called conscience.
George Washington
Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it.
Albert Einstein
“I was not going to throw the principles of the party out the window for the purpose of keeping control.”
In other words, Long refuses to compromise. If so, I guess his party will continue to lose. As a liberal, I don’t like it when Democrats compromise their principles. But, I understand the need for it if anything is going to get done. Conservatives also need to understand that compromise is a two way street. It doesn’t mean the party holding power has to do all the compromising.
There is no room in the Republican party for moderates any more. It’s even happening in the Democratic Party. Dems still have Blue Dogs, but I see that we reducing their numbers in Congress too. And, I agree with Pete Klein. The Green Party has much the same problem as the Republican party.
“The nation has lost its conscience. Until we all find it, we will not be strong. ”
Kathy – you are implying that liberals, or Democrats, have no conscience, or are immoral etc. Thats a large percentage of Americans, and closer to home, many of us on this blog.
do you really think we have no conscience?
I wonder if it will be any different than the last time the State Senate was controlled by the correct party.
religion: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices.
How one approaches God is varied among us depending on the attitudes, beliefs, and practices within our churches.
We are free to worship God (or not). But a nation built on Judeo-Christian principles is foundational to our existence. The change that so many want today is to throw God out entirely and/or deny him so that we can live the way we want.
Christians have differences in interpreting the Bible but what is the context that will bring us in agreement? Jesus Christ and him crucified.
Americans have differences in interpreting the Constitution; living or original. But what is the context that will bring us in agreement? So that we can build together and yet live with our differences? Do we look at the whole picture of the public speeches and writings of the Founders, along with the state constitutions? Or do we pick and choose what we like?
If it is letting everyone do what they think is right based on our personal freedoms, where will that take us? Do our personal freedoms trump what is good for all?
Think about it. We have changed and evolved to the point of making personal preferences to be permissible and lawful.
An early abortion is understandable with rape and/or incest. But what we have now is twisted and sickening. The baby “might” have Downs Syndrome? Abort. It’s a girl? Abort. I could go on and on.
People are attracted to the same sex and I understand that as well. But those who advocate these things are encroaching upon the rights of those who do not want to see it. It used to be whatever you do in the privacy of your own home – go for it. Now we push what we want personally upon everyone else and call it necessary change.
There’s a difference between self righteous people who carry signs of aborted fetuses and those who are gravely concerned where this will lead us. There’s a difference between people shaking their self righteous finger at homosexuality and those who understand the struggle, and yet, are gravely concerned about a society defying what God says is sinful behavior.
Brian M: I think your assessment is not entirely wrong but … I think you’re missing something here.
Over the last 30 years, Republican economic ideology has become the accepted orthodoxy. Sure, the two major parties battle loudly around the edges but fundamentally, for all the sound and fury, they offer two slightly different variations of the same thing. They’ve done so because Democrats have abandoned the progressive economic platform that sustained their coalition from the New Deal to Reagan. Then they stopped fighting, let themselves be corrupted by corporate cash and Trickle Down economics became the orthodoxy by default. The Reagan Revolution was completed by Clinton, a Democrat.
People say moderate Republicans don’t exist anymore. This is wrong. They are just called Democrats now. Mainstream Democrats of today would be to the right economically of mainstream Republicans from only a few decades ago. Cuomo is much to the right of Rockefeller and probably Pataki too.
This happened because conservatives hold their politicians accountable EVEN AT THE EXPENSE OF SHORT TERM GAIN and liberals rationalize whatever craptastic politician the corporate DNC shoves down their throats. Conservatives have taken the long view, even at the scorn of sneering experts who are seized by the myopia of the moment.
As a result, the whole economic narrative has changed to a discussion (even Occupy couldn’t change that because they most of them coward-ed out and voted Obama anyway) because one side was fighting and the other side refused to.
Democrats are winning on social issues because a multicultural America doesn’t want a return to the Middle Ages or for us to become a theocracy like Iran. But economically, Republicans have overwhelmingly won the war. Democrats aren’t even really fighting it anymore. The whole reason the battleground has shifted to social issues is because the economic discussion has been largely settled since the Democrats’ capitulation. Social issues is now the only thing that fundamentally separates the two major parties.
(And before you take it the wrong way… I don’t think you’re sneering.)
Peter, I will not paint with a broad brush here. Just as I am not one to say gays are bad, I will not imply that liberals/Democrats/those on this forum do not have a conscience.
I will state, according to my world-view based on God and what I believe he has to say, along with the speeches and writings of our fore-fathers and their intent for our nation, that conscience, given by God, is of utmost importance.
Each one of us has to own up and our conscience will tell us where we stand.
Interesting that George Washington used the word “labor” to keep your conscience alive in his quote. That tells me the importance of how easy it is for any of us to be carried away with a whim or thought which may seem right, but not be. It’s work to stay the course – but it anchors us to truth – an in turn, strengthens us.
“But those who advocate these things are encroaching upon the rights of those who do not want to see it. ”
WRONG WRONG WRONG
There is no right to not be subjected to views, lifestyles or opinions that you “do not want to see.”
I despise homophobia. I despise bigotry in general. I have serious issues with organized religion. But I would never advocating banning them, in public or private.
I don’t want to be exposed to such views but that’s a price I pay for living in a free society.
You do NOT have a right to not be offended in America. Neither do I.
“Even after Romney moved to center himself for the final push to the White House”
Hey, Mitt, how’d that work out for you?
Even locally, the GOP finally got their way and ran moderate Doheny unopposed from the right.
Hey NY21, how’s that work out for you?
It’s time to jettison the moderate faction from the GOP, and get serious about winning elections.
WRONG WRONG WRONG
Seeing it and making it the law of the land is two different things.
I’ve seen more controversy regarding where, when, and if a cigarette could be smoked.
Do you like that Mayor Bloomberg has regulated what people eat and drink in NYC?
Where does it end?
That’s what I meant about encroachment.
Good luck with that approach, JDM!
I’m with JDM on this one. Conservatives need to move even farther to the right. If they do, I’ll even make a campaign donation.
Without God, there is chaos in our thinking.
People have personal rights and personal freedoms. When does it become infringement?
Secularism is just as wrong as enforcing a state religion. And laws to support both are wrong.
kathy,
you seem like a very nice person, but let’s be honest. you’re calling for the government to enforce your religion. and i have no doubt that much of the tea party base is right there with you. that might have something to do with why your party is getting creamed in elections.
Kathy,
I often give you a few thumbs up when I see people voting thumbs down.
It’ not that I always agree with you but do believe you have a right to your views.
Where I differ is in the area of converting religious beliefs into secular law.
No one is required to have an abortion, I would strongly hope, and no one is required to marry someone of the same sex.
Kathy, you’re absolutely right about Bloomberg. People should more or less have a right to do what they want so long as it doesn’t infringe on anyone else’s rights. People have a right to be gay and to hold hands with a same sex partner in public or kiss or whatever if they so choose. If you don’t like it, look somewhere else. Other people have the right to wear God Hates Fags t-shirts in public. If I don’t like it, I can look away. I don’t believe in political correctness so therefore I don’t believe any has a right to not be offended in public.
You have the right to think or say that homosexuality is against God’s will. Absolutely and there is no law existing or proposed that says any differently. But we’re talking about the government and the government has an obligation to treat all of its citizens equally under the law… the law of Man.
Brian (MOFYC), people may have the right to wear those t-shirts, but if they do, they should be prepared for what will come from it!
The point I’m making is it’s becoming more popular, acceptable, and permitted by society that anything goes – just don’t dare say anything against it or you are labeled as a hater. Perhaps true freedom is constraint?
I understand and agree what you’re saying regarding the role of government to treat all citizens equally. However, it seems that some laws are to make it fair – not equal.
Where I differ is in the area of converting religious beliefs into secular law.
Pete, I don’t want religious beliefs being converted into secular law.
But secular beliefs are being converted into law….without conscience. And without conscience, how far will one go?
It is legal for a woman to have an abortion based on the fact it is her body, her choice, her ability to not be relegated to an unsterile, “back alley” abortion. But it’s all right for training in the medical field to include learning to hold a viable baby as it dies a slow death? This is happening today in our universities.
Hermit, I am not calling for the government to enforce my religion.
That would mean I want a state or official church. I do not.
Again, if anyone reads through the state constitutions, the public speeches and writings of our forefathers, it is clear. The federal government wanted to avoid any resemblance of an official church since becoming independent from England and deferred to the states.
I think the question is not what is your religion, but what is your conscience?
Folks –
Good conversation. I want to commend everybody for keeping it civil and thoughtful.
I also want to note in passing that through this very, very thorny election, and its emotional aftermath, people here on the In Box have done a darn good job of keeping the lines of communication open.
Yes, we’ve all lost our tempers once or twice, but in general the dialogue continues.
Taken together with the peaceful, democratic process that concluded Tuesday, that’s grounds for hope and offers the promise of lasting, meaningful community.
Finally a bit of humor: I wanted to end this comment with a bit of snootiness, so I tried to get Google’s translator program to give me the Latin version of “We disagree, but we don’t hate each other.”
Google offered up this: “Non differimus sed odio habebunt invicem.”
Sounds good. But it turns out that means, “Hate each other, but do not postpone.” Yikes. That wasn’t my point at all.
Have a great weekend,
–Brian, NCPR
The Republicans are outflanked because as Brian points out they have become more inflexible than the Democrats, which I think is a more recent event.
You have pro-life Democrats, pro-gun right Democrats, pro-business democrats, all getting along relatively fine in the party (I think the pro-life Democrats take flak but not enough to drive them out). In that regard you can have these socially conservative democrats that will snag a lot of votes from people like me.
On the other side the Republicans simply don’t seem to be allowing that sort of flexibility.
Purity for the sake of purity is fine but you won’t win you can’t win, politics itself is about cutting deals, about scratching the other guys back to get things done, that is how all successful politicians work, that is how most of our greater leaders have operated.
I think many many Democrats are against partial birth abortion Kathy.
Kathy: I agree with your distinction. Morality/conscience and religion are not synonymous. Often, they are at odds.
i disagree. i think that’s exactly what you’re doing. enforcing your religion doesn’t mean instituting a state church. it means you want the government to enforce the tenets (as you see them) of your religion.
after tuesday’s election, i think it’s safe to say that the country is increasingly repelled by that.
Kathy: here’s where you’re wrong. You have the right to free speech and thought to say/think being gay is unacceptable. The gay person has the same right to free speech and thought to say/think you’re a hater. They have a right to respond. It works both ways.
Live openly gay and be prepared for the consequences (as long as they are legal and non-violent). Be hateful toward that gay person and be prepared for the consequences (again legal and non-violent) too.
You are subjected to the same standards and rights as gay people are. No less but no more. Equal protection of the law. Christians don’t have special rights, contrary to what some seem to think.
I don’t think any gay person decides to live openly without the expectation that he or she will be called nasty, hateful names at least once in a while.
Racism still exists in this society and sexism too. Mercifully, they are far less socially acceptable, at least in overt fashion, as they were when my parents were growing up. One day, homophobia will meet the same fate.
That said, the GOVERNMENT, who represents gay citizens as much as straight ones, has an obligation to treat everyone equally.
An interesting comment on that Krugman piece in the Times:
Anyone care to ‘splain the Republican position on this?
I’m pro-life. I’m also pro-choice. I don’t believe that anyone really wants to abort a fetus, but sometimes people of good conscience make choices due to the conditions of their own lives. Seems like a good conservative position to me.
If others weren’t such fanatics there might be more effort spent in trying to reduce the number of abortions instead of fighting to make them illegal.
“Without God, there is chaos in our thinking.”
I’m sorry, Kathy, but it seems to me that with God, there is plenty of chaos in our thinking.
Think of all the countervailing forces in the world all convinced that they have God directing their thinking: Jews, Muslims, Unitarians, Mormons, Catholics, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Bahais; evangelists and fundamentalists of all stripes. What do they all have in common? Each is convinced that God is leading them to the one, universal truth. (Well, maybe not Unitarians.)
Like I’ve said here before, I learned a lot from my dog. If you want to be friends he’ll be friends; if you want to fight he’ll fight.
Now that the Republicans have found they can’t get their way through the ballot box maybe they’ll try cooperation. But I doubt it, they need to meet my dog.
Actually, it looks like House Democrats got about 500,000 more votes nationwide than House Republicans. So the speaker better not overestimate his mandate either.
JDM, the Republican voters of the congressional district chose Matt Doheny, twice. Janet Duprey has also won two primaries in the past two years. Registered Republicans — who are, I think it is safe to assume, more conservative than the district’s population as a whole — chose them, and not their more conservative opponents. And a majority of people in those districts voted for Obama — also twice. If even the Republicans usually choose moderates over more hardline conservatives when given the chance, and if the district as a whole votes for Democrats in national elections, I can’t see how getting more conservative would at all be a winning strategy.
khl: “If others weren’t such fanatics there might be more effort spent in trying to reduce the number of abortions instead of fighting to make them illegal.”
This statement is too over-the-top. I will try to put some perspective on it.
Planned Parenthood does over 1,000,000 abortions per year. On average, that’s 114 per hour, 24/7, 365 days/year.
More than 114 per hour on a 24-hour basis. I’m just using a low estimate to show the math.
It is not extreme to say, maybe 114 per hour is a little high. Maybe 100 per hour is a worthy goal.
Just that statement means that 122,640 lives would be saved this year.
That’s more than the population of the county where I live. Just one year. Just 14 less per hour.
We (pro-life) cannot stop abortion, khl. It’s current the “law of the land”.
But we do all we can to get in front those 14 per hour.
i don’t want to get drawn into the weeds of an abortion debate, but no jdm, planned parenthood actually conducts about 300,000 abortions per year, not over a million.
for crying out loud, you’re someone who tried to tell us that as of 6:52 pm on election night romney was going to win. why oh why should anyone believe a single thing you say?
JDM planned parenthood prevents far more abortions than it provides – by making contraceptives avaible. This is an irony that I don’t think you appreciate. If there were no planned parenthood there would be more abortions than now. Planned parenthood reduces the number of abortions.
Peter Hahn and hermit thrush:
Using hermits’ numbers of 300,000 per year, not one million, that’s only 33 abortions per hour, 24/7, 365 days per year.
Peter Hahn’s logic, 33 abortions per hour is ok, because the organization doing them also provides contraceptives.
Revising my numbers to hermits’ numbers means that reducing abortions by 14 per hour still results in 122,640 lives saved per year, and 177,360 per year can still seek “safe, legal” abortions.
Isn’t that enough, people?
When will you demand the left moderate and consider right side concerns Mr. Mann?
Abortion is legal and I doubt it will change, close to 1/2 of the women in the US will have had an abortion in their life time, it is simply far to popular of a procedure to ever look at realistically getting rid of it at this point.
But we can work to take the more extreme horror’s away from the practice. We should be looking at pain of the unborn, if we are going to kill them for example we could at least look at the practice of using some form of anesthesia for the baby before they kill it, we could start to look at reason for abortions. Is it ok to kill an unborn child because she is a girl for example or has Downs or is bi-racial? So I think we can work over time for some of these things and I think pro-life Democrats will be there helping with that.
I don’t see it as a purely political issue.
It seems the main objective of organized is to shut down free and independent thought and to simply follow orders of self-serving men (who claim to speak for something called God). “God’s will” always seems to conveniently correspond to their own prejudices. That worries me far more than “chaos in our thinking.”
Once again though because the Republicans today won’t allow a pro-choice perspective without severely punishing that politician at the polls or with support; they will lose out when Democrats allow a pro-life perspective inside their party.
These social issues are deeper than politics frankly and if a party gets stuck on them I think they are doomed. People will fall on both sides of these issues in both parties, but if one of those parties says no there is only ONE answer; then the party that is more open will win with the numbers.
mervel: ” if we are going to kill them for example we could at least look at the practice of using some form of anesthesia for the baby before they kill it”
Who are we to decide who should live or die?
As long as it’s painless?
Dear God, what are we coming to?