Some thoughts on the Republican nightmare
From my provincial cheap-seats perch as a small-town public radio reporter and occasional newspaper and book writer, I’ve watched American politics for what (weirdly enough) amounts to about a quarter-century.
I have studied and written about, in particular, the rise of traditional conservatives, especially those activists and politicians whose values are rooted in rural America.
Despite observing at fairly close hand some of the great political dramas of recent history, I am completely gobsmacked by the sudden death spiral of the Republican Party.
I know “death spiral” seems like strong, perhaps even biased language. I’ve become convinced that it amounts to accurate reporting, stripped of the cautious but inaccurate equivocation that has shaped much recent journalism.
Again and again since 2006, when the GOP first suffered severe electoral setbacks, I’ve posited the idea that some new coherent center would form that would draw Republicans back toward their longstanding role as one of America’s most important civic institutions.
Instead, a maelstrom of forces — ranging from the rise of billionaire activists, the growth of talk radio, the popularity of Fox News, more aggressive gerrymandering of House districts, the growth of the tea party in 2010, and on and on — have steadily eroded the Republican Party’s leadership.
A party that once produced statesmen, patriots and — in some cases — actual heroes of the caliber of Ronald Reagan, Dwight Eisenhower, and George HW Walker Bush is a vastly diminished force.
These days, the party is at its very best when it puts forward a John Boehner or a Mitch McConnell, and that’s not saying much.
More often the GOP is represented by Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Herman Cain, Sarah Palin, or the latest “maverick” talking about legitimate rape or the evils of contraception or the need for an “uprising.”
It’s worth pausing to take stock of just how far the GOP has gone down this path toward what may very well be a final, irreconcilable dissolution.
Not so long ago, Republicans strove to serve the nation as the party of the “silent majority,” a movement that prided itself on being the grown-ups, the budget-balancers, the people who favored dependability and steady progress over radical movements and turmoil.
The GOP also prided itself on being the party of American exceptionalism, convinced that our republic has a moral responsibility play a firm, predictable and strong role in the world’s affairs.
But in 2013, Republican rhetoric and political strategies look far more like that of the extreme left of the 1960s than like the “morning in America” movement of Ronald Reagan.
The party’s most powerful and influential voices are often shrill, desperate and apocalyptic.
Prominent figures on the right speak openly of dissolving the United States and its democratic institutions through secession or some kind of ostensibly peaceful revolution.
They talk of arming themselves to fight our own service-members and our own police.
While protesting something as picayune as a health insurance law, they proudly drape a foreign flag — that of the southern Confederacy — on the fence of our White House.
In an essay that was widely disseminated (and praised) in conservative circles this week, former GOP presidential contender Pat Buchanan argued that conservatives should go ahead and wreck the national economy if they don’t get their way in unraveling the Affordable Care Act.
“If Harry Reid’s Senate demands the GOP end the sequester on federal spending, or be blamed for a debt default, the [Republican] party should, Samson-like, bring down the roof of the temple on everybody’s head,” he insisted.
The temple that he’s talking about is America, our cherished nation. The global economy. Our jobs, our pensions and 401ks, our ability to defend our country and our interests overseas.
His essay was praised in particular by Rush Limbaugh, who spoke favorably of Buchanan’s “bring down the roof” metaphor.
There was a time when anyone flirting with the idea of this kind of collective national self-immolation would have been quietly shown the door by the worldly, accomplished and effective leaders of the Republican Party.
So far, that hasn’t happened. Instead, moderate Republicans continue to wring their hands about Mr. Obama, even as the far-right plots to push the last GOP centrists off the cliff in 2014’s primaries.
It is hard to see, at long last, what might pivot the Republican establishment back toward the kind of awakening where they realize that before they can speak sensibly about the travails of our nation, they must first see to their own crisis.
Bluntly, America desperately now needs an act of real courage from the GOP’s leaders.
We need them to rediscover their calling as the party that stopped the spread of slavery, led the fight against southern treason, stood strong against Soviet communism, and crusaded for the establishment of a strong, effective, and limited Federal government.
We need them to acknowledge and begin to combat the rise of racism, cultural paranoia, isolationism and end-times apocalyptic thinking within their own base and their own caucus.
This fight will almost certainly cost some politicians their careers. There will be lost battles, ugly days, and perhaps in the end it will be impossible for the GOP to salvage itself as a center-right institution capable of governing a superpower.
But right now it is this fight over its own soul — not the battle over Obamacare or the Federal debt or Mr. Obama’s rather ho-hum second-term agenda — that America most needs common sense conservatives to fight and win.
Paul – young people don’t need health insurance? Why? Because young people don’t get in accidents that cause serious, very expensive injuries? We all know that is not true.
Sure, many young people believe they are immune from disease and impervious to injury. It is a life- changing catastrophy for too many when they find out that they are not, and all of us who buy insurance and pay taxes subsidize the consequnces of this erroneous belief. It is just common sense to require basic health insurance, for the same reasons we mandate car insurance, seat belts, and (in sensible states) motorcycle helmets.
Tom L, I totally agree that is how the think. I just don’t see how this will move them in that direction. I hope it does but I don’t think it will. Again we have to wait for the data.
“It is a life- changing catastrophy for too many when they find out that they are not, and all of us who buy insurance and pay taxes subsidize the consequnces of this erroneous belief.”
And now even more since they can buy insurance when they are in the soup?
(I think you spelled catastrophe wrong?)
“Besides, there are other people, like my wife, who is very healthy but who wants coverage to avoid catastrophic medical costs.”
I hope that there are many other smart people like her, we need them for this to work. What would a policy like that cost prior to this? When I was in my 20s I had one and I think I paid a few hundred bucks per year. What is the cost now under the ACA? I assume she has signed up?
“Obama’s budget = $1,203 Ryan’s budget = $967 Senate continuing resolution = $986”
Dave, the point is not the total budget amounts but where the money is spent. They can work it out. The CR includes sequestration. That makes no sense.
larry, by just about any measure you could imagine, santorum was the runner-up in the gop presidential primary. he’s kind of the opposite of a fringe figure.
first, that point is nowhere to be be found in your 3:21 comment, which is what i was responding to. second, you can see in my 11:57 comment that, quite to the contrary of pretending not to get your point, i basically already agree with it!
finally, you make a good point about obama. he really did vote the wrong way on the debt ceiling when he was a senator (albeit at a time when there was zero extortion going on). he’s admitted it. he’s apologized for it. wouldn’t it be great if those in the gop would now do the same?
Verplank
10,000′ is a long way to fall…
“Dave, the point is not the total budget amounts but where the money is spent.”
That might be your point – and I would probably agree with it – but it wasn’t the GOP’s point, and definitely wasn’t the reason for the shutdown.
When it comes to budgets (that is to say, when it REALLY comes to budgets… and not when they use budgets as a means to try to subvert democratically legitimate laws), the GOP’s cause celebre is the deficit. Their position is that they want us to spend less… period. Not just spend differently.
I think I agree with you more on this, Larry. I think some of the Tea Party stuff might represent the extreme of the GOP’s 40-year long move to the right; I don’t think it’s going to continue. The Tea Party as a group surged out of nowhere during the 2010 elections, but just three years later, they’re not what they were then. You don’t see the rallies anymore, the meetings, any of that. In a few years, as Tea Party members of Congress continue to not get much done, they’re going to fade, victims of their own inability to accomplish anything. They had their grass roots surge a few years ago but I don’t see it translating into a lasting movement or political force, and when that passion fades the more pragmatic Republican leadership will still be there.
There are some parallels with the deaths of the Federalist and Whig parties, but not enough to make me think the 150-year-old Republican Party is actually going to disappear. The Federalists and Whigs were both extremely regional parties, and they also lost out because most of the immigrants became Democrats. There are some parallels, like I said, like with the way the Republicans have been losing ground in the Northeast, but it’s not the same thing, in local and state elections in New York Republicans are still competitive in most counties north of the city, and while today’s Latino immigrants might be mostly Democrats it’s not in the same percentages as the Irish of the 1800s were. The Republicans have a much deeper and broader base of support than either of these parties did — they have a majority in the House right now, for Christ’s sake! I think we’re reading a bit too much into the last few election cycles. It wasn’t even 10 years ago that Brian Mann was writing a book wondering if DEMOCRATS would ever be competitive nationally again. :)
Like the Democrats in the Reagan years, I think the Republicans will hit bottom and come out stronger for it.
I’m not sure if I think Christie is as likely to be the 2016 Republican nominee, though. I was talking to a friend of mine from Michigan about this a while back. He was saying, politics aside, that aggressive in-your-face style that plays so well in the urban Northeast doesn’t cut any ice in the Midwest or South. And the percentage of the population in the Northeast keeps shrinking. I think it’s telling that the last Northeastern president was Kennedy, who was elected more than 50 years ago. (Maybe Bush Sr. if you want to count him, but he lived in different places and he doesn’t remind me of anyone else I know from New England; he’s about as much of a New Englander as Obama is a Chicagoite.) I think anyone who’s a bit more conservative and is from the South or Midwest could beat Christie in the primaries.
I like the idea of Christie for the same reason I tend to like rural Democrats — they understand the lives of people who aren’t in their party and can bridge some of the divides in this country. The other party is their neighbors, maybe even their cousins, not people with different lives in cities or states far away from their life experience. But I’m skeptical of his ability to win a Republican primary outside the Northeast at this point. We’ll have to see who the competition is.
I like a recent Bill Moyers commentary on the modern Republican party: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5mja3mesHs
Republicans can’t just accept the fact that the American people don’t agree with them. Given the state of the economy in 2012, they should have won the White House in a landslide. But, because they support things that Americans don’t (mainly the glorification of selfishness and bigotry), they lost.
Paul, let he without misspellings, typos, or autoincorrect, cast the first comment on other people’s editing.
Wow, Brian, you sure stirred up lots of interesting comments. Thanks once again for your thoughtful articles!
“Their position is that they want us to spend less… period. Not just spend differently. ”
Dave, I think it is both less and differently, so no period. Or maybe you mean “they want us to spend less money and spend the money we do spend differently… period?” Seems like a reasonable goal.
Their budget could be much less if less was the only goal? Like I said hopefully they will work it out. Sounds like 1T is the ball park that most could live with.
“Their position is that they want us to spend less…”
Except for the $24 billion that the shutdown cost us. And what was the cost of the forty or more totally pointless “repeal Obamacare” votes? And what about the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? That’s money well spent, is it? And the cost of unnecessary corporate subsidies? Etc., etc., etc.
From where I sit, it looks like they just want us to spend less on the little people.
Verplanck, 10,000 feet is a long way to fall. Say hello to our government on the way down please.
You are welcome to do your own research, or visit my neck of the woods.
Glad to see that the market ignore what was going on in Washington. The ACA is fattening the insurance companies… All is right with the world.
At least nothing will mess up our annual holiday binge! I would have preferred a deal that got us through the hunting season AND ski season but what are you gonna do?
Scanning through I have to cop to my own typo. Cost of shutdown over $20 billion, not $200 billion. Sorry for the extra zero.