The Republican party has a problem, and it’s a big one. It was evident during the recent Presidential race, but was obscured by some of that race’s minutiae. And it may well continue to be masked over the next three years or so, because local races can still be won even while a workable national strategy evaporates.
The coalition
It’s no accident that the Republican party so often seems to be looking nostalgically for a “new Reagan” – he, after all, was the President who brought together a remarkably disparate group of voters and convinced them they had common interests. Fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, the religious right, foreign policy hawks... and let’s not even count the Reagan democrats, the working poor who supported Reagan because they felt the Democratic Party had deserted them; they really lasted only as long as Reagan did.
Fearful of a common enemy, you can also count libertarians in this polyamorous household.
Irreconcilable differences
The problem is that Reagan’s voting bloc was never an ideologically easy mix. The religious right that seeks to extend government regulation into private lives hardly sits well with the small-government libertarian ideals. Fiscal conservatives who like to see balanced budgets are unlikely to be impressed with the enormous financial burden that foreign policy hawks impose. And another thing about those fiscal conservatives – if you really nail them down, they want their government to be competent above all else.
What Dubya did
You have to hand it to Dubya. The Republican coalition was weakened by 1992, and it needed something extra to put it over the line. Recognising that his father had not been seen as an authentic enough conservative Christian by the religious right, George W. Bush made them a cornerstone of his campaign, trickling Biblical language into his speeches, making his status as a “born-again” a central part of his pitch, and, in the end, getting out the Evangelical vote in sufficient numbers to turn the tide back.
What else Dubya did
What George W. Bush also did, though, was reveal in glorious technicolour just how unsustainable the Republican coalition was. His incompetence as a leader was probably not inevitable – that is, another President who had relied on the same coalition of voters might have done a better job. But for the fiscal conservatives and moderates in the GOP who were already uneasy about the increasing importance of the religious right, and who found it worryingly irrational, Bush’s lack of managerial capability became a sign that the crazies were in charge. Even a lot of people with hawkish foreign policy views began to remember that a war is only good if you know how to win it.
Similarly, libertarians with a healthy distrust of big and intrusive government were seeing signs of heavy-handed government that leap-frogged any imaginable Democratic excesses all the way into Stalinist territory.
The odd couple
Nowhere was this internal conflict more sadly displayed than in the contorted John McCain who campaigned for President in 2008. His own support in the GOP’s fractured base limited, he had to adopt a whole lot of positions that didn’t come naturally to him, culminating in the bizarre and ultimately toxic selection of Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. We didn’t notice at the time, but when you think back, it is striking just how well the image of these two campaigning together illustrates that irreconcilable divisions within the GOP: just what could this barely religious, paleoconservative man have in common with this young, psychotically Evangelical geopolitical ignoramus of a woman? Did they make any sense at all as a pairing, other than as a tactical grab for as many voting demographics as possible?
The rumoured collapse of their relationship toward the end of the campaign seems like a good metaphor for the problem facing the GOP nationally.
The fifty-state strategy is now the only strategy
One way to look at this is that GW Bush managed to take the leftover momentum of the Reagan coalition, and make it just strong enough to win in 2004 by adding more Evangelicals than the recipe normally calls for. The result was something that tasted funny to everyone who tried it. Because the inherent divisions with this combination became so evident during the Bush administration, it is just no longer possible for any one candidate to appeal to enough of the different elements in the coalition. McCain could not pull the same votes out of the religious right that Bush could, so he needed Palin. Perhaps needless to say, those who were ultimately concerned with competence (even if they called it “experience”), would hardly have been drawn to a ticket that had Palin on the top – the GOP needed two completely dissimilar candidates just to have even a shot at getting enough of their potential supporters out on election day.
This matters a lot, because the fifty-state strategy is now the only strategy for a Presidential race. There aren't enough toss-up states left to focus on them. It’s conceivable that the Republican party will successfully contest plenty of seats in local races for some time yet, because in any given area a candidate may be able to win by appealing to only a few compatible segments of the Republican coalition. Nationally, it’s a different story.
The GOP has lost its moderates
Well, maybe not entirely. But moderates have been disproportionate losers in the latest election. These are the Republicans who have already had to tack to the centre to win in borderline electorates, many of whom are “RINOs” – Republicans-in-name-only. Consider Chris Shays, just defeated as a Congressman from Connecticut. He’s pro-choice, although he did vote in favour of the Iraq war. Reportedly, he has voted with Bush less often than Hillary Clinton has, and he may hate Tom DeLay more than Joan Walsh does. And he just lost his seat.
While I am sure there is still a healthy mix of personalities in the Republican side of Congress, there can be no doubt that its decreased numbers are proportionally more extreme than ever before. That leaves a lot less mortar between the bricks.
The new voter problem
A final problem for the GOP is that a large cohort of new voters has just opted for a Democrat. Whether or not they ultimately identify as Democrats, Independents, or even Republicans, they will forever be voters who are not locked in for the Republican party. In one sense, this is an external consideration when all of the foregoing has been about internal factors. I believe, however, that the unbearable division within the GOP matters a lot here as well: to win back these new voters, the Republican party has to present an image that is not only appealing, but that also isn’t repulsive. A party that relies on a coalition of almost-contradictory beliefs is going to find this quite difficult.
Fast-forward to 2012 and 2016
When you put all this together, it’s really quite hard to see what kind of appeal a Republican Presidential candidate could make come 2012 and 2016. Almost any appeal that will work with one traditionally Republican group will repulse another traditionally Republican group. Remember how we wondered at the intensity of the Democratic primaries, while noting that Clinton and Obama didn’t really differ that much on policy detail? The outcome, as it turned out, was a candidate who all Democrats could support, and would have been even if Clinton had won the nomination. Meanwhile, the Republican primaries had a Huckabee, a Romney, and a McCain, candidates who all seemed to cost as many votes as they could win. Just consider how even McCain, in some ways the compromise candidate, struggled so much to win the support of the religious groups Huckabee could take for granted (the same groups for whom Romney was an anti-Christian).
It’s just about a given that Sarah Palin will be seeking the nomination in 2012, or at least in 2016. Consider how, just as she energises one section of her party, she positively alienates others. Her competitors will have the same problem. The pretence that a candidate can, all at the same time, be good for libertarians and regulators of private lives, war hawks and small government enthusiasts, was barely convincing enough when Bush did it, and is completely unsustainable now.
I have to admit that for me, it’s been a mystery for some time just how the Republican party managed to paper over all these cracks, but I think it is clear now that the Bush experience has rendered them irreparable.
Where to for the GOP now? What coalition can it piece together, nationally, that even makes sense?
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Cymraeg
Gordon Osmond
m. a.h
RickyB
Man Talk Now
mishima666
Salon.com
Comments
But if you want a historical view of how the GOP became the electoral college juggernaut, seek out Kevin Phillips's "The Emerging Republican Majority." When I read that more than 30 years ago, it boiled my blood, and I rebelled against his analysis. But he was proved correct, only to reject the Republicans himself when the Bushes ascended.
(Counter was at 15 when I posted this.)
I did read a review of the "What's the Matter with Kansas" book and have been meaning to get my hands on it.
It will be very interesting to see how this all pans out. I don't think I am alone in suspecting a GOP move to the centre, with the more radical religious right dumped or disregarded. But it could take quite a while for the dust to settle on something like that.
P. S. Counter was at 20 when I read and rated this.
Thanks for your insightful post.
One thought I had was that Dubya, and to some extent McCain, made the mistake of believing what was being sold the public. I somehow think the earlier Republicans actually knew they were spinning a story but that while it had components inside they believed in, they understood that some of it was veneer needed just to make the coalition vote, and they really didn't believe think it was coherent. Bush's crime was to believe there really was magic.
If your 50 state claim is true, I wonder if that could change the balance of power on the electoral college. I have often wondered is what was holding it together was that it served someone who was in power. At the point where it isn't, I'm thinking it could fall.
You said, “they will forever be voters who are not locked in for the Republican party” but this isn't yet true. These voters who crossed over gambled. If the gamble doesn't pay off and they come back, the Republicans will take them willingly and getting them out of the Republican camp ever again will be hard.
By 2012 and 2016, I expect your analysis here will not be meaningless because you're doing this in isolation of real world events. The biggest threat of McCain/Palin was their lack of understanding of either the fiscal problem or the climate crisis and neither of those are going away quickly. By 2012 probably and certainly by 2016, I suspect we will be deep in the climate problem so that it will no longer be abstract. Discussion of conservative/liberal will not be the problem, though some will frame it that way. The question will be who has answers and who doesn't. The public will indulge abstract discussion of ideology if it isn't afraid, but when it is afraid it will grab anything that is going to save them. And I think we'll see a lot more of that ramping up very quickly.
Just on the, “they will forever be voters who are not locked in for the Republican party” bit - I was really only referring to people who voted for the first time just now. There's some evidence (don't ask me to find it) that a first-time voter's choice has a bit of lifelong momentum. But even without that, they are clearly not going to be dyed-in-the-wool Republicans because voting Democrat can't quite be anathema to them.
I agree that if climate change really starts to bite, then it will be a game-changer. However, even in those circumstances, it seems to me that the GOP needs to pull together a coalition of voters with similar interests in a way that is less applicable to the Democrats. My suspicion on climate change specifically will be that if it does really bite, then much of the response will be a matter of consensus. So the parties will have overall consensus on the climate issue - kind of like the recent economic crisis - and then resume sniping at each other on all the peripheral stuff like whose social agenda is better.
Plus... on balance, climate is going to force a much more fundamental policy revision for the GOP than for the Democrats, who are at least in theory much more eco-friendly in their basic philosophies.
But we'll see.
Thanks for commenting!
The Republicans have got more scandals and more peccadillo's than anybody I've ever seen. And it isn't just the latest crop either. The Republicans always seem to have their hands in the mud. Everything from illegal arms deals to multi-trillion dollar handouts to the rich and well-connected. And then they turn around and have the gall to accuse the Dems of being "Tax and Spend". Graft, Prostitution, Gambling, Drugs-- the Republicans have it all.
In my own opinion, if the GOP _really_ wanted to do what's best for America, they'd simply disband and disappear. And GOOD-RIDDANCE to them too.
The only problem with that is then we'd be stuck with the Democrats... aye yie yie... you just can't win.
Had Kerry run any kind of a campaign even close to Obama's we would have had him as President the last four years.
FYI, the counter is at 234, as I'm starting my post to your piece, if that is of any help. I'm not sure what the counter is supposed to reveal.
Jason, don't be so modest, this is a very good piece. It is well written and reveals some ideas that are new to me, despite my spending many, sometimes eight hours a day, following and researching the cabal of horrors that the Bushies put together and have been using to change/damage our nation.
Not only have you revealed some new facts but much more importantly you have illuminateed them in ways that seem to have escaped so many other writers, both professional and amateur. Please do more of this analysis. I will look for further posts from you.
For one thing, I believe the Rovian-Neocon-Bushies, in their attempt to turn America into a Theo-Fascist nation have not only damaged themselves but damaged religion as well, including my own religion. They have also done irreparable danmage to the SCOTUS and much of our judicial system, as well as our now lack confidence in our election process, amongmany oither things almost to numerous to mention for lack of time-space. At least that is my opinion.
Apropos of this cabal of Repub horrors, Golda Mier once said something to the effect that (paraphrased, accurately, I hope) what others do to us (in America's situation, bin Laden) is bad but what we then do to ourselves(by the Repubs) can be far worse.
So I will never count the Repubs them out. The Repubs ability to win elections via corruption and other desperate measures will, I fear, only continue. I think in 2012 they will bring to bear their big guns, their most rabid frothing-at-mouth members, the religious right. They will do it in the form of a made over and 'seemingly' more refined Sarah Palin(Pentecostal) who will be their candidate for VP, due to her toxicity. While they will seem to be more moderate by proposing Jeb Bush(a fundie Catholic convert, my religion) as their candidate for the presidency. That is my greatest fear, for our nation.
*****
Now for a bit of comedic relief, and very apropos.
On a side note, I strongly recommend that all of you on this forum read Dick Cavett's column in today's New York Times, Opinion section. Read it online or read it even if you have to actually BUY the now right wing newspaper. Your money and time will be TOTALLY well spent, it is a scream.
I'll tempt you with this clue. It is entitled: The Wild Wordsmith of Wasilla, by Dick Cavett, and is in the NYT dated today, 11/18/08. After reading it I thought it also could have been labeled: The Thrilla' From Wasilla. The, as usual, delightfully understated Dick Cavett is once again at his incomparable best.
I printed it out and strongly recommend you do the same. I am still screaming and ROTFL. It's the best thing I have read for a long time, ever since the endless horrors of the Bush administration began eight years ago. This nation may be in the grip of rampant and rabid Theo-Fascism but the laughter is not yet dead. Hope springs eternal and comedy/comedic relief is still the best medicine and a major part of 'eternal hopes' driving force, not only in the worst of times but in these, possibly the 'bettering' (my non-word) of times.
Here is a teaser from Cavett's piece. He called Sarah Palin: "the serial syntax killer". Now if that doesn't grab you, the Neocon-Rovian-Bushies have killed you, just as they have killed religion and very nearly killed our democracy.
Begging everyone's indulgence, I'm going to try to cross post this 'heads-up' to a piece of political comedy that demands to be read, to Alternet, Salon.com, HuffPo and MOJO.
"Where to for the GOP now?"
" What coalition can it piece together, nationally, that even makes sense?"
My answer: "Not Palin"...
black bart- i disagree. with the gop needing to move to the center, i want the dems to become really progressive. being centrist, to me, just means continuing the status-co, which has not been very good for america.
jason karke- i agree that the christian conservatives should be dumped.
scruffus - i agree: but hopefully the evangelicals, social conservatives and the neoconservatives will just be considered THE LUNATIC FRINGE.
jason karke 11:04 i am glad that disintegration will mean no more gop presidents until the reformulate themselves. they have needed to do that for a long time. i personaly blame Reagon for most of the ills of america. the gop hero should be held up as shameful. as when the gop equated the worst fact about dems was that they are liberal, the gop should be equated that "they are Reagonites".
mr e - good answer rating from me. i could not have said it better.
bobr900 - great post a comment
Jason:
I’m now reading your column for the first time. I guess that’s the advantage of being in the “Friends” section. The counter is on 670.
I was just listening to Rush Limbaugh. Shame on me. In any case, I hope you realize the GOP’s problem is going to get way, way worse. Like the other Brainless Wonder, Sean Hannity, he really believes the GOP lost in 2008 because it is not conservative enough. He went on and on and on about how John McCain is a liberal and he ran a liberal campaign.
There is only so much you can do about stupid. I predict Sarah Palin will win the 2012 nomination and will lose the election in a landslide.
The GOP’s only hope – and as an independent I AM hoping the party comes back – is someone who is a superachiever in government. Who is that? Frankly, I don’t see anyone unless Michael Bloomberg becomes a Republican again (and loses his recent desire to hold power by changing rules). The Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani of six or seven years ago would have been OK, but they have sold their souls for the idiots in “The Base.”
I am hoping that there are some total political unknowns who have been super business executives or super leaders in some capacity for decades and now want to try to be mayors or governors. It would take a while for these individuals to prove their spurs, but frankly the GOP deserves to be out of power for a long, long time.
On a non-presidential level, Republican legislators should be concerned about proposing ideas to voters’ everyday problems, not ideological rigidity. Here in Illinois, there is Congressman Mark Kirk, who heads some sort of Suburban Caucus that looks to solve the kinds of problems that receive very little publicity (cleaning up Lake Michigan, for example)
Kirk is a Republican in a liberal district. He is pro-gun control, pro-choice, pro-environment, and pro-gay rights, but conservative on fiscal matters and moderate on foreign policy. He is the type of Republican who can win statewide elections, but also the type who Republicans absolutely hate – although he clobbers Democrats in a Democratic district.
I think your analysis of the problem was very comprehensive and insightful. I never bothered to learn how to “rate” stuff, but I’ll informally rate this column.
Shalom,
ZWrite
As President Reagan’s speechwriter Peggy Noonan has been quoted, “part of courage is simple consistency.”
...
There are several steps that we must take to renew, reform and restore the greatness of the Republican Party.
Renew our commitment to our Party’s timeless principles…by reconfirming our commitment to be the party of smaller government, lower taxes, individual freedom, strong national security, respect for the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, the importance of family and the exceptionalism of America.
I think this captures rather well the problem facing the GOP, even though it is meant to be all about the GOP's renewal: it's a grab-bag of everything the GOP's different constituencies would like to see, but it's also a list of ideals that pull in very different directions - all the more so when you remember that "the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, [and] the importance of family" are clearly code for a set of views that run counter to "individual freedom".
There's a clear unwillingness to place one traditional Republican value over another, and I am still thinking they need to be willing to make that call if they are to restore their standing.