"Buoyed by Resurgence, G.O.P. Strives for an Era of Dominance" -- Will they get it?

Great Debates
1

A New York Times article by Adam Clymer discusses reasons why we might be entering a period of Republican dominance. (BTW Clymer is no friend of the Republicans. Recall his name became famous when Bush and Cheney agreed in front of an open mike that he was a “major league asshole.”)

These reasons sound pretty convincing. In addition, there’s some degree of rebirth of conservatism on college campuses. A couple of weeks ago there was a Republican demonstration in Berkeley!

Also, I suspect there’s a tipping point. Donors, activisits and candidates who want to be with the side in power will now tend to choose the Republicans, giving them an even greater advantage.

2

“At the same time, Republicans are trying to make inroads into Democratic constituencies like Hispanics, African-Americans, union members and Jews, he said, so that “long before Democrats can go after swing voters, they have to solidify their base.”…”

That is somewhat laughable. We’ve been hearing about “inroads” by the GOP into those areas for years but it never seems to actually materialize.

As for the larger concept, the GOP still needs to regroup from the largely ineffectual outcome of the 1994 elections when they controled both houses of congress, but still couldn’t outwit Clinton. These types of political predictions are enternaining in their own right, but I’ve yet to see a talking head who could really be counted on to predict things 2-3 yrs down the road.

Bush has been amazingly good at getting his agenda approved. But, contrary to what so many people think, he has little if any control over the economy, and that’s just a huge variable when it comes around to election time. If the Replublicans are lucky, the whole slew of “Enronesque” issues will be somewhat cloudy in people’s minds by then and Dems won’t be able to stick the GOP with that mess. People really want to blame someone for that.

3

Frankly, I think the Dems are in deep, deep trouble, because they have lost their common focus; something to strive for.

They’ve won. Equal rights. Social security. Great society. Medicare.

All the great social programs have been enacted. There are, currently, as far as I can tell, no great social injustices left to pursue. There are still social changes to finish, but as far as legislation is concerned, it’s over.

So, what must the Dems do to have a counterpart goal to the GOP?

4

Depends on how stupid we are. Jury’s out.

So far the strategy of banging the Victory! drum and flinging confetti in our collective eyes seems to be working. Few and far between are such questions as to why we so urgently needed this military adventure, seeing as our cassus belli was a tissue of lies. It may be difficult to sing “When Johnny Comes Marching Home” when Johnny’s enlistment is prolonged indefinitely.

And, having attached a lamprey to our jugular, we are intent on opening a vien. Heaven only knows how many billions of dollars we will end up pouring into the sand of the Godforsaken Desert, on the heels of a tax cut reduced from the ludicrous to the ridiculous only by an unexpected twinge of fiscal prudence. Its rather like a man who has just discovered he’s fired deciding to drown his sorrows at the hotel room mini-bar, with tequila at $15 a thimblefull.

And, as you know, it is niether the Pubbies nor the Dumbocrats, it is the Apathy Party that dominates the political landscape, that vast majority of Americans who niether vote nor give a shit. Should a detectable pulse be stirred amongst the people, all bets are off.

And I futher suspect that the Pubbies, in thier headlong pursuit of the support of the ignorant, the bigoted and the jingoistic are rapidly alienating the honest conservative, the man who recognizes the need for change but counsels prudence and caution. People who insist that if the Gummint says its spending $80 billion to defend us, the threat should actually exist, that we do not send our children out to defend us against the Jabberwock and the dreaded Chimera.

So it depends. How stupid are we?

5

I think the Dems are going to have a rough time of it for awhile, for the reasons E-Sabbath gave. The GOP has mostly muzzled/marginalized/excommunicated the Buchanans and Robertsons, but the dems are unwilling/unable to do so with the Sharpton/Dean wing.

My prediction: the split gets really pronounced, and we see a party shift, as we did in the 60s when the dems changed from anti-to pro-civil rights.

6

For another pespective, offering plenty of support to the contrary position, check out Deciphering the Democrats’ Debacle - Why the Republican majority (probably) won’t last.

If we don’t see significant economic recovery in the next 12 to 18 months, I don’t think the Republicans will have much of a hook to hang their hat on. If it does rebound significantly, they will enjoy at least another four years of dominance. But the long term trends (currently) are working against them.

7

Buchanan disassociated himself, but Robertson has certainly not been muzzled. Besides, who need Robertson when you’ve got DeLay, Sanatorium and Ashcroft.

Similarities between Sharpton and Dean are only in your head. Furthermore, Sharpton has never had as much influence in the Democratic Party as Robertson, Falwell and their ilk have in the Reublican Party.

8

Now December, in the past, some people have taken you to task over the reliability of your cites, but this has to be a new low. The NY Times? :wink:

9

The lead article in the Times Magazine is about the resurgence of Republicans on campus.

10

The Republican party is definately decidedly in power, the Senate being their only weak spot in terms of political control. This is both good and bad. It’s good for obvious reasons. It’s bad because of several things

  1. The more Pubs are seen to dominate politics the less they can rely on the strategy that brought them here: blame liberals for everything that goes wrong in society and politics. Outside of student bodies, their story of oppression has always been a little mythical, but now it is as decisively over in politics as it gets.
  2. The more Pubs are seen to dominate politics, the more the groups that brought them here are going to want to push their pet issues, many of which lack broad support or could threaten to undermine the party.

The second point is particularly important, because in a sense it is one thing that made the Democratic party what it is today: a party so beholden to material interests of its main interest groups that it has a very hard time forming any sort of coherent policy. Like was said earlier: once the really big issues were won, the squabbling over lesser and more selfish demands took over.

One interesting real world effect is that many of the conservatives that helped bring the Republican party to where it is are starting to have second thoughts about it. For instance, the libertarian wing, which was socially liberal and fiscally conservative, is realizing that the Pubs stand in almost direct opposition to them. Andrew Sullivan seems an appropriate example: he points out that by all measures, it is Republicans, not Democrats, that are the big spenders now, whether in state legislatures or federal, they outspend the Democrats. So how can they claim to be the party of fiscal conservatism, or wanting to shrink the size of government? Now that they’re in power, have we heard a peep about finally passing the Balanced Budget amendment?
The limp attempt to claim it is all a master plot to “spend the money before the Democrats get control back” is offensively stupid: boldly dishonest even if it made sense as a strategy.

And on the social side, we have religious conservatives pushing for things that could lose the party the support of many key people and re-energize the left.

So republicans do face very choppy waters: in many ways the same sort of waters that destroyed the Democrats.

11

Apos:

Very good points. And that’s why the pendulum swings back and forth. Both parties are their own worst enemies.

As for me, I say: Viva gridlock government! The less they do, the better off we usually are. It’s sad that it has to be that way, but I don’t see it ever changing. Why do you think it’s called politics!?

12

Not strictly true. There are still the scads of anti-sodomy laws and the fact that Republicans would generally rather see gay people in jail than marry or have anywhere near the rights (and tax breaks) of straight people.

The problem with this, and many other lingering issues that the Dems are good at (like the environment), the electorate in general just doesn’t seem to care (or in the case of gay rights, haven’t gotten past the “queers icky!” stage). Of course, many liberals criticize the Democratic party FOR letting these things go way too easily.

And, of course, if you believe that the current administration enjoys increasing police powers, benefitting big business, and such stereotypes, then there’s still that. Again, though, it depends on how hard the opposition hammers this stuff and how much the public cares either way. A lot of factors there.

13

Not strictly true. There are still the scads of anti-sodomy laws and the fact that Republicans would generally rather see gay people in jail than marry or have anywhere near the rights (and tax breaks) of straight people.

The problem with this, and many other lingering issues that the Dems are good at (like the environment), the electorate in general just doesn’t seem to care (or in the case of gay rights, haven’t gotten past the “queers icky!” stage). Of course, many liberals criticize the Democratic party FOR letting these things go way too easily.

And, of course, if you believe that the current administration enjoys increasing police powers, benefitting big business, and such stereotypes, then there’s still that. Again, though, it depends on how hard the opposition hammers this stuff and how much the public cares either way. A lot of factors there.

14

I figure the economy will recover just enough for the billions of dollars in bribes the Repubs have whored themselves out for to make the difference next year.

I curse governmental gridlock. If the Repubs had a free hand with Congress and the Presidency from the start of Bush’s term they would have passed enough dumb crap to have a majority of voters pissed at them by now. This is why I have become Green. Screw blunting the conservative attack. Let them try to turn the clock back to 1352 and see what reaction they get. Let them try it and when their policies are discredited we won’t have to listen to that crap anymore. I say we give them the rope they need to hang themselves.

Eventually Americans will come to their senses about neoconservatism. It may take piles of bodies in the streets but at some point selfish authoritarianism must be exposed for what it is. It can’t conceal its true face forever.

15

I think many of the posts here are based on an outdated notion: that the Repub leadership will follow the Democratic process. They will not. They stole the election in 2000, they’ll steal it in 2004. They’re doing a particularly good hob of taking control of the media. The FCC is about to change the rules to allow TV station and newspapers to consolidate, in the face of overwhelming (97 percent against) public opposition.

This will pave the way for a television “Clear Channel” network with a conservative bias that will make the present conservative dominance of media seem like a level playing field. Meanwhile Dirty Trick Meister Karl Rove is using the power of his offices and his rich conservative backers to rig the 2004 election. This is the real story of the electoral process right now, the business about this or that issue is just dumb show.

That said, the Dem leadership has been totally pathetic. I wonder who Terry MacAuliffe REALLY works for.

16

The Republicans will dominate if the Democrats continue to roll over.

17

Whenever I compare Dems and GOP’ers I always think back to Machiavelli. In particular he said (to paraphrase) that France would be easy to conquer, but hard to hold on to. While Turkey would be hard to conquer, but easy to hold on to.

For France it could be easily won because each region of the country was headed by a Duke (or something) that could be pandered to and flattered. But as soon as you didn’t do what they wanted, then they would switch to some one else.

The Turks on the other hand, with their strong central government, would be hard to overtake, but once conquered all the states that made up their empire could be taken over easily. Not much more than changing the letterhead.

The Democratic Party will always be fine because they are panderers. They go after groups of people (whether it be gays, or old people, or union folk, or teachers, or minorities) and tell them what voting Democrat will get them. Or worse, how voting for them is a vote AGAINST some other group (the “rich”, “big business”, “big tobacco”, etc)

The Republicans have always held out strong core values as their strength. They offer things like “family”, “morals”, and “justice”. Things that are central to a society and hard to overcome. But in doing so risk the wrath of those who don’t follow their sometimes narrow view of those things.

As for the ecomony, well if you were to take every ecomonist and lay them end to end you still wouldn’t reach a conclusion (Truman, I think). But what I’d really like to know is what exactly the Dems thinks a President CAN do. Tax relief seems totally reasonable. Remeber folks that this is OUR money here. If you think that that sending it to Washington so that THEY can spend it makes sense I’d like to know why.

My state is considering raising state taxes to make up what they will lose in Fed money. I say GOOD!! That means that the money I send to Dover will be spent in Delaware. To me that’s one more dollar not spent on the “BIG DIG” in Boston or some other dumbass pork project in some other state so that some other Congressman can say “Vote for me!! Aren’t I great? Look at all the Fed money (PORK) that I brought home.”

As far as I can see the best thing the government can do, the best thing a government can EVER do, is

GET OUT OF THE WAY!!!

And let the PEOPLE go about their lives without your constant “pokin’ your nose 'ing ness”

'nuff said

18

E-S: *They’ve won. Equal rights. Social security. Great society. Medicare. *

“No victory is permanent.” I agree that several significant liberal causes since the beginning of the 20th century have achieved major legislative and popular support, but there are plenty of influential conservative Republicans who would like to roll them back, many of whom have been working on it since the Reagan administration.

The thing is, the more they succeed in attempts, e.g., to weaken enforcement of labor law, to cut funds for basic services, to decrease regulation and oversight of business practices, to obstruct environmental regulation, to enact immense tax cuts at the highest income levels, etc., the more people will get seriously pissed at them.

Bush’s Achilles heel is that many people already believe that his economic policies favor maximizing profits for the rich at the expense of the wellbeing of others. As a May 22 Wall Street Journal article noted about a recent poll, “On Mr. Bush’s general approach to economic policy, more than six in 10 say it shortchanges job creation in favor of tax cuts, benefits the wealthy more than average people and will increase the federal-budget deficit.”

That’s a higher percentage than supported the invasion of Iraq. If times continue to get harder for the non-rich, and if most of the Republicans continue to close ranks behind the Administration’s very conservative policies, then they will have a hard time avoiding the “pandering to robber barons” label in increasingly disgruntled public discourse.

19

The simpliest explanation is often the best.

The reason for the change in Republican and Democratic fortunes and future is the South. The 70% who were Democratics are now mostly Republicans. Their views haven’t changed, just the party label.

Democratic and Republican strength now outside the South is pretty much what it is has been for most of the last 100+ years. Areas have changed one way or another, but the proportions are about the same.

20

Good point, aahala. Cf. Earl Black’s and Merle Black’s 2002 book, The Rise of Southern Republicans.