Ok, the previous thread on conservatives was getting stagnant. I thought I spice things up a bit. I am beginning to think that there will be a new civil war brewing in US. That will be between conservatives, between those who have a priority on the fiscal side, and those who have a priority on making America morally healthier.
This came to ahead in China, where a potential re-start of a Cold War was actually thwarted by Bush and those under him. The conservatives who want the US to punish the republic of China for their dismal human rights record are seething at a diplomat’s written ‘sorry’ letter, while the fiscal conservatives who desired more than anything expanded trade with China praised his actions as the right and pragmatic thing to do under the circumstances. On Charlie rose, the Georgia senator on who liked what Bush did referred to New Republic’s William Kristol’s opinions as “an eight letter word that he was thinking about. The word of course is nonsense.”
There are several other topics in which these two sides of the right wing not only disagree, but vociferously disagree, such as abortion. Bush succeeded in marginalizing Buchanon, but the chasm is still there between the two and widening as we go into the 21st century, to the point that the goals each seek may become are too divergent for the two groups to stay along in the Republican party. I resolve that for these reasons a huge shift in the political landscape on the Conservative side may be on the horizon, as the struggle between the fiscal and the moral for the main Conservative thought in America reach to what may well be a violent conclusion.
I think there’s just a lot more in-fighting in the parties than most people pay attention to. An extreme example of this would be the bickering in the Reform party last year.
Rush Limbaugh, hated Republican crier-boy extraordinaire, has the philosophy of refraining from criticising members of his party, to (theoretically) keep the internal squabbling down. From a simple “us versus them” perspective, this is actually quite wise.
I remember all the hubbub when Barbra Streisand sent off that letter to Democrat higher-ups - basically telling them to stop being such pussies towards Bush. IMOSHO, this gave the Dems the image of being answerable to the big Hollywood stars, having no backbone of their own. I’m not saying that’s true… I’m saying that’s what Streisand’s actions made it SEEM like. It was an attempt on her part to end Dem in-fighting and direct their energies towards the Repubs.
I just think there’s too much fighting, period. Look at all the campaign ads we get… So-and-so candidate saying that he’s going to “fight” for us, or whatever.
I think that there is a chasm developing in the Republican Party, rather like capacitor described. However, it remains to be seen whether this will weaken the party at all. So far, the Republicans have been pretty good at getting both sides to show up at the polls when it matters. If there is a large number of Republicans who believe in reducing government in the economic sphere but are social liberals, they could always jump to the Libertarian Party, but so far, the Libertarians remain stagnant at less than half a million votes in the presidential election. Of course, this may be because Browne is viewed as such an extreme candidate (he wants to disband the Federal Government, except for the military). If a more reasonable person ran on the Libertarian ticket, I see a possibility for drawing several million votes away from the Republicans. However, I think that the Republicans will be able to hold the two sides together for the next few election cycles.
Stop the presses- you mean that the Republican party has two important wings that don’t like each other???
You’d think this sort of thing was a brand-new phenomenon! in reality, ANY successful political party is going to have to appeal to VERY different groups, including groups that don’t much like each other. For instance, FDR’s NEw Deal coalition included blacks and Jews. It ALSO included blue collar whites who HATED blacks and Jews. It included union leaders AND big businessmen who hated unions.
That was a tough act to pull off, but Roosevelt made it worth their while, by giving each group at least a little bit of what it wanted most.
Now, does a rich patrician country club banker in Scarsdale have much in common with a gun-owning, pickup truck driving, commie-hating farmer in Alabama? No. On the other hand, that doesn’t mean each can’t find good reasons to make common cause, IF the Republicans are able to give each of them some of what he wants.
It’s not as if the Democrats don’t have similar problems- you think a Catholic factory worker in Detroit has much in common with a Jewish lesbian feminist in Greenwhich Village? Not hardly- but both undoubtedly voted for Bill Clinton, each for reasons that the other couldn’t relate to.
You wouldn’t happen to be talking about [more than] a few members of this message board, would you?
Disaffected christians wishing to promote an ecclesiastical platform can always leave the Republican Party (good riddance) and go to The Constitution Party
There are a plethora of parties capable of balkanizing the American people in the near future:
And I’m sure that I’m just scratching the surface. Success or failure will depend on how well these parties craft their platforms and get their respective messages out. And on how many Americans will buy into it. For instance, I don’t think that there is a widespread acceptance of the socialist or communist parties (which I left off the list), but that isn’t to say future events can’t change that, either.
I think astorian’s on the right track with this one: if the goals of one part of the GOP coalition don’t actively conflict with the goals of another part, then there’s no problem.
For instance, the Christian right and the folks who want to make money off the Federal lands are two more-or-less distinct groups, with drastically different aims. But you can exploit the national forests and BLM lands, and try to post the Nine Commandments in classrooms, without any conflict.
The only real possibility of a GOP schism that I see is over the media’s influence on our culture. If the Christian right ever realizes that the source of all the pro-sex messages their kids are practically swimming in, is not so much Hollywood liberals as it is the huge telecom corporations, you might have some sparks.
I’ve been waiting for that one since the early '80s, though, and it hasn’t happened yet, so I’m not holding my breath. When folks like Pat Robertson like to think of themselves as successful businessmen as much as they like being standardbearers for the Christian right, that’s a fight they ain’t gonna start.
First of all, Republicans and conservatives are not synonyms. There is a “moderate” and even a “liberal” wing of the Republican party. John Warner and Chafee are not conservatives.
Second, conservatives are not a monolithic, faceless nonentity that presents one set of opinions to the world. In fact, it has more than two “wings”. Conservatives are individuals that cooperate based on perceived advantage, where they share goals. In some cases they don’t share a goal, and as long as they are honest with each other they can part company with reasonable amity (and disagree sharply with each other upon occasion, even to the point of name-calling; witness the controversy with Kristol).
There is no “civil war” in the conservative camp; there is simply then normal pull and tug between individuals. Conservatives come to the fore when there is a relatively strong leader and the country is swinging to the conservative point of view in the natural political pendulum. Bush is keeping things together just fine, and the country is swinging right after eight years under a fairly liberal Democratic administration. Things will swing left again, and people will talk about the conservative coalition crumbling; however, it will simply be the normal political tide shifting as it always does. It always will. Barring a real disaster or war, this kind of shift has happened on a fairly regular schedule all during this century, and I see no reason for it to change.
Excuse me, dlb but as a nearly lifelong Virginian (though I’ve lately moved across the Potomac), I’m quite familiar with Sen. John Warner’s career. He’s a conservative who, every once in awhile, does something fairly high-profile that’s out of lockstep with right-wing PC. (E.g. voting against Bork, refusing to support Ollie.)
But just because he isn’t PC-right doesn’t mean he’s not conservative. How often does he vote different from, say, Trent Lott? You’re the one who’s making the absurd claim that he’s not a conservative; I’ll let you back it up.
Thanks to the Clintons’ vicious, all-out war on Republicans, it will be a long, long time before I do battle with the other wing of my party. I don’t think I’m alone in this feeling.
Dec, what are you smoking? War on republicans? Any damage the republican party had done to it during Bill’s time in office was self inflicted. (can you say impeachment?) He did co-opt parts of their agenda, but that can hardly be considered war. Most people would be flattered and pleased.
And he made it sooo easy for them to criticize him. They out to give him a medal.
Face it, one of the main reasons, if not the ONLY reason, that Baby Bush got elected was ‘Clinton fatigue’.
On the other hand, you may be right. It was during the Clinton years that I started to see that today’s Republican party doesn’t ACTUALLY represent fiscal conservatism anymore. It pays lip service to that, while really only promoting religious moralism and greed.
I’m still a registered Republican, but you won’t see me voting for one as long as the religious right is still running the show over there.
I think over the next decade you will see more and more like me, separation-of-church-and-state fiscal conservatives who discard the Republican party because it just doesn’t represent us anymore.
Convervative no longer means Republican. Deal with it.
In the past few decades, the Republican Party has tried to present itself as one unit with a minimum of infighting. For example, Trent lott stating that without question, every Senate Republican would vote to confirm Ashcroft, and he was right. I think that the OP was asking whether this can continue, or whether there will be more harsh and longer-lasting disagreements over policy. In my opinion, the fiscal conservative and social liberal wing will probably become more active eventually. Certainly, there are some Republicans who would be classified as pro-choice and they will challenge the anti-abortion plank in the party’s platform.
