Interesting observation, my state’s GOP is in serious decline … but the Dems aren’t fracturing as I can tell.
It’s far more likely that the Republicans will break up than the Democrats. You can see exactly where old guard conservatives and the Tea Party are diverging. What would be the line for the Democrats? There are no issues that really split the party: it’s all a matter of emphasis and nuance. There are no progressive leaders with a large following. What would the Democrats gain by splitting their forces? It’s easier to compromise with people inside your party than outside of it.
If the GOP completely vanished, then the wings of the Democrats would eventually fall apart. But the GOP won’t vanish. Parties are top to bottom, running candidates from the President down to the smallest local office. There is no chance that a different party will appear in national elections than in state and local races. That’s historically been third party wishful thinking, but it never works.
Or the far more likely case D) the ACA plays a very small part in the election whether it is running wonderfully or is a complete failure.
Here’s a scenario that could unfold over the next 11 years.
- The “Tea Party” faction amongst the House GOP membership stays steady at 60, but because of their resistance to compromise, it has caused the GOP to lose their majority (along with growing Latino voter participation) and the Boehner Republicans now only number 120. And 75 year old Minority Leader Boehner is really fed up about the whole thing.
- The Democrats now out number the GOP 255-180, but all is not well, since the liberal faction of the Dems, under 84 year old speaker Nancy Pelosi, refuses to compromise on any entitlement reform. Yet the new freshman class of Dems includes a number of candidates who ran as deficit-hawks pledging to end the stalemate in the House. In fact they now outnumber the Pelosi faction by 135-120.
- When the two parties meet to form their caucuses in late December 2024, the Tea Party vows not to vote for Boehner any more and wants to run their own slate for Minority leader/whip, etc. Meanwhile, the 135 deficit-hawk Dems are sick of Pelosi and the liberals she appoints to all the House committees. They, too, threaten not to vote for Pelosi for speaker, but if they run their own candidate, then there is a chance that the Boehner faction could win the plurality elections and end up running Congress. It would only take half or so of the Boehner repubs, since there would never be a threat that the Pelosi Dems and the Tea Party to coalesce. (Althoiugh it takes a majority to win the speakership, an overwhelming plurality, up against a collection of such diverse factions, should eventually triumph.)
- So… the deficit-hawk Dems make a deal with Boehner, whereby they form a centrist party, run primarily by Dems, but give the Boehner faction some house committee chairmanships.
- All the Boehner defections become sworn enemies of the Tea Party activists around the country, and have no chance of winning a GOP primary in 2026, so they have to run as independents or switch to democratic party.
So you’d have Tea-Party as a small 3rd party. You’d have a centrist Democrat Party and a Leftist Democrat party. And maybe a few old-time republicans with no hope of ever having influence, and hence no chance at raising money.
This is just one scenario, and I’m sure someone can poke holes in it. But the gridlock that we have now, where both parties have factions in them that prevent any kind of compromise will probably cause significant realignment. And I see the GOP as most vulnerable due to the intransigent-by-design of the Tea Party, in addition to demographic changes.
Something of this scale has happened before… back in the 1850s where the existing political structure was unable to deal with the issue of slavery, with the Secessionists and the Abolitionists preventing any form of satisfactory compromise.
Since your scenario violates every single thing I said was required for a party split, it shouldn’t surprise you that I’m not buying it.
The Democratic Party split into two wings in the 1860 election because of slavery, the overwhelmingly omnipresent and utterly irreconcilable issue of that entire generation. It hasn’t happened again, even with huge provocations and national crises. There were third party movements in 1912, 1948, and 1968 that created temporary fissures but none of those lasted precisely because they were presidential-election-only splits that didn’t split the underlying state and local parties.
What issue could there be today to compare with slavery, worker’s basic rights, and race? Deficits? There are so few deficit-hawk Democrats in Congress that I couldn’t name one. There’s a good reason for that: being a deficit hawk is so stupid and self-destructive that only the Tea Party could think it’s an issue. We also just heard talk about Boenher combining with Democrats to retain power during the shutdown struggle. Again, that had zero chance of happening in the real world. It’s political fantasy of a very low grade. Pelosi is not going to be deposed by anti-liberal Democrats. That’s where the power is, because that’s where the voting base is, in liberal blue states. The next Speaker will be a liberal black representative, not a conservative white one. The shrinking number of conservative Dems won’t rebel because they are shrinking. They’d have everything to lose by leaving the growing majority.
Parties with everything to lose don’t form unless they have an ideological or social imperative toward purity. There is not one single issue that is definable as such for conservative Democrats. It won’t happen.
You asked, “What issue could their be today to compare with slavery?..”
And it is the deficit, specifically as it to relates to the aging of the baby-boomers and the current inability of the following generations ability to support them. This issue has been kicked down the road for so long, that it reminds me of how the issue of slavery was put off for 40 years preceding the Civil War.
Now I do think the issue of slavery/secession was more severe, and I’m not expecting violence. But there will have to be some radical realignment of priorities in order for the country to survive over the next 20 years until enough of the Baby Boomers die off. Perhaps we decide we no longer can be the world’s policeman, or maybe we have to institute zero-based budgeting (which would threaten the continuity of every govt program), or raise taxes to pre-Reagan levels.
Of course none of those suggestions are even remotely possible given the makeup of the House of Representatives. The Tea Party lives in the land of make-believe, and the Pelosi wing of the Democratic party is only slightly less delusional. The Boehner Republicans represent no one out side of the top 1% wealthiest Americans. So, that leaves a huge opening for the growth of Deficit-Hawk Democrats. As the situation becomes more acute over the next decade, those candidates will be the ones who get elected and re-elected. And the fact the GOP is being dragged down by the Tea Party and social conservatives clinging to morals of 50 years ago, means the opportunity falls to the Democrats.
And I agree that the liberal democrats from traditional blue states will continue to dictate the Congressional leadership for the next few years, But the Democratic gains over the next 10 years will come from non-traditional states/districts, and they won’t be beholden to Pelosi or her successor.
And if we can just kick it down the road for another decade or so, it won’t be a problem any more. The deficit isn’t a real issue, nor will it be in the foreseeable future.
This. Bellhorn, you’re out all alone on a deserted island.
You must be a member of Congress!
The critical problem, in my view, is the growing number of Baby Boomers reaching retirement age, coupled with the increased life expectancy. The oldest Boomers are just starting to retire, which means it won’t peak for another 10-12 years.
If only smoking was more popular, they’d only be on Social Security and Medicare for 10 years instead of 20.
(I come at this from the left, btw… I’m all for gutting defense spending, but that will never happen unilaterally.)
The need for cutting social security has been an odd constant across a political spectrum. It’s not clear that the social security would ever bust the deficit or that the boomers are the culprits. And there is a small but growing movement on the left to insist that social security spending actually needs to be increased. Your argument is the one that the Heritage Foundation and other right-wing think tanks have latched onto.
A more liberal think tank, the Brookings Institution refutes that:
That article correctly notes that inbalances in contributions have fixes, and fixes that are politically doable, like eliminating the maximum contribution in payroll taxes.
There is no future crisis unless we deliberately create one. That may happen in these weird times, but there’s no way to credibly ascribe that to future Democrats.
You say you’re coming at this from the left, but your actual words parallel the most extreme and economically blinded segments of the right. I don’t know how you connect that.
If only they were.
With the implosion of the Republican Party in California, the Democratic Party is on the road towards a split. The legislative branch is much more liberal than the Executive branch. It will be interesting to see if a liberal candidate can take votes away from Brown in an upcoming primary. Probably not, with the stupid nonpartisan primary Schwartzeneggar saddled us with.
Its only stupid during a recession. It can be a pretty good idea when things are flush.
Ermm no, our deficit grows faster than our economy and if unchecked, our national debt will grow to unmanageable levels in 30 or 40 years. The outlook for medicare sinply doesn’t improve enough after we get past the baby boomers.
Its not social security, its mostly medicare and medicaid. Obamacare didn’t do a whole lot to bend the cost curve. We either need single payer or death panels. We can’t afford medicare/medicaid in its current form forever.
By definition, deficit hawks want to balance budgets during a recession. That’s why they have the name and the reputation. They sure ain’t Keynesians.
I don’t think that’s right. There were plenty of deficit hawks when times were relatively flush under Clinton. The main characteristic of a deficit hawk seems to be that they hibernate when a Republican is in the white house. They certainly don’t seem overly concerned when cutting taxes might lead to deficits.
I presume you are positing Ryan (or perhaps ANY Republican nominee) as representing the extreme right, but which Democrat from the extreme left are you supposing will be nominated?
P. S. For that matter, do you really mean to argue that either Stevenson OR Eisenhower were extreme, even by 1952 standards?