Where is the GOP going?

Great Debates
21

The rise of the Christian Right in the U.S. has much to do with the fallout from the Civil Rights Act in 1964, which caused a split in the Democratic Party and resulted in a lot of the ‘boll weevil’ Democrats moving to the Republican party. About this time, there was also a demographic shift where Christians increasingly moved to the South and Midwest in the U.S. This destroyed the ‘solid south’ base for Democrats, after which the Democrats increasingly came be to be the representatives of the east and west coasts and big cities (and states dominated by big cities), while the Republicans became more representative of the southern states and the midwest.

The Moral Majority under Jerry Falwell formed during Carter’s Presidency, and had only limited power under Reagan. The real era of Christian power in the Republican party started with the election of George Bush I, when Pat Robertson formed the Christian Coalition. a much more overtly political organization. The movement gained strength when Clinton was elected, as it was one of the major organizing forces against the Democrats while the Republicans were out of power. Then Republicans swept the House and Senate in 1994, with a new indebtedness to the Christian Right that they haven’t been able to shake off since.

But the cracks in that coalition are showing. The new generation of Republicans are much more socially moderate than their parents. The old leaders like Falwell and Robertson are gone. The South is fracturing again and losing Republican support. So the Republicans have to rebuild a new coalition, and the Christian Right, while it will always be a part of the Republican party, is destined for a much smaller role.

The boll weevil’s influences are fading. They were never economic conservatives - they were big supporters of the New Deal and Truman’s Fair Deal, and their existence in the Republican party and the rise of the Christian Right led directly to Bush’s ‘compassionate conservatism’, which was not centered around traditional small government conservatism at all.

Now the Republicans have to rebuild their coalition, and it looks to me like the only constituency they’ve got to build up is the economic conservative/libertarian wing. If they try to rebuild themselves around the Christian Right, they’ll by marginalized until they smarten up, because all the Demographic trends are moving in the opposite direction. They need to rebuild themselves as a party of fiscal conservatism and small government, or they’re doomed. I’m just not convinced that particular constituency is big enough any more.

22

I’ll give you the comparison to Obama. I think that’s exactly right. Would you say Obama is building a theocracy in America? Do you think he wants to take away people’s civil liberties? He is, after all, opposed to gay marriage and not at all opposed to funneling big money to churches and religious groups. He’ll speak to them, rally them in his causes, etc.

It’s really a matter of focus and tone. Reagan paid lip service. So did Carter, by the way. If anything, Carter was even more preachy and overtly devout than Reagan. But in the end, what Reagan cared about was winning the cold war and lowering taxes and regulations. The religious stuff was just the window dressing of the job, like kissing babies and attending county fairs. Pandering to the constituents.

23

Since the election the Republicans seem to have responded by moving even farther to the right. Gingrich, Cheney, Rove and of course Limbaugh have been dominating the airwaves as the main voices of opposition. Needless to say, these are not voices of moderation.

As for rising stars on the right, the past few moths have catapulted Glen Beck and Rick Perry into widespread consciousness. These two are even farther to the right then what we have become used to from the Rs. And their right-wing diatribes have been very well received in conservative areas. If there is any push for moderation in the Republican party I’m not seeing it. One of the few moderate Republicans left, Spector, is headed for almost certain defeat in next year’s Republican primary. The party’s success at expelling RINOs has left it with few appealing options today.

It’s starting to look like the Republicans are positioning themselves to get crushed again in 2010. Maybe then they’ll start looking at ways to put together a coalition than might actually win some elections. But they will be doing it in a different environment than they used to win in. The percentage of whites in America is in rapid decline making it that much more difficult for the GOP to stage its comeback.

In 2012 there will at least be a presidential nominee who will give the party a voice to rally around.

24

Describing the differences in the Republican party as being either ‘far right’ or ‘moderate’ is not really helpful in describing the real splits that are going on. I think such descriptions are really saying, "those closest to people like me, vs those who are wackos’.

Libertarians and moral majority types are both ‘far right’ - and have absolutely nothing in common with each other. You can also find religious republicans who are moderates.

Really, the factions in the Republican party are:

Establishment Republicans - “The business of America is Business”. These are the ‘Rockefeller Republicans’. Guliani and Romney would be examples.

Religious Right Republicans - those dominated mainly by Christian social issues. Primarily abortion. Mike Huckabee would be their guy. They can be socially liberal on economic issues.

Libertarian Republicans - those who want smaller government and fewer regulations. Currently exhibiting the most energy, but leaderless. Gingrich probably comes closest. At least, the Gingrich of 1994. I don’t know about the current model. Mark Sanford and Eric Cantor are the only current Republicans I can think of who have a shot with this group.

Populist Republicans - Anti-immigration, anti-trade, isolationist. Pat Buchanan is their standard bearer. Sarah Palin probably fits in here, but it’s hard to say with her. She’s got libertarian and religious right streaks in her as well. Glenn Beck is fueling this bunch.

You can find ‘extreme’ and ‘moderate’ members of all these groups and of course there’s plenty of overlap between them.

25

Nationally, the issue in 2010 and 2012 will be the same as the deciding issue of 2008 - the economy.

If it is recovering, we will have to start talking about how to deal with the deficit. Current Republicans tried to position themselves by voting against the stimulus package. Whether or not that convinces the voters - the moderate middle, not liberals, and not movement conservatives - that the GOP has learned its lesson about big spending and “compassionate conservatism” remains to be seen.

If the economy continues to founder, all bets are off. Maybe the electorate will decide in favor of even more spending and damn the consequences. Maybe the idea of smaller government will start to get some traction. Who knows?

Ross Perot got 19% of the vote twenty years ago focussing on the deficit. Maybe someone will come along and do the same - not necessarily to win the White House, but to push one or the other of the major parties into actually doing something real. If he does, cool - the GOP is better positioned to adopt that as a message than Obama and Co.

Three months into Obama’s term is too soon to say anything more than a wish for a Republican nominee with the excitement factor of Palin and the business savvy of Romney.

Regards,
Shodan

26

The existing GOP is basically an alliance between three major factions: The Rich, The Fundamentalists, and The Libertarians.

The Rich bankroll the whole operation, but they’re few in number so they need the raw numbers of the other two groups to win elections. Some members of The Rich have an ideological affinity with the other groups, but, in general all they care about is what benefits them financially. If it’s good for their bottom line, they’re for it.

In contrast, The Fundamentalists and The Libertarians are very ideological. They’re both chasing their particular flavors of eutopia and they’ll vote for anything that moves the country in their prefered direction whether it serves their immediate interests or not.

It’s interesting to note that only one of the three factions got what it wanted during the years when the GOP was in power – The Rich. They got tax cuts and deregulation and in general made out like bandits. Good times.

But, despite lots of noise about various hot-button issues, the Fundamentalists and the Libertarians got squat. Abortion is legal, gay rights are on the advance, and the government is larger and more intrusive than ever.

One would almost think that the Rich were playing the Fundamentalists and Libertarians for suckers … . :wink:

The Rich are the group to watch. Once its clear that their current partners are no longer capable of delivering electoral victories, they’ll look around for a new alliance. They’ve got the bankroll and they’re not picky about ideology so it will be much easier for them to find new allies.

My bet is the Fundamentalists get the boot. They’re most at odds with the agenda of the Rich and the most inflexible. The Rich will keep the Libertarians around, and look for new sources of electoral muscle around the margins of the Democratic Party.

Here’s my prediction: After the bloodbath in 2012, the GOP will shift hard to the left on social issues and make a play for the moderate middle class.

27

A timely and I thought on-point post for this discussion; its from a message sent to Josh Marshall’s blog from a reader.

I thought the “outsiders” point was especially interesting, re Reagan, Nixon, Eisenhower. If Obama’s term isn’t a fiasco, the next potentially successful GOP presidential candidate in 2012 would need to wear that outsider mantle as well.

28

That’s an interesting post you quoted.

And the “outsider” thing is also good. Dole, Bush Sr. and Jr., McCain - all party insiders. Need some new blood.

Regards,
Shodan

29

All succesful presidential candidates position themselves as outsiders. Americans have a fascination with white knights who sweep in and promise to fix the mess in Washington. 1988 was the only exception to this since 1924. This is why the least experienced candidates usually win, and why the first couple years of a presidency go poorly.
The future prospects of the republican party are dependent on the luck of how events turn out and the quality of the leaders which emerge. Even disregarding the Feiler faster theory, it is way to soon to speculate on the prospects for 2010. The economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, terrorism, etc are too too unpredictable for anyone to make intelligent guesses as to the political climate over a year away. Who could have predicted that the inadequancies of levee construction in the late sixties New Orleans would have a huge effect on the 2006 election?
The best hope for any party out of power is overreach by the party in power. The 2009 budget is a great example of overreach and the Tea party phenomenon is a reaction to that. Maybe Obama will do a better job on the next round, but if he does not it could be a big opening for the GOP. All of the infighting that is currently going on is just a reaction to losing the last election. The real question is whether the GOP should court latino voters more aggresively or not. That is the issue for the next few election cycles.

30

Going with the 1932 analogy, and the GOP’s complete discreditation, it was another 20 years before there was another Republican president. There was a new generation of leaders, as there had to be, but only because there was a new generation of people. *Not *because its existing membership or leadership changed their positions about anything much, their discreditation notwithstanding.

31

“In 2000, the son of a former president, governor of a large Southern state, Ivy League graduate ran as an outsider. People are still wondering how the fuck that happened.” - Dave Barry.

32

I realize you mean this facetiously [wonderful word, contains all the vowels in order] but there’s an interesting point here.

For the groups you mention — Rich, Fundamentalist, and Libertarian — the Rich are the ones with the most wiggle room in their agenda. Any increase in profits is a win for their side, however small. Fundamentalists have a binary agenda: as long as there is abortion and gay marriage, there is no minor victory to cheer. Libertarians … well, their demands are almost binary.

So yes, I think somebody at the top realizes that the Fundamentalists and the Libertarians are useful allies only so long as they’re unhappy.

33

Where is the GOP going? Based on this story, back in time! :rolleyes:

34

The Democrat Socialist party?
It could work! :smiley:

35

Nixon was an outsider?

36

From '62 through '67, sure.

37

Do you have a cite for this? I went looking for data but there is a lot of conflicting information.
I only ask because the so-called “crack epidemic” was an eighties phenomenon so it can’t be true that all types of drug use declined.

38

We already have (in left-to-right order, more or less) the Socialist Party USA, and the Democratic Socialists of America, and the Social Democrats USA. They all are democratic-socialist, and anti-Communist, parties deriving from the Socialist Party of America, which was socialist but anti-Bolshevik/Communist, which split up in 1973 over the question of the Vietnam War (opposing America’s participation was anti-capitalist, but supporting it was anti-Stalinist).

If the three of them were to merge . . . it might count for something in American politics today, or it might not.

For more-or-less unbiased commentary on, and links to the websites of, all and more, see here.

At any rate, we’re not a bunch of fucking splitters! :mad:

39

Nixon was born and raised an outsider. When he went to Whittier College, he organized his own campus social club, the “Orthogonians,” in opposition to the shiny happy “Franklins.” Of course, both sets were white-Anglo-American gentiles, but of very different breeds. Nevertheless, Nixon spent his whole private and public life fighting that same fight. JFK was a Franklin. See Nixonland, by Rick Perlstein.

40

In my view, once you have served two terms as Vice President, you can never again credibly claim to be an outsider.