Is this the end for the GOP? An interesting post on at Slate, GOP, RIP?, By Timothy Noah says, “For Republicans the events of Sept. 29 could well be remembered as the start of a decades long exile from power—much as Democrats remember Nov. 4, 1980.”
Noah seems to argue that because the success of the GOP is based on a con, and because this con is becoming undone, the GOP may become undone as well: Excerpts from the article:
- The central con of the political coalition assembled by Ronald Reagan and maintained by his successors was that government was a common enemy.
- This was a con for two reasons. First, the middle and upper classes were both dependent on the federal government for a variety of benefits …
- Second, the distribution of this government largesse greatly favored the rich. In the April 1992 Atlantic, Neil Howe and Philip Longman, citing unpublished data from the Congressional Budget Office, reported that U.S. households with incomes above $100,000 received, on average, slightly more in federal cash and in-kind benefits ($5,690) than households with incomes below $10,000 ($5,560).
- The Reagan coalition survived because nobody wanted to believe this and because both upper and middle classes were bought off with President George W. Bush’s tax cuts. (That the tax cuts favored the wealthy didn’t seem to matter.) But the proposed $700 billion bank bailout made it hard for Republicans to cling to their cherished illusion that government exists only to indulge spendthrift widows and orphans.
- It should be remembered that a fundamentalist belief in untrammeled capitalism is not the first but, rather, the second pillar of Reagan-style Republicanism to fall. The first was the belief that the United States should extend military power wherever enemies lurk, regardless of what our allies do. Reagan didn’t actually practice this doctrine, except to overthrow a teensy regime in Grenada and to deploy (and, after a deadly terrorist bombing, withdraw) U.S. Marines in Lebanon;
- President Bush, alas, took Reagan at his saber-rattling word, waging a war against Saddam Hussein so unilateral that, except for a few Kurds, there was no indigenous fighting force to prop up the way we propped up the ARVN in South Vietnam.
- I also thought the GOP was cracking up in 2000, when, desperate to find fault with every last aspect of the Clinton administration, it started bad-mouthing prosperity. I got that wrong, too. So maybe the GOP isn’t really dead.
I think the GOP still equates to strength in the minds of most Americans so I highly doubt it is RIP time. But I do think some lines were drawn with the libertarian, fiscal and social conservatives. I also think a Ron Paul style of conservatism may gain some followers.
The Democratic Party is far more likely to dissolve because their uniting principles are less grounded in ideology and far more vague. The GOP is a fairly homogeneous group too.
Let’s wait till at least November 5 to speculate on the future of the Grand Ol’ Party. I am very hopeful that it is in for a very serious reassessment of its priorities, but this ain’t over yet. I hope to spend a lot of my time next week (my fall break) helping the effort to force them to confront the need for basic changes after this election.
Like a baseball manager, the true test of a party is surviving bad times. The Republicans did this in 2006. Where you would have expected an enormous loss, it is virtually a tie. The Republicans remain cohesive and with 40 cohesive Senators to block any legislative initiatives the Democrats might have. This makes the Democrats in Congress look bad and ineffectual, paving the way for Republican comeback. Republicans are well entrenched in Congress, Courts and Regulatory agencies. Plus between the war and bailout, there will be no money for Democrats to do anything if Obama does win. As badly as Bush has done in virtually everything, Obama should be 10 points ahead. Part of the reason may be that he is black, foreign looking, new to the political scene and unfamiliar. Republicans have several advantages. America is run by capitalist business and the Republicans are the party of choice of capitalist business. Business also likes to have the Democrats close enough behind to discipline the Republicans in case they fall behind in their economic policy (as when much of business preferred Clinton ) or in case some of their right wingers get too far afield. Business also controls the news media, most importantly with an enormous chunk of the punditry being conservative. Republican’s coalition of corporate business, small business, the military industrial complex (which includes all those who get economic, emotional or spiritual sustenance from a war effort), the white middle class, free market conservatives and social conservatives, hangs together much more easily than the Democrat’s coaliton of racial minorities, the highly educated, union labor, social liberals and liberal portions of the corporate class. Democrats are particularly conflicted because the need to raise money from business conflicts with the ability to serve middle America with the education, health care, job and social security they need. Republicans have been much more cohesive, although they have been splitting between the business class that wants losses socialized and the free marketers, and the business class from the white social conservatives on immigration. Democrats can do less when times are in their favor, and Republicans lose less when times are against them. While there is much talk about which party is the “party of ideas” the answer right now is probably neither. The Rs keep repeating the same stuff, while the D’s seem more in tune with reality but not necessarily knowing what to do or having a vision of the future that people will accept. So even if Obama were to win, the Republicans will not be gone for long.
Nice job of playing the race card Stan.
The GOP will be fine. People will remember the promises made. When the Democrats screw up – and they will screw up – the tide will shift back to the GOP. The same goes for the GOP, they have screwed up and now the Dems get to be in charge for a while.
The problem these days is that the right-wing nut jobs are usually seen as just that, and nobody takes them seriously. But when people take the radical liberals seriously, which they seem to be doing, then the USA is headed for trouble.
I would tend to agree with some of the posters that it’s probably not curtains for the GOP.
However, I think this is true: there is a serious split in the party between the social conservatives and the more moderate fiscal conservative; smaller government group.
As long as the social conservatives hold sway, the Grand Ol’ Party will be divided on issues. As long as abortion views are a litmus test, the party will not be in the mainstream of American thinking.
When Ken Blackwell ran for governor, one of my Republican friends lamented to me: “My party has left me.”
This aint your father’s Republican Party any more.
When was the last time someone took the radical liberals serious?? 1932?
Perhaps a more appropriate title would be end of the GOP as we know it. John McCain being the presidential candidate for the party is evidence of that.
Agreed that it’s not your father’s GOP anymore but my bigger question is how in the h*ll did the ultra-liberals hijack the Democratic Party?
Who are these ultra liberals and how do they have the Democratic party hijacked???
The Democratic Presidential candidate is not pushing universal health care, is a capitalist, has no real government programs he his spouting.
The Democrats main points this year were the Iraq Occupation (War is over when the other leader is overthrown and killed), the expansion of the Executive Party and a repeal of the tax cut to the top 5%…..
If that is ultra liberal well you have got me confused. The Democrats are straddling a line so close to the middle it isn’t funny.
Rather than ask who the ultra liberals are, it might make sense to say how we would know them if we saw them. What makes a position or collection of positions liberal or “ultra liberal”? Admittedly these political labels are not all that descriptive. Bush Conservatives got very emotionally attached to Bush’s war in Iraq and the power of his executive branch. But they didn’t feel the same about Clinton’s war in Bosnia and his executive branch. Taxing the rich at the same rates that Reagan did? Privatizing everything, like schools and Social Security, but not large financial corporations that get in trouble. Women like Palin but not women like Hillary, or vice versa? Authority of bosses, men, generals, parents, religious and legal texts? How much power government has? What part of government? Homeland Security? The NLRB? The EPA? The welfare department? Who should be uninsured and unable to access and pay for health care, and why? Who should get paid a living wage and who shouldn’t? When we reward and when we restrain greed? Whether we respect the planet or tear it up to get what we want? Who loves who and how? Whether we ever sing Kum by Yah?
Or is it just about particular groups of people as opposed to other groups of people? Classes, cultures, genders, continents of ancestry, generations, who they choose to be with?
Or is about particular policies or even programs? And which programs?
I have felt that attitudes toward authority are the main fault line, but that is probably an oversimplification.
The Democratic Presidential candidate is not pushing universal health care? You should check his web site. He’s a capitalist? Capitalists don’t believe in income redistribution nor do they believe in government bailouts. I hope he has no programs he is spouting because there is no money left to anything with.
And yes, ultra-liberals like George Soros, Michale Moore, etc. are running the party. Middle of the line…ha ha…that’s a good one!