Will The Republicans Become The Whigs?
There is a great deal of hand-wringing going on inside the Republican Party right now. The potential of a landslide blowout by Obama and the Democrats is inevitably leading to a battle over which faction will control the Republican Party after the election. On one side are the Limbaugh shock-troops, the loud angry social conservatives that have dominated the base for 25 years. These people are completely embarrassing to the intellectual movement conservatives like David Brooks.
And so, politically, the G.O.P. is squeezed at both ends. The party is losing the working class by sins of omission -- because it has not developed policies to address economic anxiety. It has lost the educated class by sins of commission -- by telling members of that class to go away.
Chris Buckley, son of the founder of modern conservative thought William Buckley, just announced he was going to vote for Obama, partly because the right wing kooks scared the bejesus out of him.
My colleague, the superb and very dishy Kathleen Parker, recently wrote in National Review Online a column stating what John Cleese as Basil Fawlty would call "the bleeding obvious": namely, that Sarah Palin is an embarrassment, and a dangerous one at that. She's not exactly alone. New York Timescolumnist David Brooks, who began his career at NR, just called Governor Palin "a cancer on the Republican Party."As for Kathleen, she has to date received 12,000 (quite literally) foam-at-the-mouth hate-emails. One correspondent, if that's quite the right word, suggested that Kathleen's mother should have aborted her and tossed the fetus into a Dumpster. There's Socratic dialogue for you. Dear Pup once said to me sighfully after a right-winger who fancied himself a WFB protégé had said something transcendently and provocatively cretinous, "You know, I've spent my entire life time separating the Right from the kooks."
So here is the question. Will the "kooks" take over the defeated Republican Party, with Sarah Palin as their Joan of Arc? If so, where would the "Buckley conservatives" go?
The only reason I could even ask this question is because of the power of Right Wing Radio. When someone capable of "riling up the brownshirts", like Rush Limbaugh makes $20 million a year, it inevitably attracts imitators like Michael Savage and Sean Hannity and all the hate fest shock jocks who ply their trade in local markets. Over the last 20 years these propagandists have managed to convince a lot of hard working Americans that all their problems can be traced to liberals and government meddling in the free market economy. Even though conservatives have had a veto over the American political process for 26 out of the last 28 years (Given that Clinton only had two years with a Democratic Congress), the kooks bought into this line of unreason. And of course now they are witnessing the great unraveling and they are both confused and angry and that is spilling out at rallies for Palin and McCain where hate and bigotry against "the other" seem out of control.
Ultimately the moves to control the Republican National Committee in January will be important to watch. If the hard right wins the battle to control the party, then the Democrats should make room in their "Big Tent" for the Buckley's and the Brook's, with the notion of a permanent center-left governing coalition. The Palin Republican brand will be marginalized to a permanent (though loud) minority status. But if the Washington center right establishment retakes control of the party, then Limbaugh, Savage and their kooks will inevitably split off into some sort of third party faction. The Republican Party would lose its foot soldiers and might go the way of the Whigs in the 1850's.
It would be comforting to believe that the two outcomes you mention, both of which mean the end of the Republican Party as an equal contender for control of the government, would end, are the only possible outcomes. Unfortunately, the press is also in the equation. And, they won't allow that to happen.
If people were actually informed about how the Republican Party has brought about virtually the whole menu of disasters we now face or have faced in the past 8 years, then your outcomes would probably be the only options. But, I can see the press doing their usual dance where they simply refuse to report bad news for Republicans, preferring to pretend that everything that happened was equally caused by the Democratic Party.
Our voters just aren't very well informed. It will be extremely easy for the press to convince the majority that it was the Democratic Congress of the past two years that was at least equally to blame, even for the Katrina mess. And, since Democrats have this habit of viewing all people as pretty much equal, most voters will reject them in the next election.
I hope you are right and I am wrong.
October 11, 2008 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
hoppy,
good post.
October 12, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amazing, isn;t it, how some people never learn from history.
The meltdown of the GOP can be said to mirror almost perfectly the 1968 meltdown of the Democrats into 2 warring camps - and which led directly to the marginilization of their party and a near 25-year collapse at the Executive level.
You would think this would have served as a lesson.
October 11, 2008 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait, wasn't David Brooks the one who went gaga over Palin?
October 11, 2008 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
If so, where would the "Buckley conservatives" go?
Is Ross Perot still drawing breath??
I could easily envision the GOP experiencing a true schism, with the Rapture Ready/Forced-Pregnancy freaks taking matters to the nth degree; essentially becoming our very own Taliban -- but you pretty much hinted at that in your post.
Which leaves the salient fallout query: whither the more socially-sane/$$-oriented conservatives.
Ironically enough, after having pilloried the Dems for all of Clinton's term as being uber-liberal, perhaps now they'd be amenable to accepting that social/economic compact as desirable. All the while we could accept it pretty much as baseline, and incrementally-but-relentlessly more the sticks to the left as concerns labor, environmental, and health & welfare standards.
Their choice: Hmm.. do I wish to live in Europe-Lite -- or the Handmaid's Tale??
October 11, 2008 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
coralsea,
even the "socially-sane/$$-oriented conservatives" the non-nuts, took part in the vicious, unjustified attacks on Clinton, and then they supported Bush/Cheney, dancing in the streets when they finally took control of all three branches.
No one can deny that these "socially-sane/$$-oriented conservatives" were much better off, as was the country, under Clinton, than under Bush/Cheney.
I think what they did is called "shooting yourself in the foot."
October 12, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
the media, with the help of the Republican communications machine, always present a false symmetry of blame--part Democrats, part Republicans.
With the economy, the war, the current negative attack ads.
There's no comparison between the racist gutter that the McCain campaign operates out of and the Obama campaign.
In a Republican world, only Republicans are patriotic . Only Republicans are American.
Only Republicans represent the real values of small town America. (This premise is so painfully absurd.)
In politics, reality is nothing. Perception is everything.
I look forward to the inevitable self-demise of both parties and the recognition that America isn't king of the hill in this, the 21st century. I hope we don't learn the hard way. We can be a great country among many great countries.
Or we can become an empire brought down by greed and arrogance.
Those are the only two options.
October 11, 2008 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
. . . government meddling in the free market economy.
How could any sentient human being with the slightest understanding of economics upon observing the current economic conditions not understand that "government meddling" is the cause of those conditions?
People haven't needed to be "convinced" of this sensible conclusion by "propagandists." All they've needed to do is look about and around.
October 12, 2008 1:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Define meddling.
From McClatchy:
Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.
Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height vrom 2004 to 2006.
Federal Reserve Board data show that:
_ More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.
_ Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
_ Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.
The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets reported Friday.
October 12, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Define meddling.
This is soooo tiresome. Oh, well --
1) FRB manipulating interest rates not to mention its having published the Greenspan put and the too-big-to-fail policy.
2) FDIC promoting moral hazard -- not to mention underpricing the insurance premium.
3) GSEs being implicitly backed by the full faith and credit of the Treasury -- not to mention their having overpaid for mortgages and undercharged for insurance.
There are many, many actions the government could have taken to minimize the crisis (I'm limiting my list to its proactive grow-the-economy-at-any-cost policies), but as against the artificially low interest rates set by the Fed, nothing would have prevented the asset inflation and resulting bust.
October 12, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for enlightening us masses.
Remind me how FDIC aggravated moral hazard? If regulations require a proper cash reserve, FDIC should not encourage risk-taking.
October 12, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's not intended as a serious question, is it?
Don't answer; you'll only embarrass yourself.
October 12, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Federal Reserve is a private organization not beholden to government except in the most basic of ways. If the economy is shitty, talk to to the assholes in the financial industry and not the government.
October 12, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have heard of the Federal Reserve Act?
You do realize that the Federal Reserve is a government institution?
You recognize that POTUS appoints all seven members of its Board of Governors?
And most importantly, you understand that the Fed affects interest rates and can do so only because it is a government institution?
October 12, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was just four years ago, when Democrats suffered massive losses across the country, that people were saying that the Democrats were done for and that America was headed for decades of Republican dominance. It's always dangerous to make such predictions.
Nevertheless, I do think that Reaganism--the dominant political paradigm of the past 25 years--may indeed be dead. Reaganism, owned by the Republicans, replaced FDR's New Deal, owned by the Democrats, as the mainstream American political ideology in the 1980s, and because of that, Republicans have dominanted political discourse since 1980. Democrats who have won (Clinton) have done so only by adopting the core aspects of Reaganism, much as Republicans, prior to 1980, had to accept much of the New Deal.
The question now is what ideology is next in line to become the doiminant ideology. I don't yet see anything transformative in either Obama's or McCain's messages yet. But whoever comes up with the next great vision will lay the groundwork for his or her party's dominance for decades to come.
Another question, though, raises it's ugly head. As we look at the great failures of our government in recent years, from Iraq to Katrina to the current financial meltdown, from our collapsing infrastructure and declining industries to our loss of leadership in the world, one wonders if anyone can come up with any approach to governing that can save us--or if America is now about to enter a new period of decline and failure where no party will be able to solve our problems and where the whole political system we have relied on for more than 200 years is threatened with destruction.
I do worry, not so much about which party will become dominant, but whether any party can restore America to the health and vigor to which we have all become accustomed.
October 12, 2008 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your reference to Limbaugh's ability to rile up the brownshirts is apt. If you take out the intellectually serious side of the conservative party -- those who can wax philosophical about the insights of Hayek, Friedman, and Burke -- you have something very close to a fascist party: intensely nationalist, anti-capitalist (i.e, anti-liberal in the classical sense) and anti-communist, anti-intellectual, and racist. Its members are convinced of their own moral superiority and genuineness and castigate their opponents as un-American (echoes of undeutsch). Add a Fuehrerprinzip -- the need or desire for a "strong leader" -- and we're getting pretty close to an American Fascism.
Given the economic woes that are certainly around the corner, how long before the Limbaughs begin to bray even louder for the forcible deportation of all illegal immigrants, and even perhaps all recent legal immigrants? And so on.
In the end, though, I expect the intellectual/fiscal conservatives to try to regain control of the Republican party. After all, it is their party, and, since Nixon, they have only used "the rubes" for their own political benefit.
October 12, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
"But if the Washington center right establishment retakes control of the party, then Limbaugh, Savage and their kooks will inevitably split off into some sort of third party faction."
I think the Republican Party is running straight over the edge of the cliff, in part, because the center right has effectively taken control of the *Democratic* Party. So long as Republicans feel the electoral need of distinguishing themselves from that, I imagine they'll still find a use for their crazy wing.
Maybe we should be asking what the Democrats intend to do, assuming they win this election. After all, in squawking about bailing out Wall Street with taxpayer dollars, the House Republicans have sort of positioned themselves to claim they're the ones who are on the side of the people. I hardly heard a peep in objection outta, say, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.
October 12, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can no longer distinguish the intellectual conservatives from the social conservatives. The likes of Brooks and Parker and Buckley give cover the the nuts. Brooks, for example, while calling Palin a cancer on the GOP at a speech to a conservative group, has not come close to such blunt criticism in his column. In fact, after the speech, he dialed it back in his NYT column the very next day.
If anyone can find anything resembling an actual conservative in elected national office, I'd like to know who it is.
October 12, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
the leaders among the social conservatives know that disassociating from the republican party would mean political irrelevance. and the movement conservatives know that a republican party without the social conservatives in the coalition would relegate the party to the wilderness.
that the mccain campaign shit the bed in an election cycle where the republican brand was already stinking the place up doesn't mean that either the social conservatives or movement conservatives are gonna burn the place down by leaving the coalition.
this is just one election cycle. there is nothing here that won't be fixed in another election cycle (or two) with a couple fresh faces, a few resurrected personalities, and some opposition party rhetoric.
there won't be any big shake up in the party because there isn't any big shift ideologically. despite the heated empty rhetoric of the republican party this (or any other recent election cycle) isn't about socialism vs capitalism. this is about some relatively minor regulatory differences (albeit with significant consequences). (and despite some of the dems' favorite rhetoric) it isn't about regulation or no regulation (or de-regulation) - it is about which regulation and how regulation.
and in the end we aren't gonna end up with any new new deal no matter how big the dem majorities in congress. there's no FDR nirvana coming. just some cleaning up and regulation that might be a little smarter or at least just a little less reckless. the movement conservative ideologues will swallow what little actual ideology they cling to and skillfully frame/re-frame the debate to keep themselves in the game.
October 12, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the Republicans face a multi-step operation in recasting their party. Assuming that Obama and the Congressional Democrats win big, they will be confronted with the following:
WHO TO BLAME: We Democrats will be better off if we support casting a wide net. It should include Gingrich, DeLay, Bush-Cheney and the Neo Con's, All the Right Religious types, (Robertson, Falwell, Dobson, Haggert, and all their organizations) and yes, Limbaugh and Coulter and all the rest in the media -- FOR STARTERS. Someone forced the issue of putting Palin on the ticket this year -- and all that meant in terms of campaign strategy. So we should be encouraging them to identify the responsible leadership -- and cast them out. Getting moderate Republican support for decentralizing media ownership and control in the next congress ought to be a minimal price they need to pay. Getting a new version of "fairness" regulation that allows rights of response to the same audience, ought to be at the core of our advocacy. Enforcement of IRS regulations prohibiting the use of Churches for Partisian Political Purposes ought to also be pushed. There are a number of "moves" such as these Democrats can lead, and expect moderate Republican Support, simply because they are valid reforms.
WHAT TO BLAME: If they are to survive, Republicans need to destroy wingnut ideology, and replace it with new (or re-worked ancient) positions. For example, they need to have a huge internal argument about Market Fundamentalism. McCain's assertion that the Health Care System should be reorganized to work like our Banking System (before the crash) -- or that market principles be applied to K-12 schools -- they need to challenge these notions themselves, and evolve a much more sophisticated value system than "The One and Forever Holy Market." But Democrats should help them along by observing the internal Republican debate, and running a constant commentary.
I don't favor one party states -- so I hope the Republicans get a good physical, take the nasty medicine for what ails them, and very gradually learn to live with a healthy life style.
October 12, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink