Party of Palin?
A subsidiary theme within the flood of commentary on the Obama victory is the fate of the Republican Party. In an article on Monday entitled "The Republican Rump," Paul Krugman suggested that "the Republican rump, the party that's left after the election, will be the party that attends Sarah Palin's rallies, where crowds chant "Vote McCain, not Hussein!" It will be the party of Saxby Chambliss, the senator from Georgia, who, observing large-scale early voting by African-Americans, warns his supporters that "the other folks are voting." It will be the party that harbors menacing fantasies about Barack Obama's Marxist -- or was that Islamic? -- roots."
Let's hope it doesn't play out that way.
There are too many issues where Republican support will be needed -- from a new economic stimulus package to important foreign policy initiatives like the ratification of a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) -- to allow the party to degenerate into a narrow, mean-spirited, oppositionist body that tries to obstruct and destroy all things Democratic.
But where is the incentive for Republicans to pursue a more moderate course? Principled moderates like Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska are either gone or about to be gone from the Senate, and the Obama campaign made significant inroads among independent and moderate Republican voters who would form the logical electoral base for a more centrist GOP.
The two word answer is -- political survival. With 19 Republican Senators up for re-election in 2010 plus the whole House of Representatives up for grabs (as usual), there could be considerable pressure for Congressional Republicans to either show that they can get things done or be shown the door by the voters.
Maybe, just maybe, there will be some actual soul searching among Republicans that will take account of the party's history of genuine conservatism and moderation, from Eisenhower's opposition to bloated military programs to Reagan's embrace of the abolition of nuclear weapons to the libertarian strain that wants government to stay out of people's private lives. The new strain among evangelicals that stresses broader issues like environmental stewardship and dealing with global poverty over social issues like abortion and gay marriage may provide one pillar of a possible "revival of moderation" in Republican circles.
I'm not sure how we can foster a new, forward looking Republican Party, but I know it is critical to securing many of the things that progressives care about. The main leverage is an appeal to mainstream Republicans to consider the following: 1) do they wanted to be tainted by the hate-mongering and divisiveness that characterized a significant minority of Sarah Palin's "groupies" on the campaign trail?; and 2) do they really want their party to risk being excluded from any meaningful exercise of power for the next generation?
Perhaps the time is ripe for a third party. As in a Labor Party, as they have in the UK.
Of course no tried and true Democrat wants that as a talking point. I don't follow politics enough to know what the ramifications of a Labor (I take it from my limited knowledge of politics that the UK Labor Party is centrist) would be.
But with the GOP's earthquake fault lines that we are reading about, and with politicians like Lieberman lurking about, I think it's possible for a middle of the road party to emerge.
November 6, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the primer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK)
We could all abandon the Democratic Party and start a Labor Party. That way we would no longer be the target of the slanderous slogan of "liberal." As we can counter argue "centrist." Which in reality I think we really are. And the Green Party could then take up ranks in the Democratic Party.
I think this would be greatly to our advantage. But I also think the chances of getting it to happen are the snowflakes chance in in Ecuador.
November 6, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was struck by the overwhelming shift exhibited in a NYT graphic. It showed districts tremding more Democratic eveywhere except in Appalachia, which went the other way, more Republican than previous elections. Dumb getting dumber?
Take a look, (choose "voting shift").
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/map.html
November 6, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I saw the same map. Although the regions covered are not really Appalachia, they do correspond to the migrations of the Ulster-Scots, the "redneck" vote. see http://www.joebageant.com/ Joe is a good read and really understands the beliefs of this group. They are not likely to come around anytime soon.
November 6, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the link to Joe Bageant. I will follow him for a while although I suspect I will object to his descriptions of the culture from time to time. At least for the moment he has the ear of some people who are making an attempt to understand. I don't expect that will last. In fact, it is probably already over now that the votes are in.
I offer you this link to a bit of information on Appalachia and the Ozarks in return. Note the section on Economics. Sometimes geography is destiny.
November 6, 2008 11:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Emma.
November 8, 2008 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
...(T)he party that's left after the election, will be the party that attends Sarah Palin's rallies, where crowds chant "Vote McCain, not Hussein!"... Let's hope it doesn't play out that way.
Why not? To the extent the GOP plays to this troglogdyte "base" it will further marginalize itself to the status of obscure, regional party - no longer a player on the national scene. Americans, overwhelmingly, were disgusted and appalled by the gutter trolling of the McCain campaign, and this was a profound component in the defeat of the GOP ticket, and it's exile from Congress. Regardless of any cherished, blinkered worldviews we may possess, any delusions of moral provenance, the balance of this country knows right from wrong and decent from depraved.
Besides, the neocons are busy trying to hang the election loss on Palin - to cover their own, almost exclusive culpability in the GOP catastrophe. That will shatter the Republican Party even more.
November 6, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
The first step in a new republican party that embraces their true progressive conservative roots will be democrats being gracious in victory and following the example of our new president-elect to provide the space needed for that soul-searching.
The only thing that can slow down the republican conversion to opposition party working toward broad, national goals than obstructionist party hindering every new initiative is liberals.
The new democratic majority can have revenge or renewal but not both.
November 6, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jason,
The GOP will cease to exist as a viable political party unless it purges itself of its shifty "intellectual wing" so enthralled with international interventionism and unfettered financial greed. Republicans needed this election-year catastrophe the way we all need the occasional fender-bender that alerts us to the peril of highway disasters.
November 6, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is what's happening. The democratic party simply needs to give them enough space for the more common sense focused conservatives to take over. It will be a couple of election cycles, but it can derailed if we don't avoid acrimony on the part of the majority.
November 6, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, I think you didn't see the popular vote clearly enough. A five point victory shows that the pronouncements of GOP demise may be greatly overstated. The danger of overreach is the Achilles Heel facing most new majorities.
November 6, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like it or not, there is a segment of the American electorate composed of angry, threatened and bigoted white people who view liberals as agents of wealth redistribution and destroyers of "traditional" social values. Right-wing demagogues such as Limbaugh, Coulter and Hannity (as well as right-wing pastors) make a living by fanning the anxieties of this group. I think somewhere between 10-20% of the electorate is in this category and they are today the most reliable Republican voters.
It's impossible to see how the Republican party could abandon this group. What the Republicans will try to do instead is find a candidate who's embraced by the angry right but can still "close the deal" with the political center - just as Bush did in 1980. Instead of changing ideology, they'll just look for someone whose personal qualities (i.e., likeability) compel centrist voters to overlook ideology. Palin is not the only choice here but she will be on the short list.
In their analysis, Republicans will conclude that 2008 was lost because of Bush's unpopularity and McCain's erratic campaign. Changing ideology to fit a changing American mainstream is not in their DNA - for the right, governing is not a goal in itself but rather a means to impose their ideology. I expect 2012 to be driven by a search for a new messenger, not a new message.
November 6, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
And... the left is free of such subterfuge? What evidence do you offer for that suggestion? Too often we define our politics in moral terms - the righteous 'we' and the evil 'them'. At some point, we'll have to become more practical - and honest - about our views and goals. "Bigoted white people who view liberals as agents of wealth redistribution and destroyers of 'traditional social values" are worried about their own possessions, their own values... just as we all are. We define our political opponents as bad people who must be defeated, and it's a narrow leap to designating them evil people who must be destroyed. We're all human, after all, and none of us possess exclusive moral dominion.
November 6, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like it or not, there is a segment of the American electorate composed of angry, threatened and bigoted white people who view liberals as agents of wealth redistribution and destroyers of "traditional" social values. Right-wing demagogues such as Limbaugh, Coulter and Hannity (as well as right-wing pastors) make a living by fanning the anxieties of this group. I think somewhere between 10-20% of the electorate is in this category and they are today the most reliable Republican voters.
It's impossible to see how the Republican party could abandon this group. What the Republicans will try to do instead is find a candidate who's embraced by the angry right but can still "close the deal" with the political center - just as Bush did in 1980. Instead of changing ideology, they'll just look for someone whose personal qualities (i.e., likeability) compel centrist voters to overlook ideology. Palin is not the only choice here but she will be on the short list.
In their analysis, Republicans will conclude that 2008 was lost because of Bush's unpopularity and McCain's erratic campaign. Changing ideology to fit a changing American mainstream is not in their DNA - for the right, governing is not a goal in itself but rather a means to impose their ideology. I expect 2012 to be driven by a search for a new messenger, not a new message.
November 6, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I vote for the "electoral survival" tack. Start fundraising now, figure out who the most vulnerable half dozen are on any given issue and prepare the " doesn't want you to have affordable health care. Call their office now" ads.
Or if there's going to be a third party, let the sane republicans form it. The US isn't a parliamentary system, so a does or two wingnuts, even in the senate, won't hold the balance of power. Maybe in 20 years things will change enough so that the Non-bigot republican party will grow into an electoral challenge, and good on them.
I'm also not sure about that whole representing the angry and disaffected notion -- the right-wing propaganda machine has been sowing anger and disaffection for 40 years so that it could claim to represent it. A lot of those people (as this election showed) can be wooed back from the dark side in fairly straightforward fashion.
November 6, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the Republican brand becomes exclusively the party of Palin/Limbaugh, there's likely to be an emergence of the alternative political party to represent the view of the Buckleyite conservative libertarian wing of the party far more capable of attracting the large centrist bloc.
It would be both logical and ironic for the emergent party to adopt the Whig brand of olde. The logical bit would be the good fit to the olde Whig doctrine and constituency. At the end of the day, the Republican party remnant would very likely go the way of the olde Whigs. That would be the irony bit.
November 6, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the Republicans move toward the center, they will invariably leave the Religious Right behind. Afterall, anything less then Right, ain't right. They strength of the Religious Right is their unbending righteousness, whether that is actually right or not.
I suspect the Religious Right will form their own party. They have been seeking to develop their own society within the US for the past several decades. They have their own schools, colleges, and universities. They have their own music, dating sites, and churches. Maybe it's time they did, or at least they could. Something more then a moral majority.
Bush did his best to insert his Zom-Bushes into the AG office and elsewhere. His Monica actually could admit it was wrong to do so. She just couldn't see it while she was doing it. Definitely a Zom-Bush. Palin sent her son to Iraq because of 9/11, or at least that is what it sounded like when she sent his brigade to war. Of course, I am assuming she read evrything and was aware that pretty much everyone, including Bush, had to admit that 9/11 and Iraq are completely separate. Regardless, she still puts them together. It's not a conscious decision. It's a Zom-Bushes decision.
At last the people have woken up, or at least a majority have. The subliminal messages are being intercepted by consciousness by most people. In 2008, the Right had not realized people were onto those tactics which worked so well in 2004. The question is, what signals will they create to put the nation in a trance in 2012?
November 6, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
This part is just classic: "to allow the party to degenerate into a narrow, mean-spirited, oppositionist body that tries to obstruct and destroy all things Democratic."
Replace Democratic with Republican and you have the exact policy followed by Daschle, Reid, and Pelosi for the last 8 years. Sure, it would have been good for the country for democrats to work with Bush and the Republicans, but hey, party is more important. Now suddenly you see the error of your ways and want us all to work together. To enact your agenda, on your terms, of course.
Hopefully the Republican party will purge itself of the Bush/McCain moderates and stand on a defined set of principles. Less government, more freedom. Less spending, lower taxes.
November 6, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those are not realistic goals for a new GOP. Following that plan in a modern world and a country that needs rebuilding from the ground up is a recipe for suicide.
The GOP will be better served by helping to develop the broad, national strategy we need to take toward sustainability and help enable the solutions that will come from those discussions. By virtue of philosophy, that will lead to a conservative view of the progressive changes we MUST achieve to ensure the future success of our nation.
There are much better models of governance we can learn from than the tired old philosophy you are trying to sell and that most Americans won't buy.
Teddy Roosevelt was the original progressive conservative and Lincoln more than just the Great Emancipator. Their example is one the republicans should follow if it wishes to be grand again.
November 7, 2008 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Baloney. You give congressional Democrats too much credit. In the nearly six years the democrats were completely out of power, they were steamrolled again and again, offering little opposition to crappy legislation and right-wing appointments.
Then, when the Democrats regained control of Congress in 2007, the Republicans staged an unprecedented number of filibusters to block their legislation.
But please, go on thinking that the Republicans need to go on blocking legislation as revenge for some imagined stonewalling by Democrats. That strategy has been a big hit with voters.
November 8, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Republican party finds it needs every segment of the tapeworm it has evolved into to win anything.
November 6, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is left of the Republican party is not something anyone can "reason" with or help along the road to moderation. What you've got is the kamikazi right wingers who hate and villify moderate Republicans as much as they do Democrats. Furthermore, the "party" is not controlled by it's elected officials. It is now controlled by the wingnuts mentioned above and their cheerleaders like Limbaugh, Hannity, et al... They're in it for the money, not political victory. In fact, you could easily make an argument that electoral failure benefits the likes of Hannity, Limbaugh and their many imitators.
Instead of trying to resurrect a time that never was with a strategy of being gracious that doesn't work, how about stomping those creeps into the dust and making it clear to the public what extremists they are and how insane are their policies? We took the gracious route after Nixon and they only used that as an opportunity to become more combative and Clinton tried his best to get along with them and we know what happened there. You can't cooperate or work with such loonies. Better to bash them into tiny bits and let some new party of moderate rise from the ashes.
November 7, 2008 1:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Way to follow the lead of our new president elect. Stop them into the ground and ensure that nothing gets done over the next four years and you lose both houses of Congress. You can have revenge or you can have renaissance, but you can't have both.
November 7, 2008 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Renaissance of what?
You are living in a fantasy world if you think there was ever a time of "bipartisan" cooperation that wasn't a result of the Republicans being so incredibly weak that they had no other choice but to go along. In order to achieve that they must be crushed.
But for the new President elect's good fortune of having the economy collapse in September he likely would not be President elect right now. His appealing campaign rhetoric about bipartisanship wasn't enough to get him elected and won't be enough to get anything done in Congress since the obstructionist Republican Party will do all it can to thwart his every effort. Wake up Jason. Your fantasy has been tried before and it doesn't work. There's no cooperating with these people. Don't take my word for it. Read what Krugman had to say about this in August:
"In any case, remember this the next time someone calls for an end to partisanship, for working together to solve the country’s problems. It’s not going to happen — not as long as one of America’s two great parties believes that when it comes to politics, stupidity is the best policy."
Paul Krugman
Aug. 7, 2008
November 7, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are living in a fantasy world if you think Obama can accomplish anything with only the Raging Left on his side. The so-called obstructionist party won't be an option in a world that requires big changes.
You must think conservatives are stupid if you imagine for a second that they don't understand the challenges we face. That is why many of the smartest republicans supported Obama. To help mitigate the damage that the extreme nature of our politics has wrought.
Obama ran so he wouldn't have to rely on a democratic base in order to accomplish broad,m national goals. Your inability to see reason and common sense will hamper Barack's ability to move the country forward.
November 7, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
An American Renaissance that I didn't think needed explanation since it is our only way out of this mess.
November 7, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
gs62 wrote: "... for the right, governing is not a goal in itself but rather a means to impose their ideology."
Ideology and governing go hand in hand for both "left" and "right".
The Republican Party of Dick Cheney and George W. Bush is a political party only in name. In practice it is an organized crime cartel: a gang of career white collar crooks and war profiteers masquerading as "neoconservative" ideologues in order to seize control of the government and use the power of the state for corrupt purposes of private financial gain for themselves and their cronies and financial backers.
The fake, phony, trumped-up "neoconservative" pseudo-ideology of the Cheney-Bush cartel is in reality a smokescreen used to bamboozle the gullible and provide cover while this gang of crooks looted the Treasury to enrich themselves and their ultra-rich corporate masters at the expense and to the detriment of the American people.
And the 2008 campaign made it abundantly obvious that the bought-and-paid-for tool of corporate lobbyists, John McCain, and the petty thief Sarah Palin, had every intention of becoming the new front-men for the ongoing criminal enterprise that the Republican Party has become.
Any rank-and-file, principled Republicans who may exist -- whatever their political ideology may be -- who hope to restore the American's people's respect for their party would do well to start by rooting out the rapacious, ruthless corruption and criminality that have become its distinguishing characteristics.
Good luck with that -- you have your work cut out for you.
November 7, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see any need to foster a new, forward-looking Republican party. They will either moderate or make themselves disappear. If the drubbing they just received doesn't do the trick, nothing can, and that's their problem. My .02.
November 8, 2008 12:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's actually the country's problem if one of its two major political parties remains in the hands of zealots. I honestly thought democrats had more heart, more empathy, than is being shown here. Guess I was wrong and it is all marketing.
November 8, 2008 7:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Caution, not elation or revenge, should be on the Democrats' program now.
We had eight years of catastrophic system failure. Examining the reasons for this should be high on the agenda, though I doubt there is any incentive for anyone to do this. 'Learning from experience' doesn't seem to be high on anyone's priority right now, and this will ensure the further erosion of our public institutions.
Democrats need to keep a wary eye on the GOP, certainly. But it remains to be seen whether the Democrats can achieve the task of rebuilding that is absolutely necessary right now, and which demands a new level of committment and accountability from our politicians. If they are not up to this, voters will reelect Republicans in a flash.
November 8, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't look towards the libertarians for anything. All our most critical challenges (see, healthcare) involve spending money, and spending money is the number one sin in *their* wackjob religion. Palin herself is much less philosophically-opposed than are the libertarians to activist government.
November 9, 2008 11:56 PM | Reply | Permalink