The new red
Is this the new face of the Republican party?
Taking hints from the infighting amongst the Republican elite, it's clear that there's an identity crisis in the party. Some seem to think that reclaiming the middle ground is the way to go, while others believe that moving further to the right is the best way to survive. There is no compromise here, as anyone that sat through the last election and wondered how the other half of the country could disagree so completely with them will attest. If the party wants to avoid another embarrassing showing in 2010 and 2012, they have to make a serious, wholesale change.
Shifting ground
The future and relevance of The Republican Party is playing out right now. The mandate given by the public (Obama's margin of victory was the largest ever preceding a first term in office) is a sign of the shifting ground that Washington sits on, and it would be a grave mistake for conservatives to think that they can stand pat and give it the old college try come midterm elections. If the Republican Party hopes to survive as a major player, it's time for them to slim down and focus on the issues that can unite the largest portion of their base: God, guns, and family values.
The fact of the matter is that the Christians vote red overwhelmingly, and the candidates that appeal most to that demographic just aren't going to pick up a lot of moderates and independents. A look at the last election proves just how divisive a real far-right candidate can be: half of the country saw Sarah Palin as one of the greatest threats to the preservation of our Union, while the other half flocked in Obama-esque numbers to bask in her folksy glow.
No centrists
A centrist Republican doesn't have what it takes to capture enough votes from the Democrats in an election, and our last election is proof of that as well. Plenty of people believed that McCain's history of breaking lockstep with the party would win him votes while the right would stick with him because he wore the Republican mantle. His history was a liability, though, to the religious conservatives, and he was getting trounced as a result of alienating the traditional Republican base in the polls. This forced him to rethink his strategy and resulted in the Palin pick. McCain's greatest moment was right after the convention when he pulled even with Obama as the base was energized and the moderate voters took time to give the newcomer her chance to follow up on an impressive nomination speech. Unfortunately for McCain, she faltered in the following weeks, and the muddled signals on the McCain campaign's direction lost any momentum that had been built.
The Republicans shouldn't be shy about courting the right; there's a reason that George W. Bush was able to win twice despite enduring the kind of polarizing public opinion described above. They can't worry about defectors to the Democrats – politicians and voters alike – or losing the middle. Reagan Democrats are an outdated myth, and Dems will spread themselves too thin ideologically if they try to assimilate the center-right. Really, that leaves either a marginalized group of Republicans or the possibility of a splinter party forming to take up the ground that's been ceded. This would be a positive for the right, though. It's not coincidence that a smaller independent candidate played a large role in taking votes from George H. W. Bush and Al Gore in their narrow losses, and this spoiler role would be the most likely perch for a fledgling center-right party.
As John McCain said so many, many, many, many times in his late game stump speeches: "Change is coming, my friends." If the Republican Party fails to alter its message in the coming months and years, don't be surprised to see a third party rise with its roots in the aforementioned ideals of guns, God, and family. If nothing else, a populist like Sarah Palin would have the charisma to get at least Perot-like numbers at the polls, if not better, and rally the Christian Conservatives.
Sources:
• New York Times - "Election Results 2008"
• CNN - "Commentary: Democrats need more than working-class whites"
• Boston Globe - "Democrats must renew bond with working class"
• The Daily Telegraph - "Republican fears of historic Obama landslide unleash civil war for the future of the party"
• BBC - "Is Palin the Republican future?"
• The Huffington Post - "Huckabee Settles Scores With Fellow Republicans"
Why can't the Republican party go back to their origins of classical liberalism?
That would be like Weezer making good records again… it just won't happen.
Ouch. There's definitely a certain tension between the classically liberal/libertarian Republicans and the religious social conservatives but is it really all that wide? Aren't they united by their belief in free markets?
The whole US political system needs to branch out from it's stifling dichotomy. I say we look to Canada for influence and give more of a voice to the "smaller" parties. And by smaller parties I mean those that are less wealthy.
Perhaps then we can have the liberal/libertarians, religious social conservatives AND "legalize cannabis" parties (among others) represented equally. After all, we're a democratic nation, right?
:D
@ Ray: Certainly, the belief in free markets is a commonality, but I think that the divide on social issues trumps them because the religious right aren't interested in negotiating those positions to accommodate a greater portion of the population. A great example of this is Mike Huckabee ripping on Mitt Romney in his new book for not being conservative enough. Huckabee is another populist religious conservative that generated a decent amount of hype around himself that seems to be calling for a turn to the far right, and I truly believe that the far right base is a lot more zealous than those in the middle. Some more evidence of how gaping the divide between the classically liberal republicans and the religious social conservatives is the way that Republicans were openly calling for Palin to step down during the campaign. It had shades of Dan Quayle written all over it, and while the party has survived over the years despite the ideological difference between its two halves, I think that if the party does veer away from the middle, there won't be much common ground for the classic republicans.
@ Wendy: I think it would be great to have a more European or Canadian system where multiple parties could be included, but as you mentioned, our system doesn't readily function in a way that smaller parties can gain traction easily. One of the greatest lessons that smaller parties can take from the last election, though, is the way that Obama used the internet and small donors to raise money for his campaign. I think that a lot of smaller groups would be able to benefit from rallying their supporters for small contributions to at least compete and make a name for themselves.
On an organizational level as well, Obama did a great job of targeting where his campaign would dedicate resources to maximize their ROI. Granted, he had a TON of offices across the country to get voters to the polls and spread his message, but a smaller party could do something similar by working on a local level to grab government posts and working more organically to build the party in regions that are more receptive to their message.
If larger interests like the religious block look at the way that things are heading and decide to move away from their typical party affiliations in favor of creating their own parties, I think you could also see a switch to more interest parties instead of the big two. It would really take one or two of them, though, to do it right and have success for other that are considering the move to feel emboldened and really make the move.
I think too that some would argue that since we only have two parties, it sort of operates the way that a coalition would in some European nations where no one party has a large enough majority to operate and is forced to make concessions to another group in order to convince them to work in concert. Rather than smaller parties, we have the interests that have spent money and voted to bring the politicians to power based on their promises to advance certain interests and quash others, and their success is measured by support from those interests both monetarily and at the polls.
Bob kind of nailed it on the head there. Social freedom is closer to my heart because that's the stuff I have to live with day in and day out. Economic liberty is a joyful concept, but not at the expensive of not being allowed to buy beer on Sundays while I watch medical advancements branded immoral.
Leave your response!
Most Viewed
Most Commented
Recent Comments
Popular Topics