Republicans Split!

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 20:30


Note: This is my final diary (well, for today at least) mining the Democracy Corps report, "The Change Election Awaiting Change", for nuggets of wonky goodness.

What if the Versailles punditalkcrazy were reality-based?  Just for one weekend, say.  What would they be talking about now?  One hot topic would probably be the horribly divided state of the GOP in the wake of its staggering electoral loss.  And one of the best illustrations of that deeply divided state is reflected in this question asked by Democracy Corps, about how Republicans should respond to Barack Obama and his agenda [click for wider version]:

An overwhelming majority of everyone else wants Republicans to cooperate with Obama.  But Republicans themselves are split right down the middle--45% say "cooperate", 47% say, "no way."  There's nothing really new in this division, it's been there for a long, long time, usually deeply buried because the GOP leadership is so expert at burying such things.  But the fact that is shows up now, so starkly in this way is indicative of just how bad things have become for the GOP.

Paul Rosenberg :: Republicans Split!
The GOP turnout for this election was roughly 32%, so just under half that is roughly 15%, and that's just about the size of the hard core conservative voting base.  Even they are much more liberal than the movement conservative ideological core, which is only around 1%, but they're a respectable chunk of voters, which can't really be said about 1% of the population.

Where do I get these figures?  I've written about them various times, for example, back in late June in "The Deep--And Hidden--Divide In American Politics":

Social Spending--Round 1

Next, we look at another combined measure, which measures support for social spending on aix national priorities:

      A. Improving and protecting the environment.
      B. Improving and protecting the nation's health
      C. Solving the problems of the big cities
      D. Improving the nation's education system
      E. Improving the conditions of Blacks
      F. Welfare

Again, the movement conservative position is clear: none of this is any of the government's business. Just to be merciful, I'm going to start off with a measure that lumps things together into big chunks.  That way, conservatives can claim anyone who wants to cut more than they want to hold steady or increase spending--a much bigger group of people than those who want to cut everything.  But even being exceedingly generous, the number of conservative believers is a tiny minority--again, even less than the 23% Bush dead-enders:

See that 15.5% who think we're spending too much on 1-6 programs, net?  That's the roughly 15% I'm talking about.  It's about the same size as the hard core of GOP believers who approve of Dick Cheney.  And right now, around the issue of whether the GOP should work with Barack Obama or oppose him, this hard core of GOP true believers stands exposed in the national spotlight as the marginal group they truly are.

Of course, they are not alone, scattered across the country.  They have a powerful political movement speaking for them.  It's what usually manages to rally the other half of the GOP voting base, and from their they build out to include GOP-leaning independents, and willing tools in the Versailles media, to browbeat every last Democrat they can drag before the cameras, to send a message to America--"We are not a tiny, isolated minority, we are the real Americans! And if you stand against us, you're nothing but a lily-livered traitor!

That's how it works in normal times. That 15% is like Oz the Great and Terrible, hiding behind the curtain.  But every once in a while, something miraculous happens.  Toto pulls back the curtin, and we can see what a tiny little force lurks behind the deceptive apparatus of power.  Now is one of those times.  And the question before is is what can we do to make the most of it--and perhaps, just perhaps, use this moment of revelation to change our politics deeply, profoundly, and forever.

It's precisely because the GOP is in this weakened state right now that the Versailles punditalkcrazy is so adamantly pressuring Obama and the Democrats, trying to put them--and us--on the defensive.  The reality, as almost always, is the exact opposite of what our political masters tell us it is.


Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
What can we do to make the most of it? (0.00 / 0)
I think the most seminal thing we can to is to refute the conservative philosophy in general and in detail.  Every one of Bush's catastrophes arose from one or more conservative principles.  Each catastrophe is a refutation.  All we have to do is catalog them.

Counter Philosophy... (4.00 / 1)
It seems to me that the comprehensive response to the Ideological remains of Republicanism is a wholehearted embrace of Pragmatism.  Rather than getting caught up in arguments about Conservative Ideology, small government, and all that goes with those talking points -- we need to loudly put forward the "What Works?" question, and address that question to a far broader audience than Conservative Ideologists can pull out with their positions.  

What Works = Liberal (0.00 / 0)
A would agree wholeheartedly, and underscore that there's a deep historical justification for regarding this as a typically liberal approach.

The reason is simple: Liberalism, on a grand scale, is all about what works.

Tolerance is one of the key liberal principles, for example,  but it started as a purely pragmatic notion--accept religious tolerance, or else keep fighting till there was no one left alive on the European continent.  But after a while--not very long, really--as people realized it was working out pretty well, they began to reconsider it as a positive value.  It was the experience of the initially pragmatic idea that lead to theorizing after the fact about why it was such a good idea.

This sort of after-the-fact theorizing is fundamentally different from mere speculation based on whatver evidence seems to fit.  And that pretty much remains the fundmental methodological dividing line between liberalism and conservatism to this day.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
It's working (0.00 / 0)
The whole hearted embrace of the Club For Growth, demographic changes, and the collapse of weak Republican districts created by gerrymander is leaving the Republicans with a smaller number of still weak districts represented by hard core members.

First let's look at which members lost.  Using Progressive Punch data, 8 of the 20 most moderate Republicans are gone mostly due to electoral loss and partly due to retirement.  Seventeen of the 50 most moderate are gone.  By contrast, only 3 of the 50 most conservative seats are gone.  The surviving Republicans are not only smaller in number but they are way more conserevative.

Second, states which gerrymandered Republican House majorities have seen them disappear.  Virginia went from 8-3 Republican to (probably) 6-5 Democratic.  PA over several elections went from 11-8 Republican to 12-7 Democratic.  IL, MI, OH have all undergone tremendous shifts mostly over the past two cycles.  Even FL is slowly moving from the 18-7 super gerrymander to 15-10 today.

Leading the way in many cases are demographic changes that put the lily white, male-centric Republicans in trouble.  Northern Virginia, once a Republican bastion now has 3 Democratic districts and one Republican which includes a substantial portion of rural areas in the northern Shenandoah Valley.  These districts have changed and now include substantial Asian and Hispanic populations.

None of these things seem likely to stop any time soon.  Democrats in the House represent 115 districts where they received 70% or more of the vote;  Republicans represent only 26 of these super safe 70% districts.  The case is worse, of course, in the areas of the country that are historically Democratic.  In the Northeast, Democrats have a 36-0 edge in 70% Districts.  Republicans scored under 60% in 9 of their 17 seats and the PVIs of five of their 8 semi-safe seats are threatening (R+1, R+2, D+2, R+0, D+7).  California, one of their two key remaining House bastions (weird but 18 seats are big)includes 13 seats where Republicans drew under 60%.  

Even genius use of focus group based messaging can only slow the lemming like march off the cliff.  In the 200+ year history of the republic, no party had won two consecutive squeaker Presidential elections.  In fact, the only other time the country faced two squeaker elections in a row was 1796/1800.  The last time before Gore and Kerry (heck the only time before Gore and Kerry) that a losing candidate got 250 or more electoral votes was Charles Evans Hughes in 1916.

Effective governing by Jefferson destroyed the Fedralist Party.  Bad positioning and a failure to effectively respond to the key needs of the time destroyed the Whigs.  The Republican core is too weak to survive in a winner take all system on its own.  Republicans neeed to either broaden their base significantly or follow the Whigs and Federalists into the dust bin of history.


You Make Good Points, David (0.00 / 0)
But I'm not sure we can finish the GOP off so easily.  We sure can shrink them a bit more, though, that's for sure!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
"This is my final diary (well, for today at least)" (0.00 / 0)
We can take that paranthetical literally, I hope.

It's just a brief post electoral respite, right?

My feeling is that one must separate conservatism from small "r" republicanism and acknowledge that neither of those traditions are present in the modern day Republican party or it's politics. Small "r" republicanism as the founders understood it - and Plato and others described it - has nothing to do with today's Republican party. Conservatism is a much more recent tradition in American politics, depending on who you trace it back to. For some it is Burke. In the American tradition, however, I think it was Viereck, not Buckley. I'm not sure where you would put Robert Taft but considering the people in the club named for him... who cares.

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/...


Finish The Sentence, Dude! (0.00 / 0)
My last diary re the Democracy Corps data.

Yeah, the movement conservatives hated Viereck, 'cause the liberals appreciated him, don'tcha know!

I've said it many times before: the biggest chasm in American politics is not between liberals and conservatives, it's between movement conservatives and everyone else--including non-movement conservatives.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Yes... (0.00 / 0)
the biggest chasm in American politics is not between liberals and conservatives, it's between movement conservatives and everyone else--including non-movement conservatives.

I think this is something that some in left blogistan lose sight of. Much bitterness, which is something the right sowed and now must reap.

Willaim Timberman reads you from time to time. I wonder if he comments. I'll have to ask him.


[ Parent ]
Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search