The "Implosion" of the Republican Party

[lavender]

Sort of a spin off but it was already in my mind.

Recently I have been reading various Republican critiques of Bush, including comments in a recent NYT editorial/opinion piece by former director of the EPA Christine Todd Whitman. After reading things recently I realized several things. I've hated Bush so much. I do think he is absolutely terrible for this country. But after really paying attention to what he is doing and what is being said, I'm beginning to realize one thing. If Bush continues as he is now - or even escalates that if he wins in 2004 without needing reelection - Bush could destroy the middle base of the Republican party.

Bush destroy the Republican party? That might seem a little odd. The man who got us tax breaks? The man who can do anything and still stay high in the opinion polls? The man who captured Saddam Hussein? The President who has "valiantly" (not my words) led us in this war against terrorism? This "wondrous" Republican is going to cripple the party? It might seem odd to say, it might get a few snickers from many people.

But, just read this recent op-ed piece from Christine Todd Whitman and think about it for a minute. I have my own thoughts.

On May 5, 1996, when I was halfway through my first term as governor of New Jersey, there was a picture of me on the cover of this newspaper's Sunday magazine, accompanied by the headline, "It's My Party Too." I liked that message so much, I had it framed and hung it in my office in Trenton and, later, Washington. To moderate Republicans like me, that headline proclaimed our belief that there was still room for us in the party of Lincoln.

Now, almost eight years later, many moderate Republicans feel even less certain of their place in the party. When President Bush, arguably one of the more conservative presidents in recent history, is under attack from the right wing of the party for his proposal regarding immigration and migrant workers, is it any wonder moderates feel out of sync?

It doesn't seem to matter to conservatives that moderates share their views on the vast majority of those bedrock principles that have always been the foundation of Republicanism: smaller government, the power of free markets, a strong national defense. Because we disagree on a few issues, most notably a woman's right to choose, many conservatives act as if they wish we moderates would just disappear.

This phenomenon is not unique to Republicans. Many moderate Democrats also feel alienated from their party; Senator Zell Miller of Georgia has recently written a book about it. Party estrangement is, sadly, bipartisan, and it is destroying American politics.

Some might ask why Republicans should be concerned about broadening their appeal to moderate voters; many in the G.O.P. believe it already is the majority party. And it is true that we have done a better job than the Democrats of winning the votes of a larger number of the shrinking percentage of voters who actually go to the polls.

But that doesn't mean Republicans have a lock on the electorate. We control Congress and the presidency, but a switch of fewer than 21,000 votes in two states in the 2002 elections would have denied Republicans control of the Senate. Had Al Gore been able to carry his home state, Tennessee, in 2000, today he'd be preparing for his own re-election campaign.

A true majority party should not be in such a potentially precarious position. We find ourselves in this situation in part because we too often follow the advice of political consultants to appeal not to a majority of the electorate but only to the most motivated voters — those with the most zealous, ideological beliefs. Both parties now concentrate largely on turning out greater numbers of their most fervent supporters.

As a result, candidates tailor their appeals to those who already agree with them. The inevitable outcome is rhetoric that precludes a sensible discussion of issues. Those with the most shrill voices are increasingly dominating our political discourse.

This strategy has also colored public policy. When I was administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, one of my first acts was to take a second look at a federal regulation limiting the level of arsenic in drinking water. There was no question the regulation as it then stood would be made more strict. The issue was whether the limit set by the previous administration, which had yet to take effect, had gone too far. I also wanted to make sure the regulation was based on sound science and a thorough cost analysis.

But the outcry from Democrats and the environmental lobby was mind-boggling. It set a tone that made sensible discussion of important questions almost impossible. In the end, after careful study, we allowed the stricter regulation to take effect.

Unfortunately, genuine advances in environmental protection were frequently lost amid extremist rhetoric. When the E.P.A. proposed a rule to reduce pollution from the thousands of unregulated diesel engines — tractors, backhoes, and other equipment — the National Resources Defense Council hailed it as "the most significant public health proposal in decades."

Within days, however, that changed. Other environmental groups expressed dismay that any environmentalist would say something so positive about the administration. Eventually the council wrote us a letter asking that we stop using that comment because it felt there could have been other environmental proposals that might have been more important to public health.

I also often had to battle extremists within my own party. I remember a Republican leader in Congress telling me not to use the word "balance" when talking about environmental policy — it implied that we were giving too much away to the environmentalists. Moderate voters who are concerned about the environment were often left frustrated.

Some Republican consultants say that since we're not going to win the votes of environmentalists anyway, we needn't worry about what they think. Yet there are plenty of voters who care about the environment, even if it's not the first thing they mention in polls. Politics that writes off large parts of the electorate is both counterproductive and short-sighted. Yet both parties seem determined to pursue that course.

What too many Republican strategists seem to have learned from the 2000 election is that the states which voted for Al Gore — the entire West Coast, most of the Northeast, much of the Upper Midwest — aren't worth fighting for. It's the wrong lesson.

Of the 20 states that President Bush lost in the 2000 election, 15 either had then, or have since elected, a Republican governor. Of those governors, almost every one can fairly be described as a moderate Republican: George Pataki in New York, Linda Lingle in Hawaii, Arnold Schwarzenegger in California, to name just three. In addition, polls show that in states like New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Maine, voters are evenly split in their party affiliation.

Moderates can find much to like in this president; the Republican Party need only show it values their support. President Bush's stance on issues like education, health care and the environment will resonate with moderates. If even half the states that have elected moderate Republican governors in recent years were added to what the president won in 2000, he would be re-elected in a landslide. If that happens, then Republicans from every part of the country, both moderate and conservative, could finally proclaim that the G.O.P. truly is their party, too.

 

[lavender]

Additionally, many libertarians within the Republican party have been coming out against Bush. They see his increased spending, his larger government, his faith based initiatives, and his near abuse of executive power and believe that he definitely doesn't stand for their fiscal and social beliefs.

When you look at Bush's policies: the faith based initiatives, the marriage proposal, his environmental policies (hurting wetlands in Florida, allowing more logging in forests, reversing much of the clean air act, not enforcing dumping and pollution problems by corporations); you realize that this president is not the compassionate conservative he claimed to be. He is definitely not the great uniter. That is evident in the incredible political polarization he causes. And he is definitely no moderate.

Everyone says it would be terrible for the Democrats to elect someone who was so far left - but the Republicans elected someone who was so far right. How's that going to turn out for them?

 

[Viper Vic]

Much of what you are quoting is true. I don't approve of Presidents Bush's spending on domestic issues.

The War On Terror, that is enough to bite the bullet and vote President Bush to another term.

The tax cuts are also a nice touch. The stock market recovering helps, hopefully I will recover the 250K I lost on the "Clintoon Crash and recession".

 

[Lasher]

It's interesting that with the country so evenly split that both parties are going to end up running candidates who are closer to their poles than the center. I'm wondering if this is a subconscious effect of having 3 straight elections that were greatly infuenced by 3rd party candidates that took away from the party base. I suspect so.

I also noticed your quote from Whitman mentioned Zell Meller who has just think week endorsed Bush. I'm thinking that Southern Democrats are going to be too excited about Dean.

I don't expect either pary to "implode". The Republicans have managed to recover from the Depression and Watergate in the past, the Democrats survived Reagan... Life goes on. I imagine it's just one of those time periods when the parties are going thru a redefinition of who they are and how America sees them.

Although it cracks me up to see anyone refer to the Republican party as the party of Lincoln. I don't believe he'd much recognize it anymore.

 

[lavender]

Lasher,

I've been reading quite a bit about Dean recently and have been listening to NPR's coverage of the Dean campaign. I think you should really go online and listen to what NPR said about Dean's record in Vermont. They discuss many things with people who worked with him in the government and other avenues.

From what I have heard and perceive I don't think Dean is all that radically left. Yes, he opposed the war. But, I don't think that is necessarily a "far left" idea especially now with all that we know. The only really leftist idea is universal health coverage and some would say the civil unions in Vermont. But, when you really look at his fiscal policies you can see that he is quite conservative/moderate fiscally.

I think the far left nature of Dean has been radically exaggerrated. I can honestly say I was surprised to hear so much about his record. I have to admit I was a bit dismayed because I am in no way conservative. But, at the same time, I realize he's been getting a bit of a bad rap.

I know you are one that will listen with a critical ear but at least absorb and contemplate what you are hearing rather than just shut it out. If you're interested I can show you which links at NPR to listen to. It only is about 4 excerpts totalling less than a half hour.

 

[miles]

Looks like Lavy has developed OCD, too.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Yeah, I have OCD, Lavender now has OCD. Everyone who strongly disagrees with Republicans has OCD.

 

[REDWAVE]

A plague on both their houses!

Both major parties are totally corrupt tools of big business. Neither deserves any support from ordinary working people. That's why most people don't vote: they realize neither party represents their interests.

"Laugh about it; shout about it
When you come to choose
Any way you look at it, you lose"
(Paul Simon)

 

[P. B. Walker]

You make good points. As a moderate republican I do disagree with some of the things Bush is doing. However, the things I find important he is doing ok with. I do see a few things from the Democrats that I like, but for many of the things I find important I disagree with what they are proposing. I have come to expect that there will always be problems with any candidate. I would probably shit myself if I ever completely agreed a candidate 100%. But I do agree with your point that he seems to be catering less and less to the moderates.

What is really irking me lately is the rush to blame everything on Bush, including the war. People need to be realistic and realize that he didn't do this alone. He had to get the permission from congress to do it, and they had access to all the same intelligence information that he did. It's not like Bush and his advisors were the only people with access to the information. And in the end, they approved the war. So if we're gonna bitch about it, ya gotta include them as well.

Ahh... that's all the political crap my brain can take for the day.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Lasher,

I've been reading quite a bit about Dean recently and have been listening to NPR's coverage of the Dean campaign. I think you should really go online and listen to what NPR said about Dean's record in Vermont. They discuss many things with people who worked with him in the government and other avenues.

From what I have heard and perceive I don't think Dean is all that radically left. Yes, he opposed the war. But, I don't think that is necessarily a "far left" idea especially now with all that we know. The only really leftist idea is universal health coverage and some would say the civil unions in Vermont. But, when you really look at his fiscal policies you can see that he is quite conservative/moderate fiscally.

I think the far left nature of Dean has been radically exaggerrated. I can honestly say I was surprised to hear so much about his record. I have to admit I was a bit dismayed because I am in no way conservative. But, at the same time, I realize he's been getting a bit of a bad rap.

I know you are one that will listen with a critical ear but at least absorb and contemplate what you are hearing rather than just shut it out. If you're interested I can show you which links at NPR to listen to. It only is about 4 excerpts totalling less than a half hour.

In doing my 7th grade math, I learned to draw out the problem to better understand it. I'm sure y'all remember this type of problem. If Sue is taller than Dick, and Dick is taller than Joyce and ......who is the second tallest?

I thought I'd try the same logic with the statement above. L = Lavy and D=Dean. Did I get this one correct?

Left.L.D....................moderate left........center...........moderate right.........................Right.

It's a matter of perspective I guess.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Hello Red, things going OK for you?

I'll have to concede that Dean is slightly to the right of your point on the chart also.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Regarding Christine Todd Whitman's comments

I think the drug benefit, the immigration concept and the education program are all designed to appeal to moderates. It would be unfortunate if these program disturbed some.

Personally, I don't like the drug benefit because if there is any extra money to be invested, it should be invested in programs to benefit children, not the elderly (on average wealthier - according to the census bureau).

However, you take the good with the bad and keep trying to move forward.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Re: A plague on both their houses!

Both major parties are totally corrupt tools of big business. Neither deserves any support from ordinary working people. That's why most people don't vote: they realize neither party represents their interests.

"Laugh about it; shout about it
When you come to choose
Any way you look at it, you lose"
(Paul Simon)

I don't care if I get dinged for "tying myself to a bad cause", what REDWAVE just said I agree with 100,000%.

 

[REDWAVE]

Fine, thanks

Hello Red, things going OK for you?

I'll have to concede that Dean is slightly to the right of your point on the chart also.

I'm doing OK, Roses, how about you?

The idea of Howard Dean being painted as a wild-eyed leftist is highly amusing. I've been to all the meetings of the Wild-Eyed Leftist Club, and I've never seen him at any of them.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Re: Fine, thanks

I'm doing OK, Roses, how about you?

The idea of Howard Dean being painted as a wild-eyes leftist is highly amusing. I've been to all the meetings of the Wild-Eyed Leftist Club, and I've never seen him at any of them.

I'm doing OK. Freezing my butt off out here in the east. I need to get someplace warm. I'm missing that warm western sunshine.

Do you have any predictions on the IOWA primaries? It seems that there's been a lot of change there lately.

 

[Ishmael]

Lavy;

The is a great deal of diversity withing the Republican party. Always has been and the press attempt to "make hay" playing the various off againse one an other.

There are also several things that Bush has proposed or done that really irritate me on a personal level as well.

But there are certain facts that the press only puts out in non-election years that are germaine to the thread.

Republicans are much more monolithic in their voting practices than Democrats Far fewer Republicans will engage in 'crossover' voting than those that register Democrat. Republicans are also far more likely to vote for a less than stellar Republican than Democrats for a less than stellar Democrat. Which basically means that Republicans, as a group, have a higher percentage of their registrants at the polls on election day than democrats do even if their candidate is not the most desireable. Democrats will tend to stay away from the voting booth if they aren't all that enthused about their candidate.

The press, not having a McCain to chum around with this year, are going to go out of their way to try to play this for all it's worth. They know the voter demographics as well as anyone, but they keep trying.

Lasher;

First of all I'd expect nothing less from NPR.

But it's not about what Dean is, it's about what Dean is perceived to be that makes the difference. Should he win the nomination, and that's still open for debate it appears, all that he's ever said or done is going to be used to paint him in the "radical left" corner of the room. He's going to have to spend a great deal of capital and time trying to get out of that predicament.

Ishmael

 

[REDWAVE]

Re: Re: Fine, thanks

I'm doing OK. Freezing my butt off out here in the east. I need to get someplace warm. I'm missing that warm western sunshine.

Do you have any predictions on the IOWA primaries? It seems that there's been a lot of change there lately.

It's nice and warm here in Vegas. Feels like spring, almost. Eat your heart out, baby!


I assume you're referring to the Iowa caucuses. All the indications are that it will be a tight four-way race. So my only prediction is-- the candidate who gets the most votes will win. (Pretty safe, huh?)

I will add the observation that the fact that two small, rural (and mostly lily white) states like Iowa and New Hampshire have such a disproportionate impact on the choosing of the President shows how absurd, irrational, undemocratic, and fundamentally racist the American political system is.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Re: Re: Re: Fine, thanks

I will add the observation that the fact that two small, rural (and mostly lily white) states like Iowa and New Hampshire have such a disproportionate impact on the choosing of the President shows how absurd, irrational, undemocratic, and fundamentally racist the American political system is.

I agree that IOWA and NH aren't good indicators. I think Washington DC tried to change that approach a little, but their results were feeble and not many people paid attention to it. I'm curious why the Democrats don't change the schedule to put less reliance on IOWA and NH.

Why do you think racist? The Democrats are the ones often calling everyone else racist, but they're free to make up whatever primary schedule they'd like (albeit with some hard work). Are you suggesting that they should call themselves racist too?

 

[REDWAVE]

Absolutely!

I agree that IOWA and NH aren't good indicators. I think Washington DC tried to change that approach a little, but their results were feeble and not many people paid attention to it. I'm curious why the Democrats don't change the schedule to put less reliance on IOWA and NH.

Why do you think racist? The Democrats are the ones often calling everyone else racist, but they're free to make up whatever primary schedule they'd like (albeit with some hard work). Are you suggesting that they should call themselves racist too?

Democratic politicians take blacks for granted. They expect them to vote for them, but they don't do a damn thing for them. Clinton made a point of attacking Sister Souljah in order to pander to racists. The Democratic Party's attitude toward blacks is: "Where you gonna go, suckers? The Republicans are even worse than us!"

 

[Ishmael]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Fine, thanks

I agree that IOWA and NH aren't good indicators. I think Washington DC tried to change that approach a little, but their results were feeble and not many people paid attention to it. I'm curious why the Democrats don't change the schedule to put less reliance on IOWA and NH.

Why do you think racist? The Democrats are the ones often calling everyone else racist, but they're free to make up whatever primary schedule they'd like (albeit with some hard work). Are you suggesting that they should call themselves racist too?

Precisely. Terry McAuliffe is the individual that "front" loaded the primaries. He'll live to regret that I think.

NH was always the first. It's a tradition there. As other states moved thier primaries up, NH followed suit to keep their "first" position. The primary equivalent of a pissing contest.

Ishmael

 

[REDWAVE]

Re: Re: A plague on both their houses!

I don't care if I get dinged for "tying myself to a bad cause", what REDWAVE just said I agree with 100,000%.

That's impossible, Tongue. By definition, you cannot agree with me more than 100%.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Re: Absolutely!

Democratic politicians take blacks for granted. They expect them to vote for them, but they don't do a damn thing for them. Clinton made a point of attacking Sister Souljah in order to pander to racists. The Democratic Party's attitude toward blacks is: "Where you gonna go, suckers? The Republicans are even worse than us!"

^^^^^
And THIS explains very succinctly why I don't like the way the Democrats exploit blacks.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Re: Re: Absolutely!

^^^^^
And THIS explains very succinctly why I don't like the way the Democrats exploit blacks.

It is unfortunate.

What actions would you suggest to make things better?

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Re: Re: Re: Absolutely!

It is unfortunate.

What actions would you suggest to make things better?

Vote independent.

Swear allegiance to no party, and vote according to which individual you feel is the most sensible candidate. Including third party voters, if necessary.

What CERTAIN Republicans are doing now is utterly repugnant... Stumping for liberal-spending, Constitution-mashing George Bush after so many months of ballyhooing about strict adherence to the Constitution and to fiscal conservatism. THAT is a crying shame.

 

[TWB]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Absolutely!

Vote independent.

Swear allegiance to no party, and vote according to which individual you feel is the most sensible candidate. Including third party voters, if necessary.

Third party? That worked real well in 2000.