Tag Archives: republican party

by | January 29, 2012 · 11:49 AM

The GOP’s Dilemma: Tea Party or the Future?

By Luke Brinker

When the Tea Party emerged in 2009, its leaders asserted that the movement represented a dynamic new force in American politics. Motivated by a visceral hostility to the bailout and stimulus policies of Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, Tea Party activists would emphasize the free market and small government, not social issues.

In reality, the Tea Party is not so much a new force as an emboldened old one. The profile of the typical Tea Party member is that of a typical member of the Republican Party base. Tea Party supporters tend to be older voters who identify as conservatives (including on social issues) and watch Fox News. Tea Party membership is also correlated with racist attitudes and fierce opposition to the rights of undocumented immigrants. For all their self-professed independence from the two major parties, Tea Partiers are partisan, conservative Republicans.

Because it’s virtually impossible to win a party’s nomination without support from the party base, Republican candidates are heavily reliant upon Tea Party support in primary elections. A Washington Post-Pew poll in October found that while only 32 percent of Americans overall sympathize with the movement, 63 percent of Republicans express Tea Party support. To paraphrase the legendary Chicago columnist Mike Royko, a Republican who would seek office by denouncing the Tea Party is an individual who would probably begin a diet by shooting himself in the stomach.

But while courting the Tea Party may serve the GOP’s immediate interests, adopting Tea Party policies could prove electorally disastrous in the long-term. Mitt Romney has reversed his positions on abortion, gay rights, and immigration to appeal to core GOP voters, which may well help propel him to the presidential nomination, but such hard-core conservative views are out of step with long-range trends. A recent survey found that 71 percent of college freshmen (including 43 percent of self-described conservatives) support same-sex marriage. Sixty one percent espoused pro-choice views. Younger voters are also more likely than older voters to perceive gaping economic inequality as a major problem. (And contrary to popular belief, people don’t usually become more conservative as they age.) Finally, with the nation’s Latino population expected to triple by 2050, right-wing anti-immigration views endanger the GOP’s hold on even the most reliably Republican states, including Texas.

To remain relevant in the 2020s and beyond, the GOP will need to adopt a more socially tolerant, immigrant-friendly stance, and be willing to address mounting concerns about economic inequality with more than a promise to discuss the problem in “quiet rooms.” Republicans attuned to this reality do exist; former presidential candidate Jon Huntsman, for instance, supports civil unions (albeit not same-sex marriage, at least yet), endorses the scientific consensus on climate change, refuses to adopt the conservative base’s harsh anti-immigration rhetoric, and says he understands why the Occupy Wall Street movement is upset (even if his economic policies mostly adhere to conservative orthodoxy). What remains to be seen is whether in future years the GOP will listen to Huntsman or its aging, dwindling Tea Party base

Leave a Comment

Filed under political parties, Republicans, tea party

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by | January 6, 2012 · 3:16 PM

British Conservatives, and Ours

By Luke Brinker

Conor Friedersdorf rips into Rick Santorum, pointing out that the fiercely anti-gay former Pennsylvania senator’s “pro-family” views are largely a “sham”:

Santorum isn’t “pro-family” so much as he is “pro-family for people whose family doesn’t include anyone gay.” He regards marriage as a force for good in the lives of couples who enter into it and their children. He is willing to deny those benefits to gay families, because he believes — without any evidence — that keeping gay marriage illegal will benefit straight unions.

What would he do about the quarter of a million people who’ve already established stable families by entering into same sex marriages? He would destabilize the family lives of those people. He explained that in a recent interview with Chuck Todd, where he touted his preference for a constitutional amendment codifying marriage at the federal level as a relationship between a man and a woman:

SANTORUM: I think marriage has to be one thing for everybody. We can’t have 50 different marriage laws in this country, you have to have one marriage law…

TODD: What would you do with same-sex couples who got married? Would you make them get divorced?

SANTORUM: Well, their marriage would be invalid. I think if the Constitution says “marriage is this,” then people whose marriage is not consistent with the Constitution… I’d love to think there’s another way of doing it.

I presume everyone reading this post is either married or is close to someone who is married, whether it’s parents or close friends or a boss or teacher or colleague. Think of that married couple. That family. Imagine if they got a letter in the mail informing them that by order of the federal government, their marriage is no longer valid. I submit that a man who would send out letters like that to gay and lesbian married couples does not deserve to be labeled as the candidate with the most pro-family agenda. His desire to invalidate the unions of people who are already married, some of whom have kids — to invalidate existing families by federal mandate — makes him arguably the least pro-family candidate, despite his other pro-family positions.

The more than a quarter of a million families with a gay married couple at their core are not disconnected from American society. They have extended families: brothers and sisters, nieces and nephews, friends who come over every Thanksgiving — and for all these extended families, for everyone who has a gay person in their extended family, Rick Santorum isn’t a pro-family candidate, because he is hostile to their family as it actually exists, and would invalidate it by decree if he could. Are we to regard targeted tax cuts as the more important stance?

Friedersdorf’s post brought to mind British Prime Minister David Cameron’s speech to the Conservative Party conference  in Manchester this fall. The contrast between Santorum’s apocalyptic view of same-sex marriage and Cameron’s eloquent defense of it is striking:

I once stood before a Conservative conference and said it shouldn’t matter whether commitment was between a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, or a man and another man. You applauded me for that. Five years on, we’re consulting on legalising gay marriage. And to anyone who has reservations, I say: Yes, it’s about equality, but it’s also about something else: commitment. Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us; that society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other. So I don’t support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I’m a Conservative.

Upon reading of Cameron’s speech, I reflected upon the profound differences between Great Britain’s Conservative Party and the US’s Republican Party. Cameron, Britain’s top Tory, supports abortion rights, action to combat climate change, and socialized medicine. Whereas denunciation of Obamacare, which enshrined private insurance as the American way of providing health care, is standard fare among even “moderate” Republicans, Cameron pledges fealty to Britain’s single-payer National Health Service. Backbench Tories grumble that Cameron isn’t conservative enough, but even Members of Parliament (MPs) considered in fringe in Britain would be condemned as RINOs by the Republicans’ Tea Party base. When right-wing MP Nadine Dorries proposed legislation this summer requiring women seeking abortions to undergo “independent counselling,” Dorries felt compelled to reassure Britons of her pro-choice credentials: “I am pro-choice, pro-women’s rights. I fully support the legalisation of abortion in 1968 and would hate to see a return to the dark days of back-street operations,” she wrote in the Daily Mail. Meanwhile, the US has GOP presidential contenders who oppose abortion rights even in cases of rape and incest, and others who find fault even with the legalization of contraception.

This is not to downplay the shortcomings of Britain’s Tories. Under Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osbourne, the nation is implementing an economically counterproductive austerity regime. Owing to deep-seated Euroskepticism on the part of many Conservative MPs, Cameron orchestrated the Tories’ divorce from the EU’s coalition of center-right parties, the European People’s Party, signing up instead with an EU group encompassing further-right parties. But faced with the choice between a conservative party led by a man who doesn’t claim a “direct line” to a supernatural deity or one in which no small number of presidential contenders state that they have received communication from the Almighty, I’d choose the former any day.

Leave a Comment

Filed under conservatism, conservatives, political parties, Republicans

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by | January 4, 2012 · 5:05 PM

‘Anybody But Romney’ Won’t Work

By Luke Brinker

Politico reports that in light of Mitt Romney’s narrow victory in last night’s Iowa caucuses, a group of influential conservatives plans to convene in Texas to forge a unified right-wing front against the former Massachusetts governor. This news comes on the heels of an interview in which Newt Gingrich indicated he’d be receptive to uniting with Iowa runner-up Rick Santorum to form an anti-Romney pact. With Tea Party doyenne Michele Bachmann out of the race and Rick Perry’s prospects virtually nil, will the right finally coalesce behind a Not-Romney and deny the erstwhile moderate the GOP nod?

In a word, no. The “Anybody But Romney” effort is eerily evocative of the 11th-hour “Anybody But McCain” campaign in 2008. As Human Events reported that January, the withdrawal of Fred Thompson and the declining fortunes of Mike Huckabee left foes of the “maverick” McCain looking in desperation for an alternative. McCain had already come from behind to win the New Hampshire primary and had just scored a victory in the crucial South Carolina contest. Romney sought to position himself as a “full-spectrum conservative” who could best unite the three stools of the GOP – social conservatives, free marketeers, and foreign policy hawks. McCain, who had been a thorn in the side of his onetime rival George W. Bush, looked vulnerable to such a conservative challenge. But the “stop McCain” campaign was too late. It is noteworthy, however, that Romney’s attempt to claim the conservative mantle met with some success, just not enough. When he withdrew from the nomination contest at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in early February, shouts of “No! No! No!” erupted from the crowd.  (It’s deeply ironic that the Romney, the DeMint-endorsed conservative hero of 2008, now encounters such suspicion from the party’s right wing.)

Fast forward to 2012. Not only does Romney possess financial and organizational resources unparalleled by any of the other GOP candidates, he has also succeeded in winning the support of much of the GOP elite. McCain’s endorsement of Romney today underscores this point. As Rick Perlstein, an esteemed historian of Republicans, notes, the GOP “falls in line” behind its anointed candidates. It will be no different with Romney. (Interestingly, Perlstein’s pre-caucus post urged  readers to “forget Iowa” because the state tends to favor socially conservative Republicans who don’t go on to win the nomination. That Romney actually ended up winning the state, even if by only the narrowest of margins, is quite telling.)

Perlstein’s “falling in line” framework works especially well for 2012. Hard-right Republicans will probably never fall in love with Willard, but they never especially liked John McCain (or Bob Dole, or George H.W. Bush). Perlstein literally wrote the book on the far-right 1964 candidacy of Barry Goldwater, and he points out in his piece that every GOP nominee since then has been one of the “Anointed Ones.”

History and political fundamentals set aside, the national media will undoubtedly devote much attention to the machinations of the “Anybody But Romney” crowd. As Slate’s Jacob Weisberg asserts, that’s because the media relish a brutal, drawn-out fight. Alas, a repeat of the Democrats’ long slog in 2008 will not be repeated in 2012.

1 Comment

Filed under 2012 Election, Mitt Romney

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

by | December 3, 2011 · 7:58 PM

Herman Cain’s Symbolism

By John Stang

Andrew Sullivan sums up Herman Cain’s symbolic value to the current state of the GOP:

He was also emblematic of contemporary conservatism’s degeneracy into an extension of an entertainment franchise. Whatever else can be said of Cain, he sure was entertaining. That’s how he makes a living, and, increasingly, it’s how most national Republicans make a living. That’s the Ailes effect – and one can sense how FNC now wants Gingrich, if only for the ratings, and endless drama. Palin was about ratings too, according to Ailes himself.

With the fusion of politics and entertainment coming into being with the 21st century, I certainly feel we have not seen the last of this.

Leave a Comment

Filed under 2012 Election

Tagged as , , ,

by | September 9, 2011 · 8:37 PM

The Real Reason the GOP Fears Obama’s Jobs Package

By Luke Brinker

Despite some lukewarm words from House Speaker John Boehner, President Barack Obama’s $447 billion jobs package still faces significant hurdles in Congress. The plan’s critics are already rallying behind a consistent talking point.

“This isn’t a jobs plan; it’s a re-election plan,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Thursday. Given that McConnell has identified Obama’s defeat in 2012 as Senate Republicans’ top priority, it’s unlikely that the president’s jobs package will garner much GOP support in the upper chamber.

Reuters’ James Pethokoukis echoed McConnell’s line, calling the proposal “Obama’s $447 billion reelection plan.”

A few things merit our consideration here. First of all, of course Obama’s jobs plan is a re-election plan. It would be shocking if the president proposed a package likely to increase unemployment and thereby doom his re-election chances. Politicians stand for election so they can make policy, but in order to continue to make policy, Obama must win in 2012. No president takes economic policy decisions without an eye toward the political implications.

Moreover, implicit in the criticism of Obama’s “re-election plan” is the right wing’s concession that the proposal may well work. Republicans know that if Obama manages to boost job creation ahead of November 6, 2012, he stands a much greater chance of fending off his Republican opponent. As Suzy Khimm reports, Macroeconomic Advisors predicts that the plan will add another 1.3 percent to GDP in 2012, while Moody’s Mark Zandi forecasts that it will increase 2012 GDP by 2 percent (on top of an already-projected 2 percent increase in GDP). It may not be enough to bring unemployment below 7 percent, but it’s better than the status quo.

This calls to mind Bill Kristol’s 1993 memo denouncing President Bill Clinton’s health care reform effort. Kristol urged Republicans to block the Clinton health care proposal precisely because it would work. It would have extended universal coverage, reined in health care costs, and thereby provided Democrats with another social program to curry public favor. A generation later, GOP leaders are taking a page out of the Kristol playbook. They’re making policy with an eye toward what will inflict maximum damage on their opponents – the consequences be damned. So much for being the party of Country First.

Leave a Comment

Filed under unemployment

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,