The Coming GOP Civil War

We know that the social conservatives and the fiscal conservatives and the libertarians in the Republican party don't see eye to eye on everything. Neither do the realists, the neocons or the paleocons, though they have few places to go. Watching the Foley fallout, it's hard not to muse over what happens if and when the Republicans find themselves in the minority in the House. We know there's going to be a leader batttle, temporarily put on hold by GOP representatives terrified of what would happen if they fight that battle now (Hastert may not last until November, and he's certainly gone then).

Dick Polman, writing in the Philadelphia Enquirer, looks to 2008:

Regardless of whether the small-government Goldwaterites swallow their frustrations and help salvage the GOP's fragile House and Senate majorities, the road to 2008 figures to be rocky. Clearly, the unwieldy conservative coalition (which also includes the neoconservatives, who want to promote Middle East democracy, and the skeptics who don't) seems poised for some kind of crack-up and reconfiguration.

In the words of conservative commentator Ryan Sager, author of The Elephant in the Room, a new book on the GOP's coming ideological clash, we shall soon witness "a tectonic shift in the ground under the conservative movement." And he says this is happening because "George W. Bush has been a disaster for conservatism."

Well, actually, is there anything Bush hasn't been a disaster for? Sterling Newberry writing at TPM Cafe has his own take, which includes the inability of the GOP to come to grips with homosexuality. This is reflected in today's NY times piece, showing that to some VA social conservatives, that's all that matters. But as Polman puts it

So here's the overall situation: The powerless libertarians think the religious faction has gotten too much, and the powerful religious faction thinks it hasn't gotten enough. Some neoconservatives think Bush hasn't sufficiently supported the Middle East democracy dream (because he didn't put enough troops in Iraq and screwed up the postwar), whereas the so-called "realist" conservatives (people like William F. Buckley and George Will), skeptical that America can remake the world in its image, think that Bush screwed up by invading Iraq in the first place.

On that score, count me as agreeing with the realists.

This is not a stable situation for the GOP. Only increasingly polarizing policy would make the social conservatives happy, and TPTB in the GOP aren't inclined to give it to them. Like with the Terri Schiavo fiasco, when they try to enact what they preach, the country rejects them.

How the GOP deals with their civil war, which threatens to break out in the open over the Foley-Reynolds-Hastert scandal will go a long way in choosing which of the current crop of Presidential contenders remains viable. But as a party, a loss woud mean a hard look from each of the coalition constituents about what they're getting out of an unhappy marriage of convenience. What follows ain't going to be pretty - divorces never are.

Comments

[Dismayed]

I'm reading all of this this morning, and just shaking my head. When Bush was elected, I honestly didn't think it could go this badly. I'm stunned how much damage has been done in just six years. I was recently in Canada, and far from hating us - people from all over the world that I spoke with simply realize that we have a problem, and wish that the world had "strong effective leadership" from the US. I'm not the guy to do it, but I would really like to see someone create a list of who exactly these Neo-con assholes are in entirety - a black list so to speak - of people that we all forever vow to oppose being in any position to affect policy until such time as their fortunate deaths. A grudge must be held against these people.

[crab nebula]

Get set post elec day for the next spate of articles on who benefits for '08 in GOP. I think somebody new gets in the Prez race. That ideal person is outside of DC, has no background raising taxes and also is liked by fundies. Any former governors would fit the bill. Racicot, Owens (if marriage is happy), Keating......

[Susan]

It looks to me that once the dust settles and they regroup (get their stories straight), and after a good scrub down by Dem investigations, Guliani will be the face of the new humble GOP in '08.
After facing their demons and realizing (or at least publically stating their many many mea culpas) that no man is perfect, Rudy is, despite his colorful background, proof that one can be a sinner and a strong leader at the same time.

[demtom]

I think Dem is implying -- and I'd agree -- that 2008 is too soon for the GOP to have resolved all this angst. It'd be like expecting the Dems of 1984 to be smart enough to go for Gary Hart rather than voice-of-the-past Mondale: some went that way, but not enough, and it was another 8 years before the party became humbled enough to truly consider a new path. An awful lot of Pubs now, like Dems then, consider the problem to be that the failed administration just didn't go FAR ENOUGH.

History also suggests the 2008 election, whatever the mid-term outcome, will be first and foremost a referendum on the second Bush administration. I don't see voters being in a forgiving mood in a mere two years.

When the history of this period is written from a distance, I think many will wonder why they so bought into the idea of Republican dominance to begin with, after Clinton and after the 2000 theft. Judis and Teixeira's Emeging Democratic Majority is sneered at by CW, but in fact the two of them mapped out exactly how weakened the GOP majority was from its Reagan height; only successive flukes (the Supreme Court coup and September 11th) gave Bush hairs'-breadth victories in two elections. These "wins" were roughly comparable to Carter's 1976 victory -- which was pure reaction to Watergate, and did nothing to stop the eventual coming of a full-blooded GOP coalition. In fact, Cater's four years of swimming against the tide probably made Reagan's triumph inevitable. I think the same thing is true of the GOP today: whatever intermediate tactical victories they've managed, the overall direction they've offered the country is not, at heart, where the country wants to go. Voters can take a circuitous path, but I think they eventually do get what they want, and, right now, the Dems embody it far more than the GOP.

[crab nebula]

good point, Demtom re: Teixera. So many readers couldn't seem to understand that Ruy explicitly said that EDM is no guarantee of electoral success in the coming cycles (2002, 2004, 2006). It's a long term thing. Same thing with the silly excessive initial embrace and subsequent superficial and hasty dismissal CW of Lakoff (though smart comm. people have internalized his work already).

OK - my forecast: 27 seat gain in House, 51 seats Senate. I picked these numbers out of the air.

To other readers thinking about '08 (why I do so is a persistent mystery to me) -- re: Giuliani, no chance, gay friendly, serial adulterer, pro-choice, supported Cuomo in '94; Romney - mormon (his only hurdle, and a big one); McCain - old, stained by Iraq and Bush embrace; Huckabee - has raised taxes, Club for Growth enemy.

[Canuck Stuck in Muck]

Dear Dismayed.
To get a clear picture of the neofascist enemy, simply visit the Project for the New American Century. From its Chair, William Kristol (whom you see on TV a lot), all the way through the White House and out the other side. Here's proof that the buggers were at this a long time: http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm. Check out the signatories. Same with this one: http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm. These people are vermin.

[DemFromCT]

guiliani bernie kerik. he has no ability to pick good people to be around him. add that t his other liabilities and I don't see it.

[emptypockets]

so out of these clashing interests what are the stable right-wing coalitions we expect to see hold together?

the fundamentalists: I know they will always be there, but will they still have enough power to anoint candidates?

the anti-immigration isolationists: I think this group is only getting stronger, and appeals to the Republicans' traditional rural xenophobic base.

the tax-cut-and-spenders: I don't know who is the core leadership of this group, and I wonder if they will get split among the above two factions.

the neo-con hawks: have they been completely discredited by now or do they still carry a banner?

the wanna-be Dems: fastest growing faction right now, it seems. will moderates ever hold enough power to control the GOP?

am I forgetting anyone? do these groups have real identities or are the boundaries between them more fuzzy or fluid than these neat labels suggest?

[Jodi]

All of you as you ponder alignments forget two things.

It is one thing to plan on a formal wedding, and pick out everything including the ideal husband (intelligent, handsome, rich, humble, athletic, sensistive, with a mother you like, ...) and quite another to find yourself in a remote cold place and needing a warm bed for the night.

I)) The coalitions (Dem or Repub) are formed by necessity.

Probably 30 to 35% core for each. And then the dog fight for the rest and the grind to get those out to vote.

II)) And remember the new paradigm shown in 2004:
1. It is not enough for the Democrats to outspend the Republicans.
2. The Democrats do not have more voters than the Republicans if everyone votes.

Like Nascar rankings:

2004
Bush (winner)
Kerry -5,000,000 votes

[Mimikatz]

The real Fundies will be sort of like the back-to-the-land hippies. They will rediscover Jesus' teachings that a man cannot serve two masters, should render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's and get thee out of political life if you want to save your soul. They will concentrate on making their own communities and stay out of national politics for awhile. Their leaders will go on to more profitable cons.

The isolationists/racists will grumble in inverse proportion to economic conditions. These two variables are inversely correlated--I did a paper in college on economic conditions and anti-semitism in France and Germany from 1870 to 1933. Same thing.

There are no tax-cut-and-spenders except those in Congress. There is a redistributionist faction made up mostly of many of the weathiest 1% and some wannabees, and there is a huge majority people who want functional government services. The former will have to bow to the latter for a couple of decades, as they did after the Depression. There is a fairly large group of small government conservatives who will stay part of the core of the GOP.

The neo-con hawks are a tiny, tiny group of pretend intellectuals. There is a much, much larger group of people who believe in a strong national defense and, for a variety of reasons, have not thought the Dems could provide that. They should be rethinking their position, in light of the spectacular failures of the neocons.

Libertarians (the leave-me-aloners) have to decide what is worse--religious-based social coercion toward the fundamentalist agenda or reasonable economic regulation. If the masses of Fundies do begin to drop out of politics, the libertarians' choices will be harder in some ways, but they ought to have the sense to pick the latter and start to vote Dem.

The fundamental basis of the Bush coalition was that every group except the redistributionists subordinated fundamental principles to keep Bush in power because they thought he was either divinely inspired or would keep the country safe or both. Now that they realize he is neither, and that they sold their principles for nothing, disillusionment is setting in. Except for the redistributionists, who are laughing all the way to the bank.

[DemFromCT]

1. Democrats never outspend republicans
2. Dems do have more voters if everyone votes. That's why they always lead in "all adults" but not likely voters.

Except this year. 58-37% lead in the CNN poll among likely voters, up from 52-41% last week and all Foley. This is unprecedented.

[Mimikatz]

"Everyone" never votes. Right now the Dems outnumber the R's and, depending on the state, in some cases the Independents as well.

I think it is way too early to talk about 2008. Both candidates will be someone not on most lists right now. Both will be competent. There might even be a 3rd party, but it will be an extreme right, not a supposed "moderate" party.

[Mimikatz]

We are in uncharted territory. Latest from USA Today/Gallup poll, courtesy of the Stakeholder:

Four weeks before congressional elections, a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll shows Democrats hold a 23-point lead over GOP candidates. That's double the lead Republicans had a month before they seized control of Congress in 1994.

This is loooking like a real implosion. Dangerously so, considering the delusional tendencies of our leaders.

[demtom]

Good god, those numbers. I was telling myself not to take the Newsweek figures too seriously; these leave those in the dust.

Very likely these are heat-of-the-moment numbers -- similar to a convention's last night -- and they'll fade a bit. But the beauty part is, they can fade substantially and still give us big victory.

Damn.

[DemFromCT]

demtom, there's no countervailing convention in this case. Anyway, new post up on the numbers.

[Jodi]

On my point of the

new Paradigm.

That came from a former Democratic Party Leader on National TV, maybe Meet the Press. He was either the one before Howard Dean or the one before that.

That Paradigm worked for 2004, Presidential Race.

The Dems did outspend the Repulicans and were so proud of it.
The Dems got more of their voters out than ever before, and lost.

Now of course you can argue that somewhere in the backwoods, somewhere in the backwaters, somewhere in the hinterland, there are Democrats that are asleep and just need to be awakened.

Of course the converse argument can be made for the Republicans.

I like you guys. You are absolutely predictable. If you played basketball you would be saying after most (most) games. We was robbed. The referees were paid off. The court was tilted. Our basket was smaller. I ball was softer. Our key was wider. The other team was on steroids. Their band was louder. Pretty predictable.

Get real folks.

[DHinMI]

Bush has wrecked everything else. Why shouldn't he also wreck the Republican party?

[crab nebula]

Mimi, yes, great prediction, I agree -- I think in the long run (10-20 years) the fundies will withdraw from politics again out of frustration, for they won't win the big battles they want to win. That will have gigantic effects on U.S. politics

But no...the day after election day it will be perfectly appropriate to talk about '08 :) -- and the D nominee will be somebody running now, and male. (not that there's anything wrong with women.......)

[crab nebula]

Jodi, you can't see beneath the surface here.

Your biggest problem is that you assume that the game won't change, that the playing field will be what it currently is. I could go on.....

The people here on this blog are playing on another level that you can't see, and you get pissy about it. Sorry, but you are the one in need of "getting real." Maybe you need to find another court, where the kiddies bounce nice big balls up high in the air. How do you like being condescended to?

[freepatriot]

hey crab nebula, jodi is a troll

and a liar as well

when the Democrats and the Independents get done, there ain't gonna be a repuglican party left

jodi is of a breed that once ignored, and then ridiculed us, and now has decided to fight us

jodi never heard of Gandhi

look for even more irrational outbreaks from jodi as the truth settles in

first they ignore us, then they ridicule us, then they fight us, then we win

[Jodi]

I really wish I had a nice smiley face icon to post here. A really big grin.

:)

[jwp]

Seeing the future is not my specialty. My guess is that many things might happen.

I have a few core hunches, though.

1. People believe what they want to believe.

Don't be seduced by too much rational analysis. The sense of identity that people have makes for a powerful filter on what they perceive.

2. In an uncertain world, people gravitate toward the comforts of absolute faiths. In nationalism and religion usually.

This scares the hell out of me if there is an economic collapse.

3. Blogs are a good influence on politics. Nitpickers slow down the mass craziness, just a little.

4. What is happening now is probably less important in terms of its impact upon existing coalitiion, and more important in terms of how newcomers to politics will identify themselves.

What tribe are you likely to join in the Bush years?

Democrat or Independent, is my guess. So that is a positive.

Beyond that, I think we have to struggle for hearts and minds one day at a time. No wave of history to carry us.

And, frankly, I prefer it that way.

[CaseyL]

The GOP took 35 years to reach its current carcinogenic state. The beast that is the Bush Admin is a catch-all of wreckers groomed and trained at least since the Nixon Administration, with the same faces showing up, moving from the back rows to the front. And, more important than the public face is the behind-the-curtain collection of facists and plutocrats who fund the thing.

They will not be gone by 2008. They're not giving up. They regarded the Clinton years as an interregnum, an interruption of their divine right to rule - and it took Bush less than one year to undo everything Clinton had accomplished in eight. That argues a lot of systems ready and waiting to make up for lost time. The people behind Bush and the GOP have a goal, and they don't think they've attained it.

Don't think for one moment they'll fold their tents if/when the GOP gets its collective clock cleaned in '06. The structures they built - financial, informational; from the slush-fund thinktanks that nurture the wingnuts of tomorrow to the Scaife-ist cabals that fund destructive agitprop and disinformation campaigns- are deep, and strong.

Whoever the GOP Presidential candidate is in 2008 will be a creature of the deep structures. They just don't have anyone else; they've driven all the sane Republicans to the margins or out of the Party altogether. The faces might be relatively "fresh," but their roots and loyalty will be the same. And if the President in 2008 is the GOP candidate, he'll staff his Cabinet and the federal agencies with more of the same people who ran the country under Bush and the GOP Congress. Just like Reagan and Bush I did, with Nixonian leftovers; just like Bush II did with Reagan and Bush I leftovers. Bush II has found, groomed and trained a whole new generation of people not fit for public service; they will be in line for the next GOP Administration.

The GOP has to be kept out of power for at least 20 years. 30 would be better, but even 20 will be nigh-impossible.

If we make out of this bleak era with anything left to build, anything left to reclaim - well, I'll count us lucky and celebrate.

But I don't know if Bush II was as far as the American Pluto-Fascist-Nihilist movement can go before it self-destructs under its own foul combination of evil and incompetence, or if there's a historical inevitability that says we haven't hit bottom yet, that we only will when we lose America beyond repair, and that the swing has to go that far because it always does.

I won't really think we're anywhere near safe unless and until the GOP stays in the wilderness for more than one or two election cycles.

[Dismayed]

Oh, come on crab and free - don't pick on Jodi too much. She's sort of a troll light, and is the only troll that has had balls enough to stick around - and actually seems to think before writing instead of just cursing day time radio talk points. I suspect Jodi is an ex-repub that's actually looking outside the box that's so scary to look outside. Respectful reasoned debate - can't see that she deserves anything less. Do that right and she may even swing a few votes for us.

[Rick B]

I have been reading these comments, and I see one flaw in the logic that bothers me. There seems to be an assumption that the redical religious right is a national phenomenon that will fade nationally after being discredited.

But I live here in Texas, in a major source of the infection. Because of the caucus system of party voting (it allows a disciplined minority to take control of any party), the religious right took over total control of the Republican party in the late 80's and early 90's, and will keep it no matter what happens to the Republicans nationally.

When I said "Source of the infection" I didn't mean it as an insult, I meant it as an analogy. At their lowest they will retreat to their stronghold states in the Bible Belt. On a national level that means they will continue sending politicians from Florida and Texas, states with a large enough population to have clout on the national level. So this will not be a replay of the political disappearance of the religious right after the Scopes Trial. They are not going to fade away again as they did for decades after the Scopes trial.

This time they have built institutions that will continue to bedevil American politics, such as the religious TV networks and places like Bob Jones University and such. And they will be going back to those institutions with a feeling of victimhood together with sources of funds they did not have in previous incarnations. They will also remain the only source of mass votes that the financial Republicans can tap into. That alliance still has potential. Which is why we will need to rebuild unions rapidly.

On a national level, the Republican takeover of the federal government is likely to scare the voters who remember it much as the Republican Congress in 1952 to 1954 did, so that such a takeover of both Houses is not likely to be repeated for a generation. Again.

After than, they'll be back. As a marker on the national level, I'd say we could watch the progress of the flag-burning amendment. As they come back, the amendment will regain steam. It will remain a favorite for rallying the troops. I think they'll be less visible for a while, but like a latent infection, they will be waiting for the body to weaken to recur.

[jwp]

In the 1960s, I used to argue with an evangelical about evolution all the time

but she was anti-Vietnam War, and anit-war period, long before anyone else in town

today, many evangelicals favor action against global warming

it is not automatic that evangelical is radical right

except for the Crusade against abortion, of course

[AlanDownunder]

Well, actually, is there anything Bush hasn't been a disaster for?

Yes (at least in the short term). Halliburton, Carlyle Group, Bechtel, Exxon, Monsanto, anyone collecting more than $200,000pa ...

[AlanDownunder]

also Al Qaida and like organisations, Shia Iraq, Iran, leftist politicians everywhere, Latin America in particular.

[freepatriot]

not the answers that jodi is looking for

[DemFromCT]

She still shouldn't be picked on unfairly. pick on her fairly. She's as well-reasoned as any one here.

And as for RickB's poitn please see Meacham in newsweek. There are are both practical and theological reasons to become less involved with politics.

The theological reason evangelicals may not turn out to vote..