The ideas which have been foisted upon the Republican Party by men who, through adroit management, have obtained a temporary control of it, are in direct antagonism with those upon which it was founded, and which have guided it during the ten years of its existence. They are not the doctrines of political liberalism, but of the extremist political bigotry and prejudice- not the doctrines of a comprehensive nationality, but of an unyielding sectionalism. Their principle is not of rigid adhesion to the Constitution under all circumstances, and adapting all political action to its requirements, but a very loose principle of subordinating the Constitution to temporary exigencies or supposed necessities- not the principle of upholding the guaranteed rights of all the States in the United States, but a convenient principle of denying both the existence and the rights of States as the necessities of party may require. These self-appointed leaders would transform the spirit as well as overthrow the established platforms of the Republican Party, and instead of magnanimity and fraternity, would inspire it with feelings of malice and revenge, and lead it to destruction by pandering to those passions which it is the duty of good men to repress.”
– The New York Times
September 19, 1866
There is so much to say about the fall of the Republican party, but it seems that it was all said with more eloquence 150 years ago.
Where do the Republicans go from here? There are several possibilities.
A Move to the Middle
The schoolhouse in Ripon, Wisconsin where the Republican Party was born in 1854.
There is no doubt that Republicans will be doing a lot of arguing about what went wrong in this election, and in the past 8 years in general. It is possible that the party will distance itself from the more radical elements of intolerant fundamentalists and hawkish neocons and return to its recently abandoned principles of small government, fiscal responsibility, and pragmatic foreign policy.
While this move would increase Republican support among independents and conservative intellectuals, it seems the least likely possibility. Moderate Republicans like Senator John Sununu lost on Tuesday. Many prominent conservative writers and thinkers, including Christopher Buckley and Colin Powell, broke from their party and endorsed Obama.
Why will the G.O.P. become more, not less, extreme? For one thing, projections suggest that this election will drive many of the remaining Republican moderates out of Congress, while leaving the hard right in place.
Sarah Palin
No one captured the national spotlight in this campaign quite like the Governor of Alaska. Her speech at the Republican convention brought her widespread support, and for a while her energy and image were enough to pull McCain even with Obama for a few weeks. Her interview with Katie Couric was widely watched, and the parodies on SNL were some of the most watched skits in years.
She energized the Republican base, but she was also a tremendously divisive figure. As of September 13, her favorable rating was 52%, with negatives of only 30%. Four days later, it had changed to 48% favorable and 36% unfavorable. In a recent poll, ‘57 percent said Palin was not personally qualified to be president, up from 49 percent two months ago’. Still, the Republican party is planning a big part of their future around her.
There is danger in this for the Republicans. Palin generates a lot of enthusiasm among social conservatives and evangelicals, but those people generally support the Republican party anyway. On the other hand, many fiscal conservatives, foreign policy watchers and conservative intellectuals find her lack of qualifications and experience to be deeply troubling. As the polls showed, many Americans share their concern. A Palin candidacy could lead to a very energized angry minority of far-right Republicans being trounced by a moderate Democrat.
A Split
There is growing tension in the party between moderate Republicans and fiscal conservatives on one side, and social conservatives on the other.
“Right now, it is ‘I am a reform conservative and you are a troglodyte who is stuck 20 years in the past,’ or ‘I am a believer in the true faith and you are a heretic,’” said Rich Lowry, editor of National Review.
Could the Republican party split in two? Parties have come and gone before. Does anyone remember the Whigs and the Federalists?
It seems that the most rabid supporters of the Republican party come from the social conservatives. Issues like abortion, homosexuality, gun control and prayer in schools are sure to get people fired up. On the other hand, discussing optimum rates for capital gains taxes with respect to small business growth doesn’t have the same effect. If a division were to occur, it is far more likely that the fiscal conservatives would be the ones to leave. Given that Bush currently presides over a record national debt, it seems this is already happening.
So where could the fiscal conservatives go? They could grit their teeth and join the Democrats, which would create a lot of tension in the party between the old left wing members and the new members on the right.
Or, they could join the Libertarian party. Ron Paul, (who ran as the Libertarian Presidential Candidate in 1988 but currently supports the Constitution Party over differences on immigration) surprised everyone with his strong run in the primaries. He raised piles of money, and showed that there is strong support for the idea of limited government across the nation. Suppose that fiscally conservative Republicans realize that their party has abandoned them. They could join the Libertarian party, and bring new strength in numbers, money and ideas to the nation’s strongest third party.
If the abandoned conservatives could unite with Libertarians, Constitutionalists, and Ron Paul supporters (many of whom are the same people- People’s Front of Judea, anyone?) they could form a strong coalition to oppose Democratic excesses in government (because with a majority in the House and Senate, there will be plenty) while uniting with Democrats to restore the strong Constitutional protection of civil liberties and individual rights that was so weakened under Bush.
It is at this point in the analysis that I realize I have been dreaming. A party in favor of small government, fiscal responsibility, and individual liberty would never garner the support it needs. A far more likely occurrence is that all the abandoned conservatives move to Canada (it won’t be Mexico) and we are left with a Democratic party that overspends on social programs and tries to control your money and health, and a Republican party who focuses on religion and war, and tries to control how you think.
Say, do you think there is any way Obama can save us from all this?
You make several valid points, however, your preemptive assertion that Democrats consistenly overspend is just not accurate. “Trickle down” economics does not work. Giving corporations more power and more tax breaks functions only to provoke their greed. As a republican, and in light of the recent financial breakdown, I now fully endorse increased regulation. The Bush administration systematically eliminated all vestiges of regulatory oversight.
Lastly, I’m also in favor of universal healthcare. Having worked in the private healthcare industry, I can attest to their incomptence and greed. We need to return to supporting SMALL businesses, not mega corporations whose only interest is the bottom line.
The GOP has been living in a dream world surrounded by a matrix they themselves created. A matrix of special and foreign interests, wealthy elitists, multinational free trade corporate representatives, etc… all couched in a new world order. And they did this while paying lip service to Judeo-Christian traditional values they never practiced. It’s time for the GOP to take the red pill and awake into the real world.
I agree generally with the article and all subsequent comments.
Here’s something that’s been on my mind lately. Let’s face facts, Republicanism is appealing to a constituency that won’t be around in the future: old white people. Whites won’t constitute a majority in the country in the nearish future. Older folks will die. It seems like this era may have already passed.
The Palin approach is a dead end. I think the Ron Paul approach is the way conservative should go. First, because it might succeed. Second, because it’s really a lot more logical, just, and less bigoted. Let the states decide if they want gay marriage or abortion.
To speculate, I wonder how different things would have been if Sarah Palin were a little older, with strong executive experience and well versed in foreign policy issues, but with the same personal political instincts that made her so attractive to much of the party. What difference would it have made in the election process if fiscal conservatives, foreign policy watchers and conservative intellectuals had found her qualifications acceptable?
Its very simple to see that while fiscal +moral conservatism diverges at some points ,the fact is what unites them is far stronger than what divides them . All the religious community has ever asked for is to be left alone + not to be forced to swallow secular values +infanticide. That same “get the government out of my life ” works in less regulation + lower taxes to create businesses and also support businesses + charities .
Think about the dems ……what does organized labor have in common with radical gays?? They are just a gang of specil interests with their hands out .