As is often the case with these things, the premise behind this Harper's symposium - that the GOP needs to be shoved into the "well-deserved oblivion of the Anti-Masons and the Know-Nothings" - is more interesting than its contents. But it is an interesting question: We've gone over a hundred and fifty years with the current two-party system, but there's no reason in principle that the GOP (or the Democrats) couldn't go the way of the pre-Civil War Whigs. What would have to happen, though, is not what most Democrats have in mind when they fantasize about politics these days - namely, an enormous Democratic majority and a Republican rump. Rumps are often resilient things (just ask the GOP of 1964, or 1934, or the post-Civil War Democrats), especially when they're centered around a particular regional or cultural identity, as a GOP reduced to its Southern stronghold would be. Political parties are more likely to collapse from internal contradictions than they are to be ground out of existence by a bigger, stronger rival: That's what happened to the Whig Party, which was undone by the Compromise of 1850 and the debate over slavery, and to a lesser extent it's what happened to the British Liberal Party over Irish Home Rule and World War I. In both cases, the party went from a relatively strong position to near-total collapse, thanks to an issue or issues that were big and divisive enough to strike at the core of the party's identity. It's almost possible to imagine something like this having happened to the Democrats had the Iraq War turned out differently, with a left-wing peace party and a centrist, hawkish, McLieberman party emerging from the rubble. It's harder to envision how it would happen to the post-Bush GOP: Obviously, there are plenty of ideological fault lines that could peel various constituencies away, but it's tough to see any emerging issue that could split the party down the middle; it seems more likely that the Republicans' worst-case scenario is a long stint in the political wilderness than a fast train to oblivion.
« Porn and Adultery (II) | Main | Porn and Adultery (III) »
The GOP Must Die!
19 Jun 2008 05:51 pm
Comments (32)
One intriguing and rather sci-fi possibility is if biotechnology, or the interaction of technology and the human body and the environment more broadly, becomes a much more salient issue down the road. I could imagine one party becoming much more protectionist and preservationist (anti-globalization, anti-abortion, anti-genetics, pro-union, pro-religion) while the other becomes much more quote-unquote libertarian, no matter what (pro-business, lightly anti-state, pro-genetic manipulation [even in humans], pro-gay rights, globalist, pro-immigration, MOR secularist).
Green Huckabites vs. Dawkinsite Free-traders? How 'bout it?
I think it could collapse from internal issues, but it probably won't. After a 150 years it's got a good deal more inertia and establishment to it than the American Whigs ever managed. In addition there's no emerging party of great significance to replace it.
We've gone over a hundred and fifty years with the current two-party system, but there's no reason in principle that the GOP (or the Democrats) couldn't go the way of the pre-Civil War Whigs.
Oh, there most certainly is a reason (in reality if not in principal) neither party is likely to go the way of the Whigs: the two parties have collectively seized the machinery of government, so that the two-headed beast is substantively indistinguishable from the state itself in much the same fashion as in the old Soviet Union (or modern day China).
We fret needlessly about separation of church and state when we really ought to be fretting about the separation of party and state. Parties used to be private clubs organized for reasons of ideology. Nowadays they're publicly regulated and financed, extra-constitutional, quasi-state organs.
I was going to write that with any luck at all the Repubs and the so-called conservative 'movement' will crawl back under it's assigned rock and not be heard from form 40 more years.
But Mr Jasper's perceptive remark makes me feel kind of snarky. Very good to remind us that the 'two party system' is very much part of our 'unwritten' constitution.
It's wrong to compare the modern party system to the party system of the 1850s. Today's party system is stable due to the widespread adoption during the Progressive era of the primary system for selecting candidates. Battles that might otherwise be fought between parties are now fought within parties. This allows for a slow-motion takeover of a major party label by what might otherwise be a 3rd party. The GOP won't disappear, the people who win its primaries will change.
Don't let it get back together
With Glen Frey
You're completely wrong about the British Liberal Party. It split over personality, not principle. Its divisions over Home Rule were earlier, in the late nineteenth century, when a faction of Liberal Unionists abandoned it and eventually joined the Tories. But the Liberals won their biggest majority ever after that.
The devestating split was between Asquith and Lloyd George, and it wasn't over the war, except in the sense that Lloyd George thought he was just the fellow to win it.
The Republican Party purpose since the 1928 election has been to react to whatever the Democratic Party did. Republicans were blamed for the depression (with some good reason) and stood on the sidelined all the way through World War II. The most prominent Republican politician between Herbert Hoover and Eisenhower was Henry Stimson.
A rejuvenated Republican Party in the 50's briefly owned the House but was it a bland reign with little in the way of a lasting legacy (not that that's a bad thing) and they were quickly snuffed out by a Democratic super-majority in the sixties that had a President with an approval rating in the eighties and a veto-proof majority in the senate after 1964 (though without the 80% president, obviously). Then 1968 happened. Since then, the Republican party has basically ran against the year 1968 ("law and order", "state rights", "family values"). If not for Bill Clinton (and to a lesser extent, Bush I) cleaning up the mess left behind by Reagan's irresponsible budget deficits, Reagan would have had far less of a shine than he's had and Republicans would still be pining for Eisenhower.
Gingrich's 1994 "revolution" was the biggest political mirage of all time. I won't even go into Bush. The point is, in spite of the press they've gotten, this has been a bad century for Republicans. Since Teddy Roosevelt, its been smoke, mirrors, failure and waiting to see what the Democrats do so they could figure out what to run on or against. Bush is just the most ridiculous caricature of bad Republican government that is the norm. Exceptions like Eisenhower and Nixon or Reagan on a good day merely prove the rule. Republican presidents and congressional majorities are usually failures.
Douthat: "It's almost possible to imagine something like this having happened to the Democrats had the Iraq War turned out differently, with a left-wing peace party and a centrist, hawkish, McLieberman party emerging from the rubble."
uh, no.
It's harder to envision how it would happen to the post-Bush GOP: Obviously, there are plenty of ideological fault lines that could peel various constituencies away, but it's tough to see any emerging issue that could split the party down the middle
That seemed more like a danger when Republicans had two branches, the Iraq War was going badly, and the Social Conservatives had needlessly angered the other groups with that Terry Schiavo nonsense. All of that has abated (to a degree).
Now that the Democrats have given us a Congress that's spineless in everything other than its pursuit of corruption (in which it's been quite brave), and now that the Democrats have a likable nominee who, nonetheless, is peddling stale, run-of-the-mill lefty follishness like this, a lot of Republicans like me are starting to remember exactly why we've usually voted in a coalition party featuring some groups with which we have little in common: a unitary Democratic government is worse.
Also, the primary produced a nominee that is of no discernable "team" and who is, more-or-less, equally viewed by all Republican ideological subsets:
1. there's a lot not to like about McCain,
2. at least it wasn't (Huckabee/Romney/Rudy/Hunter/Paul--pick two),
3. at least he's better than a unitary Democratic government
The faults are still there; I may not care about some other Republicans' objections to Obama (flag pins, his wife, his preachers, willingness to talk to ____) just as they may not care about mine (taxes, health insurance plan that entirely misdiagnoses the problem and can't be paid for, the fact that he will be signing all the bills sent to him by bloodsuckers like Reid and Pelosi, his enthusiastic participation in the Corn Ethanol fraud). What is agreed upon is that we don't want him for President.
This isn't a dynamic market like airlines, where Pan-Am and TWA, or retail, where Sears and Penny's, reigned until not that long ago. The Democrats and the Republicans are more like Harvard and Yale or Coke and Pepsi. They've figured out how to rig the game so that they'll be around for a really long time.
The last thing the Democrats would want is for the Republicans to break up so that they'd be opposed by a bunch of ... citizens. It's a cozy duopoly where both players watch out for each other's backs.
Reps look like they will survive because Democrats always overreach and cause malignant forces to be let loose in society - high crime, class warfare, Nanny Statism, jobs predicated by identity rather than talent or performance, moralistic preaching to lesser Americans, rule by lawyers in robes, the usual intimidation by 3rd world thugs and the "wiser and better" Europeans.
Mind you, the Republicans have major cleanup to do with its ranks infected by old ideas, the "corrupticans" whoring for the moneyed elites, by fanatic supply side idiots, and equally fanatic Fundie morons that gave us the Terri Schiavo Fiasco and religious bigotry towards anyone who isn't a Christian or a Zionist.
But clean up they will, and the new ideas will come, unless democracy fails in a major global crisis and we are forced to adopt limited democracy, check the power of the Imperial Judiciary along with a major Constitutional rewrite*.
* - Currently, we are seeing nations run circles around us in implementing modern infrastructure changes, cheaper and superior health care, educational reform. We have become the world's greatest debtor nation, a wastrel, with a trade deficit bleeding our wealth overseas nearing 1 trillion a year. The only things keeping us in the upper group competively, at least for a few more years, are the productivity of that fraction of US people that DO work in hard, challenging, productive jobs - and our creativity.
Whole cities rotting from the inside out with dysfunctional people. Whole regions gutted of industry. No solid health care system, no energy plan. Roads and bridges and buildings and power plant permits taking over 10 years to get approval on. We now face 11 trillion in Federal debt, and 31 Trillion in unfunded SS and Medicare liabilities with explosive growth in costs of education, medicare, nursing homes...
We may have to swap a dysfunctional system of government for a command system that better rewards our productive and creative workers - and addresses the problems that our 2-Party, adversarial system has failed to fix for over 40 years.
I don't see any 3rd Party coming to the rescue from it's present lineup of wingnut libertarians and Open Borders but no new energy source NIMBY Greenies.
A 3rd Party that does emerge if the system failed really badly and America is judged by all to be a mess worse than the worst seen under Hoover or Bush or Carter....might be post-Communist, nimble Command China style leadership offered after they get power and The People agree to a rewrite of the Constitution, similarly the Authoritarian Singapore Model, even the "get things done" post-Fascist Model (sans of course aggressive expansionist aims and the racism and bigotry).
With limited voting - only taxpayers, disabled war Vets, and the retired past age 70 get to vote.
The Republican Party was going to become irrelevant due to demographics. The incompetence of the Bush Administration just sped up the process. All past comparisons need to remember that the voters in 1932, 1964, etc were over 90% white. Now voters are about 70% white and that group is shrinking relative to the overall population.
It will be much harder for a rump party to stick around due to the need to actual win enough election to be able to affect policy and the need to raise money. Given that the Code of Federal Regulations is in the 100,000's of pages, no group can afford to be out of power for even a short time. Given the enormous amount of money it takes to run a national party, a party need to be relevant enough to raise funds.
In the near future the Republicans will hit a tipping point where a state Republican party such as the ones in Mass, Md, Vt, Del, will fold due to lack of funds. After that happens the Republican Party will quickly fade away and the U.S. will become a one party state. The difference is that the Democratic Primaries will be the real elections (like they are in most large, urban areas) and the general election will be a moot exercise to affirm the results of the Democratic Primary.
Every democratic country has a conservative party dedicated to defending the interests of the affluent. I don't see why the US should be an exception, so I expect the Republican party to be around for a long time.
Mr Ford: 'We may have to swap a dysfunctional system of gov't for a command system....' Maybe the 'nimble Command China...' or 'Authoritarian Singapore model...' or 'post Fascist Model'....
Please refer to my earlier post regarding crawling under a rock for another 40 yrs.
Looking at the collection of worthies at the presentation, the idea behind the symposium is that the interests who control the Republican Party (big corporations, fundamentalists, unreconstructed Confederates, in the view of this gang) are bad for the country, are supressing, somehow, the true interests of the country, and therefore deserve no voice in government. This ignores the fact that these interests, which do have a fair amunt of cash, will go to some party, and will continue the contest for control.
As for Ross' point, I think there is the sort of potential conflict between the fundamentalist -- Burkean conservatives, the neoconservatives/national greatness types, and the small government types, that could destroy a party. Whether ths contest can get sufficient oxygen to consume the party is something we will see. But I think it unwise to deny the potential.
The death of the Republican party is a bit exaggerated. These Harpers folk are hallucinating. Nixon led the party into the wilderness until Carter did so for the Democrats, followed by the Reagan restitution. Should the Iraq government ultimately fare well, as it presently bids fair to do, and the feckless Republicans in Congress pull their act together, there could easily be another Republican day, particularly after four years of the Carter like faux statesman, Obama.
Peter Leavitt,
If an Obama Administration puts 20+ million illegal aliens on the path to citizenship and voting, the Republicans will have zero chance of winning the presidency.
Actually, the one thing I could imagine splitting the GOP in this fashion is Ross' favorite issue, abortion. If Roe were overturned and the religious right made a big issue of creating actual impediments on the ability of wealthy and middle class people-- including wealthy Republicans who have made a tactical alliance with social conservatives to enact their economic policy-- to get abortions, this could cause the split, as most educated wealthy people understand that traditional religious restrictions on sexuality are BS and that there is no particular reason to abide by them. As a result, legal abortion is a part of their toolkit, and if the right of women in their social class to obtain abortions were seriously threatened, they might very well bolt.
Now, those are two big if's. Roe won't be overturned unless at least 1 and possibly more additional Supreme Court appointments are made by a Republican President, and even if Roe is overturned, we don't know if the religious right will demand a maximalist political strategy or live with a world where abortions are denied to poor women in some states but anyone of means will be able to and will continue to get them.
That's a good point Dilan, but it would take more than an overturning of Roe, which would simply kick the issue back to the states (something that's acceptible to many pro-choice Republicans). It would require a real effort at a national abortion ban.
I don't see it happening, though, since the rationale for overturning Roe is primarily jurisdictional, and a federal abortion ban would be subject to the same jurisdictional objection.
Ah, Mr Shinyk...I think you are using the word 'jurisdictional' in a way I don't understand.
I hear anti-abortion-rights advocates saying that the 'Roe' decision was wrongly decided because it is based on 'privacy' rights that they deny exist in the Constitution. (I understand that the privacy connection entered the case related to 'Griswold'.) Is that what you meant? But a federal law banning abortion, that also would have 'jurisdictional' problems? I don't see how you mean that. Not arguing or objecting--just dunno how you're using the word. Surely the Supremes have 'jurisdiction'. And the Fed Gov't would also if such a ban were made law.
I think both Shinyk and JohnMcC miss how the issue might actually play out.
First, I do suspect that some pro-life groups would push for a national ban. After all, they banned partial birth abortions nationally. Don't confuse the fact that they now use the talking point of "sending it back to the states" as a way to appeal to pro-choicers who are uncomfortable with a national preemption of abortion laws to mean they wouldn't seek a national ban later.
Second, I could imagine more narrowly targeted federal legislation that could very much make it more difficult for wealthy Republicans (and the women they impregnate) to get abortions. Imagine, for instance, a law that makes it a federal to cross state lines to procure an abortion. Or simply an effort by state governments to bring prosecutions against residents who leave the jurisdiction to obtain abortions.
There could also be national restrictions that could make it very difficult to obtain abortions. Imagine a requirement that all abortions be performed in hospitals (many states have tried to do this and were stopped only by Roe and its progeny) combined with a federal funding / Mexico City like policy that no institution with any federal funding, direct or direct, could perform abortions.
I suspect that the religious right may very well start demanding these things post-Roe, especially if the abortion rate does not go down. Whether they will get them is a different story, but this could cause the split.
"world where abortions are denied to poor women in some states but anyone of means will be able to and will continue to get them." DE
TR: Yeah we wouldn't want a world where child poverty can't be dealt with by just getting rid of children. If they don't feel economic pressure to abort these poor women could get ideas. They could become more assertive about better schools and maternal benefits. And then where would the affluent women who abort so they can make partnership be?
Much better now where anyone with means can have a kid, send them off to a good boarding school, and continue their carefree life after brief interruption. While simultaneously poor women get guilted, by both Left and Right, about "raising a child in poverty." (Or in the Right's case on welfare)
Re: Please refer to my earlier post regarding crawling under a rock for another 40 yrs.
Er, I disagree with Mr. Ford on virtually everything but I do think he has a point. If economic and environmental crises put an end to the American political system as we know it, then whatever America turns to in the aftermath is likely to be relatively authoritarian.
Thomas R.,
Yes, you're quite correct in that abortion acts as kind of a safety valve for the economic injustices of our system. If abortion were illegal then those poor mothers would be a source of political pressure for a more just economic system. It's horrible and a betrayal of what the Democratic Party should stand for.
Another thing that happens when a large second party collapses is that there is usually a growing or vibrant political movement that can take its place: for example, the British Liberals falling out allowing Labour to rise up in its stead. The Whigs collapse didn't lead immediately to the Republicans, but that was the party that rose in its place to stand opposed to the Democrats, much in the way Whigs rose to replace the Federalists.
Like it or not, the coming collapse of the GOP may well lead to that party's demise: the question becomes what will rise in its place. The Libertarians, perhaps? That Constitution (nee Christian) Party? One gets the feeling Ross Perot came out with his Reform Party 10 years too soon...
I think you are using the word 'jurisdictional' in a way I don't understand.
I hear anti-abortion-rights advocates saying that the 'Roe' decision was wrongly decided because it is based on 'privacy' rights that they deny exist in the Constitution.
The legalistic objection to Roe is that Roe uses improper constitutional logic to put the issue of abortion in the hands of the wrong entity (federal), which is what I meant by 'jurisdictional.'
As far as Dylan's point about how the issue would play out post-Roe, I do believe that pro-life groups would push for a national ban. I just don't believe it will do them any good. The same 'jurisdictional' objection now being applied against Roe would also be applicable to any national law outlawing abortion that didn't involve a constitutional amendment, and I don't think a constitutional abortion ban would get any farther than the FMA did. Since I have the sneaking suspicion that at least some pro-life politicians are, in a sense, just playing a pro-lifer on TV, when push comes to shove, a national abortion ban is not passable.
Resisting socialism since the 1930s!
that's a solid slogan, and we need it now more than ever, against the "Mao more than ever" Wright-wing of tyhe democratic party, which seems to be driving the the Dem's bus.
When the GOP dies, can I have the head? I want to shrink it and hang it in front of my bathroom mirror so I can cackle at it in total glee every morning.
Re: Or simply an effort by state governments to bring prosecutions against residents who leave the jurisdiction to obtain abortions.
Which would almost certainly be found unconstitutional by even very conservative judges. One of the oldest principles in law, dating back all the way to the Romans, is "sine lege nulle crimen"-- meaning you can't prosecute actions that occur outside your law's jurisdictions.
The article was less analysis than a bunch of Ramparts-editor-wannabees competitively pleasuring themselves while watching an Obama commercial on MTV. They fantasize about a world where they get to win all the political arguments without opposition. Frankly, been there, done that, and it always ends in mass graves.
Their true agenda is revealed by the last paragraph, where they fantasize about having a traitorous military officer overthrow a Republican President ordering military action. "In the end they'll (the electorate) will beg for a coup." They're in the end (like national Socialists everywhere) a bunch of bloody minded neo-Caesarists worthy of nothing but contempt.
The article in question should be flushed down the toilet, followed shortly thereafter by anything else they write for the rest of their lives. Shame on them all.
The article was less analysis than a bunch of Ramparts-editor-wannabees competitively pleasuring themselves while watching an Obama commercial on MTV. They fantasize about a world where they get to win all the political arguments without opposition. Frankly, been there, done that, and it always ends in mass graves.
Their true agenda is revealed by the last paragraph, where they fantasize about having a traitorous military officer overthrow a Republican President ordering military action. "In the end they'll (the electorate) will beg for a coup." They're in the end (like national Socialists everywhere) a bunch of bloody minded neo-Caesarists worthy of nothing but contempt.
The article in question should be flushed down the toilet, followed shortly thereafter by anything else they write for the rest of their lives. Shame on them all.
| 
Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream
Privilege: Harvard and the Education of the Ruling Class
Political parties are more likely to collapse from internal contradictions
Luckily you guys don't have anything like that to worry about.
Posted by Steve Balboni | June 19, 2008 6:50 PM