Which Party is Over?
The Republican party is in deep trouble. In races all over the country seats which were once firmly ensconced in the Republican column are now up for grabs. Fewer and fewer people are describing – or admitting – themselves as Republicans, and the hope that McCain will win over Independents is slipping away.
Okay, McCain is a terrible candidate. He has denied the Republicans use of their favorite words: Flip-flop and waffling. But he isn’t solely to blame for the state of his party. Oh no, this was a group effort, beginning with Ronald Reagan’s pandering to the Far Right. His validation of the pro-life/family values groups is his legacy, and while Reagan got away with paying lip service to this group present day Republicans aren’t so lucky. Which brings us back to McCain whose positions are becoming as fickle as a teenage girl.
Juggling two lovers usually ends with the juggler losing both. Eventually the lovers discover each others existence and then all hell breaks loose. Oh yeah, the “Maverick” has a big commitment problem. Whispering sweet nothings no longer works, and the promises being made to the far right concerning Supreme Court Justices and abortion will not win the hearts of the much needed Independents. McCain is – if you’ll permit me to bludgeon a theme – torn between two lovers.
So, with all the talk about the survival of the Democratic Party have we missed the fall of the Republican Empire?
Tags: 2008 Presidential, John McCain
Delaware has made the news again as part of the fall of the republican empire…. read it, its a disgrace.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/05/10/fallen-us-troops-cremated-at-friends-forever-pet-cremation-service/
Good read however never overlook the slime that the Repub’s will throw and remember the people have bought it twice before.
That doesn’t say much for the voters of this country.
Subject’s like busing and gay marriage have caused many voters including Union members to vote against their own interest.
CNN reporting today that even the religious right is going for the DEMs these days.
Certainly, their kids are thinking for themselves.
And the GOP doesn’t quite know when to stop digging. Continuing to attach themselves to a President who broke Richard Nixon’s approval levels just keeps these all of these guys tied to the failures.
Pandora,
The only disagreement I’d have here is your take on Reagan. The modern conservative movement post-Goldwater that Reagan inherited was composed of a libertarian wing and a social conservative wing strung together by Buckley in the late 1960s.
Reagan was always predominantly a member of the libertarian wing, and generally (as compared to modern GOPers) gets credit for keeping the social conservatives and religious right at arm’s length, where they stayed until the early 1990s when (among other things) Newt invited them in.
The Elephant in the Room (can’t recall the author’s name but I’ll look it up later) chronicles this relationship from the 1960s to Dubya.
What we’re seeing now is not just the fruits of 8 years of Dubya, but the splitting up of a long-term major internal party alliance. The truly libertarian wing of the GOP is pulling away. This is as huge to the Republican Party as if a major constituency group of the Dems had for some reason deserted the coalition. Maybe more so, as the Democratic Party has always been a house of multiple coalitions, whereas the GOP has never stood on any stool more solidly based than three legs.
Steve,
I come back to Reagan because of his pro-life stance and the fact that George 41, as Reagan’s running mate, had to switch his position on this issue. To me this validated the pro-life position and helped turn it into a powerful, political voice within the Republican Party.
Pandora,
The nuance I’d hold out for (agreeing that your facts are right) is that “pro life” (a term I put in quotes because I refuse to use either “pro” terms personally, any more) was not as thoroughly equated with the religious right before about 1986-88 as it is today. In neither case for Reagan (80 or 84) was it critical to his election, and the lifers often felt he stiffed them analogous to the way gays often feel about the Dems (where were they going to go?).
It is not until Reagan is a lame duck and GHW Bush is a weaker candidate that you start to see their serious rise to power in the GOP. Until then the Eastern Libertarians had held sway.
I don’t think we’re really in disagreement here: it’s just because I’m spending a lot of time thinking about extracting libertarians from the GOP that I’m sort of into the details.
because Iām spending a lot of time thinking about extracting libertarians from the GOP that Iām sort of into the details
*
OOOh, best of luck with that. You are up to the task, no doubt!
Steve, I don’t think we’re in disagreement either. Maybe I put more emphasis on the “anti- legal abortion” (How’s that for clarity š ) crew due to my age at the time Reagan came to power. As a senior in high school I wasn’t that informed, or interested, in the economy. I focused on social issues, and looking back I can see Reagan was pandering… but one groups pandering can be anothers validation.
Just my perspective. I think Reagan planted the seeds which bore fruit several years later.
I think if you look closely Pandora you will find that it was the opening of the doors to the social conservatives and the religious right that drove a wedge in the traditional republican party dogma and has the majority of libertarians on the run from the republican party at this time. As a civil-libertarian I have always been like Marcos Malikos over at kos or even like Ron Reagan jr.- in the nether world between the two party system.
Brian, I agree. Good Lord! Am I becoming a libertarian! š At the time, my teen years, I remember being very anti-Reagan. I remember my mom being very concerned about Roe vs Wade. I remember my dad saying that Reagan had opened… well… Pandora’s box.
So, yes Brian… it was the opening of the doors, or box, or validation of issues – abortion, religion, gays, aka Family values – that had never openly (and that’s the key word) become political fodder.
(Okay, Kennedy’s religion was an issue, but not his sex life… at least not openly!)
Hope you’re feeling better!
Unfortunately I am still going with on off fevers…thank you for asking fingers crossed I will be ok soon.
On the other hand the republicans have a serious problem. They should NOT hire guys that support the military Junta in Burma if they want to remain relevant. Click on my name. If this guy was eventually led to resign over working for Myanmar and now works for John McCain what does that say about the state of the party system?
We should closely navigate the left and right and I think stay politically relevant in the world by ensuring we do not allow this kind of crisis occur again. If you ask me personally I would say as soon as the republicans stopped listening to the libertarians and started listening to the religious right and social conservatives they started this downward trend…. Only so many people can validate the positions of a John Hagee.
I still think the majority of Americans would agree that we need better than what we have gotten from both parties. The Democrats would be very wise to send out feelers to the libertarian wing of the republicans by listening to our positions on civil liberties and the protections of rights, and the beleif of non-interference on perosnal issues like homosexuality, and non-interference in international issues like picking a fight with Iran on Norman Podhoretz’s word that we should do so and be even more unpopular than we are now in the world.
I think we need one party to have more conviction (D), and one party to have less (R). And it was libertarians of all persuasions from left to right who used to moderate the debate.
Pandora,
Are you becoming a Libertarian? I could only dream. . . . š
Seriously, however, what I am attempting to explain to “doctrinaire” libertarians is that everybody has some libertarian leanings, depending upon the issue. . . .
I think the history you’re going after is made difficult by the fact that Roe v Wade took nearly half a decade (maybe more) to solidify itself into the conservative Republican camp. If you remember, it really was not a major electoral issue in 1980, which was a referendum on the Iran crisis and economic malaise, and not more than a minor one in 1984 (because Mondale blew the whole election in his acceptance speech, and the controversies over Ferraro kept her from being an effective advocate).
Pandora,
Are you becoming a Libertarian? I could only dream. . . . š
Seriously, however, what I am attempting to explain to “doctrinaire” libertarians is that everybody has some libertarian leanings, depending upon the issue. . . .
I think the history you’re going after is made difficult by the fact that Roe v Wade took nearly half a decade (maybe more) to solidify itself into the conservative Republican camp. If you remember, it really was not a major electoral issue in 1980, which was a referendum on the Iran crisis and economic malaise, and not more than a minor one in 1984 (because Mondale blew the whole election in his acceptance speech, and the controversies over Ferraro kept her from being an effective advocate).
“Reagan was always predominantly a member of the libertarian wing”
Yes, one could tell by the way under his presidency he:
* increased govt spending to a record high
* increased the budget deficit to a record high
* increased the size of govt. to a record high
* increased the national debt to a record high
The only difference between George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan is that the revisionist historians haven’t done their fictionalizing about the Bush years like they did about the Reagan years.
And when they do someone will write somewhere on the web “Bush was always predominantly a member of the libertarian wing.”
Dana,
Believe it or not, there is already someone out there who claims to be a Libertarian attempting to sell W as a Libertarian
http://libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com/2008/05/open-thread-is-bush-libertarian.html
So based on your four criteria as quoted, I can see I had it wrong. Ronnie was a Progressive.
Ah damn, that last riposte (which, Dana, would have at least made you laugh) contained a URL and went somewhere into spam queue hell.
And I didn’t save it.
Well, I hope geek can pull it out eventually.
“Ronnie was a Progressive.”
ummmm…w/ all that military spending ands corporate welfare and tax cuts for the rich?
Brian, McCain dumped this person (he resigned the campaign) shortly after he was hired – over his connection to Burma Junta people –
“now works for John McCain “
Libertarians heard the sound bites that the Reagan GOPerheads threw out to them.
We still have the same individuals running the Beltway GOP agenda and the Libertarians have finally realized that those good old sound bites weren’t acted upon. I’d add that most of the mantras of the Reagan era were never intended to be anything more than brain-washing.
Nancy are you defending McCain on this issue? Even if the guy no longer works for him it speaks to the systemic nature of the problems of corruption and lobbyist influence. If he was working for Myanmar and he sold the regime to the world, what is he doing for McCain?
I was mostly neutral toward Regan until October 1983 when we lost 241 marines in Beirut and the next week we invaded a small island in paradise. He never took any action against those evil doers much like bush today invading Iraq for 911. I always wondered why the Repub’s blamed Clinton for Somalia ( by the way that was the first Bushes war) and not Regan for Beirut. Then again if they could take a war hero from Georgia who lost limbs in Nam and defeat him with a draft dodger. And still claim to support the troops more than the Dem’s do and get away with it well I guess we must never underestimate them. So I really hope Obama is ready for the shit storm that is about to come his way should he get the Nod.