How ‘Good Republicans’ Let Fascism Capture Their Party

Filed in National by on August 10, 2021

I have to disagree with my esteemed colleague on the subject of so-called “good” or “moderate” Republicans. They do exist — not in Congress, which is why Chris Coons is pissing up a rope, but they are out there. I know more than a few myself. They’re the sort of people who have a decent amount of money and so support the GOP, but they didn’t donate to Trump in ’16 or vote for him in ’20.

So I believe there are good Republicans — and they are the people most to blame for the capture of their party by the loonball right. I base this conclusion on a simple fact: The “good Republicans” fail to turn out for primary elections.

The Republican Party creates safely Republican districts for its elected members, but that doesn’t mean wingnuts are guaranteed to win seats. That only happens because the folks who think of themselves as decent and moderate stay home on primary day. For example, when Mike Castle lost to Christine O’Donnell, Republican turnout was relatively high, 32%. The not-witch got a few more than 30,000 votes, a few thousand more than Castle. Roughly 90,000 Republicans didn’t bother to vote at all.

Marjorie Taylor Greene, for a more recent example, faced an empty chair in November. But she had plenty of opposition in her primary, when she got 43,892 votes, 40.3% of about 108,000 votes cast. Eight others split the rest of the vote, but when the runoff was held a few weeks later, fewer than 77,000 bothered to cast ballots. Greene’s vote total was virtually unchanged.

In the land of the pundits, this level of obsession by a minority faction of the GOP is treated as evidence that right-wing zealotry is insurmountable. That’s industrial-strength bullshit. In November, Georgia’s 14th district turned out 307,625 voters, about four times the number who voted in that August run-off. The good Republicans had two opportunities to nip the crazy lady in the bud, but couldn’t muster up the effort to vote in sufficient numbers.

It’s possible these good Republicans are simply outnumbered by their crazies — but until they get off their asses we’ll never know for sure. And if they truly hated what their party has become, they’d get off their asses.

About the Author ()

Who wants to know?

Comments (12)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. jason330 says:

    “…if they truly hated what their party has become, they’d get off their asses.”

    So, with that I think you undid your argument. Your “good Republicans” might be decent people, nice to their pets, charitable, civic-minded, etc. but if they do not take part in GOP primaries, and cede the field to the crazies – can they be considered “good Republicans”

    • Alby says:

      I know very many good but lazy Democrats, too. They also tend to be moderates. There are not many moderate activists of any stripe.

  2. bamboozer says:

    I think a great many of these “Good Republicans” changed to independent at some point when the bullshit got really deep, realize who can vote in a primary varies from state to state. Virtually all the Republicans I knew at the time had plenty of money and most referred to themselves as moderates. Instead of getting involved…. well, they got going.

  3. ScarletWoman says:

    Yeah, my “good” republican is from experience a very good person — but I have to draw the line and put a big fat fence and a flashing warning sign around him. He actually still has a Christine O’Donnell sign in his basement. I don’t know for sure whom he talks to, but he ran out and picked up Witzke yard signs when called. And he knee-jerk jumped to support the recent wack-job candidates for school board. Although he wouldn’t know Critical Race Theory or the 1619 Project from his fat ass or a hole in the ground. Can not be reasoned with.

  4. nathan arizona says:

    Being “decent people, nice to their pets, charitable, civic minded etc.” counts for something, even if they were too oblivious to try to stop the trump threat. Politics is not the only lens, though it’s an important one. Besides, that’s better than actually voting *for* trump. At least there’s a chance they will reject authoritarianism once they recognize it. I’m not talking about the kind of republican who still has a Christine O’Donnell sign in his basement.

    • Ben says:

      Hoping that there is a *chance they will reject fascism is pretty freaking dark, dude.

      They’re lost. Let’s leave them behind.

  5. nathan arizona says:

    A chance is better than no chance.

    Before we leave them behind, let’s be sure we don’t need them.

    • ben says:

      I’ll spoil it for you. We don’t need them and we’re wasting precious time considering them. Don’t be part of the problem.

  6. Dana Garrett says:

    Standards can differ on what constitutes “good.” By my standard, most moderate Democrats don’t make the grade. So that leaves the progressives in the party who, although they’ve made some electoral gains, are not the dominant faction in the Democratic Party. We’re probably screwed, irredeemably so.

  7. nathan arizona says:

    Not sure that worrying about an insular left messing up elections is “part of the problem.” Will need big numbers to stop the really crazy republican stuff.

    It’s the familiar dichotomy: All or nothing, or less and something.

    • Jason330 says:

      Keep trying to party like its 1999. The good Republicans (and the bad ones) surly appreciate your calm patience.