Purity Versus Pragmatism: Let the Soul-Searching Begin…
One of the battles that threatens to take over the 2008 race, at least on the Republican side, is one that the Democrats have been fighting for a while now. David Ignatius has some very relevant observations in the Washington Post today:
The hard right, which is the soul of the modern GOP, would rather be ideologically pure than successful. Governing requires making compromises and getting your hands dirty, but the conservative purists disdain those qualities. They swim for that beach with a fiercely misguided determination, and they demand that the other whales accompany them.
As I said, it’s broader than that. The problem is not confined to one side of the aisle: it is the Howard Dean/Kossack/Progressive versus Clinton/DLC/Mainstream fight in different clothing.
Ignatius continues:
Bush has been successful when he has connected with the American center. Political scientist Gary C. Jacobson notes that after Sept. 11, 2001, Bush “enjoyed the longest stretch of approval ratings above 60 percent of any president in 40 years.” In that post-Sept. 11 period, when Bush was fulfilling his campaign promise to be “a uniter, not a divider,” his approval rating among Democrats soared to an astounding 81 percent.
Bush and the Republicans had a chance after 2004 to become the country’s natural governing party. They controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. The Democrats were in utter disarray, leaderless and idea-less. When Bush took the podium in January to deliver his soaring second inaugural address, the future seemed to belong to the Republicans.
Bush squandered this opportunity by falling into the trap that has snared the modern GOP — of playing to the base rather than to the nation. The Republicans behave as if the country agrees with them on issues, when that demonstrably isn’t so. The country doesn’t agree about Social Security, doesn’t agree about the ethical issues that were dramatized by the torment of Terri Schiavo, doesn’t agree about abortion.
Again, there’s a mixture of truth and wishful thinking here. Yes, Bush had favorable approval ratings through the roof post-9/11, and part of this was indeed because of his strong leadership; of course, part of it was also the inevitable ‘rally around the leader’ reaction of a nation facing an external threat. And I would argue that the public agrees with the Republican agenda more than the Democratic one, though of course neither side can claim complete agreement.
The larger point, though, is correct, and it’s the motivation behind much of my recent punditry, feeble though it may be. Unfortunately, Ignatius’s conclusion is also largely correct:
What you sense now, as conservative and moderate Republicans alike take potshots at their president, is that the GOP is entering the post-Bush era. A war of succession has begun, cloaked in a war of principles. The cruelest aspect of Bush’s predicament is that the conservatives are treating him with the same disdain they showed his father. What a denouement to the West Wing Oedipal drama: A son who did everything he could to avoid his father’s humiliation by the conservative wing of the party is now under attack by the right himself.
Principles are a fine thing, but a narrow, partisan definition of principle has led the Republicans to a dead end. Their inability to transcend their base and speak to the country as a whole is now painfully obvious. Like the Democrats in their years of decline, they are screaming at each other — not realizing how far they have drifted from the mid-channel markers that have always led to open waters and defined success in American politics.
It’s not quite that grim…but it’s close…it’s wake-up time. 2006 is looming…Sad to say, we’re going to have to go through a bit of a tough time as we figure out what kind of Republican Party we’re going to be. The Miers nomination has forced the issue; failure to confront it is not an option.
“The hard right, which is the soul of the modern GOP, would rather be ideologically pure than successful.”
Very insightful, only the same could be said about the ‘hard left’. Let’s see, GOP spokesperson is Mehlman, and the DNC’s is Dean? Seems the Dems are more controlled by their extremes than the GOP. If it is a problem for GOP, it is the apocylpse for the dems.
“A war of succession has begun” yes-Bush will not be reelected. A GOP leader will be selected, the dems will attack him to appease their interest groups, and wind up alienating the rest of the moderates. Same sex marriage is not going to go away. Iraq is still going to be an issue, the GOP candiate will still hold a 55-33 advantage on foreign policy…barring economic collapse, advantage GOP.
“The country doesn’t agree about Social Security…” True. But demographically speaking, the Seniors are against it while the young are in favor of it. The young will get old and remember that the GOP wanted to fix it, while the old will die (but still will be voting in Philly). Advantage-GOP
“The Democrats were in utter disarray, leaderless and idea-less.”
Has that really changed? Pelosi/Reid/Dean are the the three wise men who will lead the dems to their baby jesus?
“Principles are a fine thing, but a narrow, partisan definition of principle has led the Republicans to a dead end.” Until a new leader emerges-its called a cycle, David.
Strong feeling that it will be George Allen, finishing the work of Bush.
“Their inability to transcend their base and speak to the country as a whole is now painfully obvious.” The same is even more true of the democrats. Advantage-GOP.
“Like the Democrats in their years of decline, they are screaming at each other” -is Broder predicting a massive dem victory in 2006? Seems that this decline has been characterized by an increase in the house and the Senate for the GOP. I’ll get nervous when the Dems have a cohesive message, unitl then it is every state for itself.
Defining success? Iraq.
If we have an ally in the ME, aside from Israel, which also happens to be one of the most modern governments in the area…success will be defined.
As bad as the gop looks, I’ll take a triple amputee over a quadrapalegic dnc, any day.
Mark and Mark the lesser both have it right. Republicans have problems, but not as many as the Democrats. Republicans have extremists, but not as extreme as the Democrats. Republicans have scandals, but not as bad as the Democrats.
The Republicans are beatable, but not by the Democrats. The country has been trending slightly conservative and slightly Republican since 1980. As much as some people hate President Bush, our President has been able to solidify Republican control across the country like no other President before. While no trend lasts forever, there is no indication this trend is ready to reverse. Pundits can blame President Bush and the Republicans until they are blue in the face, but Democrats still need to offer a better alternative. It won’t happen under Howard Dean. He doesn’t represent or even understand mainstream.
David Ignatius may have stumbled onto a few truths, but when you start a piece by writing that the hard right is the soul of the modern GOP, it is doubtful the writer will come to any relevant or true conclusions, because the basis of his thinking is incorrect.
“Very insightful, only the same could be said about the ‘hard left’.”
Right, but the Democrats probably won’t be nominating someone from the hard left.
“Until a new leader emerges-its called a cycle, David.
Strong feeling that it will be George Allen, finishing the work of Bush.”
Let me continue my anecdotal, small-sample, incredibly unscientific poll: as an early Allen enthusiast, how do you feel about Giuliani?
I’m not saying this is a big theory, or anything, but the breakdown seems to be Allen-Giuliani-McCain right now, i.e. Allen supporters and Giuliani supporters are for the most part still somewhat open to the other candidate, and the same for G-McCain, but Allen and McCain have little overlap in potential support.
If true, this means good things for my boy Rudy, since he might be positioned within the middle of the field of candidates on his side, rather than in the middle of the whole field.
Which I believe is accurate. McCain may, on paper, have claim to being closer to the GOP position on big issues, but who thinks that he’d govern in any but a consensus, straight-down-the-middle style? If that?
Who’s more likely to take nudgings from, say, the New York Times? McCain? or a Republican from New York? I think the latter, for reasons this New Yorker (state, not city, but still) would be happy to expand on at length.
I should probably get my own blog for that, though.
[For all I know this is completely contradicted by Ruffini's stuff. Since he actually does the work, and I'm just some pontificating shmoe, I'm interested to see how it works out on the individual level.]
PS – Presidents, and very successful ones at that, have made bigger ideological shifts in the past. Reagan was about two paychecks shy of becoming an actual commie, for instance.
I should add that what I wrote above applies to me: as an obnoxious-level Giuliani supporter, Allen, while still largely uknown to me, doesn’t ring any alarm bells. (Nasty things I may have said here and there set aside. All in fun).
Does this mean I’m just a wishy-washy RINO? Well, no, I hope not.
By all means, I want to hear the case for Allen. Permanent campaign. This is as good a way as any to pass the time.
This is from the Economist (Lexington, Oct. 8), so take it with a grain or two:
“Can anyone name a single exciting Democratic idea for dealing with poverty? Or crime? Or reforming the public sector? Or winning the Kulturkampf with Islamic extremism?”
Conversely, who can make the strongest arguments on precisely those issues? Giuliani.
A half-hour documentary: NYC: Before and After.
It’s not just 9/11. The 90s were a slow-motion crisis which he dealt with. Results. On the ground. I’ll shut up now for a while.
This is interesting. The commenters here seem to think the important issue is for the GOP to be less dysfunctional than the Democrats, whereas Ignatius seems to be indicating that it might be important for the GOP to just plain stop being so dysfunctional. The “hard left” may be bad, but that doesn’t mean the “hard right” is a whole lot better. Not only that, but Knemon’s point that the Democrats aren’t going to nominate someone from the hard left should be taken to heart. The Republicans look like they’re going to be blessedly sane and nominate Giuliani or McCain, but there are enough Allen supporters out there that this becomes a real issue. The sooner the GOP can get its head wrapped around the fact that this country just isn’t as socially conservative as their base, the sooner we’ll have a president with an approval rating above pi again.
Knemon-they won’t run a hard left candidate, but the nominee will have to appease them, in statements.
I like Giuliani as well, strikes me as more of a libertarian, which is is what I am, along with about 45-60% of the party. Not confident Guiliani can get past the primaries though…I’ll vote for him if he makes it. You are not a RINO, just an independent republican, which is a majority of our party. We disagree with many issues, but when we vote lesser of two evils…dems don’t stand a chance(except that Bayh guy).
I like giuliani, he has similar likability numbers to Bush, which bodes well. You’ll find Allen, likable too. I don’t know enough about him, but as a ex-west NJ guy, Rudy is ok with me.
Ryan-one party’s disfunction is another party’s debate. The conservatives will argue amongst themsleves, but when election comes, lesser of two evils has already been decided. A democrat cannot behave responsibly.
Bush never ran as someone who would overturn Roe, he deflected the issue…Kerry ran with upholding roe as foundation of being a democrat. The relgious right does make me squirm, but they aren’t in a position to support somebody else. The dems are a band of special interest groups, in order to get in, you have to champion each and every cause. Think of it as adding a brick to the load. Bush didn’t have nearly as many groups to court, and Kerry’s courtship is just the opposite.
Bush will be over 50% by the end of October. There is a small election going on in Iraq on the 15th. Notice how the MSM, doesn’t qoute or put any Iraqi’s on TV? You’d think after hearing all the gushing comments for Bush at the rose Garden from the President and the statements made at the UN, expressing solidarity…oh that’s right, it’s not news, and the Iraqi’s are mindless puppets of the Bush admin. Tiiiiiimmme is on my side…(More Mick and not Goodman(Fallen).
A democrat cannot behave responsibly.
After this president, I’m not so sure a Republican can either.
I’ve got to admit I was less impressed with Ignatius’ piece than Mark was. In general, he seems to be repeating the liberal canard that conservatives in office must govern toward the middle—i.e., not do anything very conservative. Something in that, of course, but it should apply equally to both extremes, and it seldom does. Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s written opinions were at least as strongly leftist as those of Bork were on the right, but she certainly wasn’t treated like Bork. Clinton’s presidency stumbled right out of the gate when he started pushing policies that were well to the left of his campaign positions (I’ve read that this was largely Hillary’s idea), and the results included losing Congress to the Republicans in ’94. Again, I haven’t heard this mentioned much except by conservative writers.
Conservatives seem to get into trouble more often when they ignore their base trying to placate moderates and liberals that aren’t going to be placated anyway—Bush 41 reneging on the “no new taxes” pledge, or Bush 43 on entitlements, affirmative action, immigration, Katrina relief… okay, I’ll stop. But the extent to which Bush has embraced big-government, federal activism has done absolutely nothing to endear him to his critics on the left. Ignatius’ essay sounds like, at best, wishful thinking.
The more interesting thing about Miers’ nomination is the way it’s opened up the split between social conservatives and small-government conservatives in Bush’s support. The two sides overlap, but on court appointments the social cons seem to be more interested in outcome, while the small-government types focus on process. The first group seems more more ready to overlook Miers’ modest qualifications if they can believe she’ll deliver the votes they’re hoping for, while the second is more concerned by her lack of a rigorous judicial philosophy. Sadly, I think this intra-party food fight could have been avoided if Bush had gone beyond his inner circle to name a socially conservative judge with more impressive credentials–Luttig, maybe, or someone like that. It’s awfully hard to pretend that nominating Miers was a well thought-out move.
Mark,
It is one thing to compromise and get less than what you want. It is another thing to completely adopt the otherside talking points and policies. Here are a few specific:
(1) This President spent more money than the previous Democratic President on entitlements, porks, and domestic government programs.
(2) We have more federal employees under this President than the previous Democratic president.
(3) Under a so called conservative administration, we came up with more regulations than a liberal administration before.
(4) This President and Congress have completely abandon the core of conservativism, state-right.
(5) And now this nomination.
There is a clear distinction between a compromise and a sell-out.
Hi Ryan,
The President’s approval rating is irrelevant. There are many conservatives who do not approve of the job President Bush is doing who would never vote for a Democrat.
It would be great if the Republicans were more organized, more thoughtful, and more competent. However, [most] Americans are not going to vote against a Republican who has an opponent who is in the Dean camp.
George W. Bush has proven to be very mainstream, as did Bill Clinton. Pundits who describe the Republican leadership as hard right do not know what they are talking about. George Allen is not hard right either. He is center right, just where he needs to be to get the Republican nomination and be elected President.
“After this president, I’m not so sure a Republican can either.”
The Country got over Nixon, in one term. That is how bad Carter was-(If I were Matthews, I would never tell anyone that I was a speechwriter for him). Some was bad luck, some was bad policy.
Minh-Duc:
I am not happy with the spending, but some of your points are completely without context.
1. Is homeland security a domestic program? 41 billion. The problem is not cutting spending, but cutting the rate of growth of spending. It would be impossible to cut spending, relative to previous administrations, if you cut the growth to 1-2%, while GDP grows at 3-4%, you are having an effective presidency.
Cut Homeland security(a program I opposed) and spending related to 9/11, and you might realize that spending is not that bad. Context…
2. Federal employees increased? see homeland security and previous answer.
3. Regulations? Got to define that one…pertaining to what, exactly?
4. Completely abandoned? They just need some reminding, they really don’t want to be called democrats…you are right on some key things. This rx benefit is ill conceived. Telling Drug companies that you will pick up the tab is not a good idea.
5.So was Meirs a compromise, or a sell-out? Let the cards finish being dealt…
I have always believed that the flow of history is not linear, it’s pendular. Or maybe it’s a sine wave, except with higher peaks and higher troughs. In my opinion, the pendulum which started in the mid-sixties reached its apogee during the Carter years, before it went the other direction during the Reagan and Bush I years. In the early nineties it swung to the left for the Clinton years, where it hung for a while, symbolized perhaps by the virtual tie between Bush and Gore. With 9/11 it went hard right, but I believe that it has reversed course and is moving left again.
You can see it culturally: from anything-goes 1960’s and 1970’s to the retro-1950’s Reagan years to the boomer excess of the Clinton years to the conservatism of the Bush II years. You can see it in how politicians dressed and what their image was: from Bobby Kennedy (long hair) to Jimmy Carter (wore $200 suit in his inaugural walk to be a common man) to Reagan (a tux) to Clinton (golf shirt) to Bush (always wears a tie in the office). I think you can also see these shifts in how the country feels and votes. Popular opinion moves like an ocean liner – changes slowly but is irresistible once it does so – and I think that the last six or nine months has been the tipping point.
I’m not trying to get mystical on y’all – I’m only trying to make the point that I think common opinion is shifting from the foci which elected Bush (social conservatism, faith, emphasis on character rather than policies) to foci more congenial to the left (emphasis on the weakest members of society, a more inclusive social philosophy, secularism). To use one example: I would be shocked if the gay marriage thing is a hot button in 2008 – I think this is something which is much closer to mainstream acceptance and much further from a wedge issue. I would be equally surprised if the people stranded in New Orleans did not have the same visibility as a political symbol in 2008 which the Twin Towers did in 2004. The questions will be different and the solutions will be different.
I think this is a tectonic shift which moves imperceptibly and is obscured by the noise of day-to-day events. I have no proof to offer and no rationale except my own observations. My crystal ball is often cloudy – hey, I can barely remember where I park my car at the mall – but I think that when viewed from the vantage point of ten or twenty years from now, 2005 will be remembered as the year that the country reversed course yet again.
Well, peter, that’s a well-written and reasoned bit that I hope is totally wrong, for selfish reasons. Let me throw an admittedly biased angle into your shifting tectonics…I do agree there is an ebb and flow from the right to the left and back again, but it seems to me that, at least since Reagan, the center is always a little more to the right…and that suits me fine. I offer as my proof Bill Clinton, who had to jettison his lefty sentiments, for the most part, when it came to actual policies (see Christopher Hitchens’ brilliant account No One Left to Lie To, written when he was still considered of the left)…
We leaves blown along by history…
Finding a pattern in the way we pass across the ground?
no.
Well, perhaps. Do you think that Clinton is more or less liberal than, say, Jimmy Carter? I would say: about the same. Is George W Bush more or less conservative than Richard Nixon? I would say: about the same.
Is there a secular shift to the right? Perhaps — but I don’t see it. Can I quote the French on this website? Plus ca change, rien ca change…