Holly has a great post/discussion about why Unity at all costs is the wrong message for the GOP today. Within her post was one small statement that I had been thinking about for weeks:
Too many are not willing to lose . . .
I thought of calling such leaders Kamikaze Republicans but there is an important difference. Kamikaze attacks could not have the attacker survive and have the attack be successful. Banzai attacks had a low probability of success, but the attacker could still hope to both live and be successful. Kamikaze attackers intend to destroy themselves in hopes of breaking their opponents while banzai attackers are willing to stand for their principles even if it means they lose in the effort.
Show me the republican leader who is willing to end their political life in order to maintain a principle in which they should not compromise. For that matter, define for me the principles of the Republican Party for which the party should take an uncompromising stand.
Some of his supporters probably thought that Jason Chaffetz was such a leader – they were wrong. (I had considered that he might be, but it didn’t last long. I do admit that there are more important principles which he could prove uncompromising on but it didn’t take long to reverse himself on one of his signature positions.) If you are able to show me one such leader then I will ask you to show me enough of them to sway the course of the party. (And no, opposing Democrats consistently does not qualify as maintaining principles.)
The struggle within the party right now is between those who argue that any given principle can be compromised under the right circumstances and those who say there must be a core of principles which are not open to any compromise. There are also smaller skirmishes about which principles can be compromised and under what circumstances.
Unfortunately from my point of view the one “principle” that seems to have the widest support is the one that should be the most open to compromise – that is the generally more aggressive approach to the use of our military than the typical Democrats position. (Actually that should be dropped.)
Banzai David San !
I think the struggle is less complex. In Thomas Frank’s “What’s the Matter with Kansas” he details a “movement conservative” takeover of the KS Republican Party. The battle was between rank-and-file, ideologically “pure” conservatives and the “upper class” corporate conservatives with party machine support. It worked, and the rank and file won by simply rallying the base. Such a takeover I would assume is the kind Holly is/has frequently advocated. And it would work, in Utah. But Utah is not the area the GOP is having trouble.
Party identification with the GOP is at historic lows, which implies that even a galvanized base, a “reformed” conservative GOP stand little chance of sweeping the nation in a national election or even in a national movement to gain lower federal seats.
What the party faces — and what Holly can’t see, seeing the state of things through “red state eyes” — is that the real battle that must happen within the GOP is between the corporatists and the social conservatives. Until social conservatives abandon the corporatists and reach out (mainly to the hispanic and black voter blocs… but gay rights and economic equality advocates as well), or until the corporatists abandon the social conservatives and somehow reach out to the nation as a whole (think Reagan minus Pat Robertson and Strom Thurmond’s legacy), the fight will remain internal, and not engaging to anyone but those voters who will vote for the R anyway.
Conservatives bristle every time I present this theory to them, and that’s unfortunate really (I truly believe that opposition at all times creates balance, even as a progressive currently enjoying the success of the Democratic Party agenda of late). But it’s a realization that must happen. While conservatives are trying to convince the electorate and even themselves that simply doubling down on what they’ve done so far is the way forward, liberals and progressives will be undoing Reagan’s influence over everything from the Supreme court to judicial review committees to the conservative legacy still lingering in the nations courts overall. Hidden behind the (admittedly more fun to watch) partisan battles on the TeeVee, liberals are undoing Reagan’s most effective legacy, and their biggest challenge to a political realignment in this country. I’m not saying that’s going to be bad (in fact, as a progressive, I’m saying it’s about time the Democrats thought to undo what he did). I’m saying that the longer the conservatives fight over ideological purity instead of national popularity, the bigger the hill they will have to climb back to national popularity.
Conservatives in Utah are the best example of those offering probably the worst advice to the GOP.
Jason, you would be surprised what I can “see”. Why would the GOP want to take advice from the left? Seriously. What possible benefit could there be to listening to those who want you to fail? You – from your leftist, progressive perspective – think that the battle is between corporatists and social conservatives. While I agree that the GOP needs to do far more in reaching out to hispanic, black and women voters, I maintain that a party without principle is one that will never reach the hearts of the American people. I don’t think we need to keep doing what we’ve done – at least not in recent history. I do advocate – as Chairman Steele said (one area where I agree with him) – a “renaissance”, a return to standing on principle. There are a few who do – but far too few. I don’t ask for perfection. I don’t expect to agree with everyone on everything. I do expect there to be a “line in the sand” on some issues and that ALL issues be filtered by principle, not political expediency.
What really surprises me in this discussion is how many from the left mock those of us on the right who actually want and expect our leaders to be principled. You stand for nothing? You don’t want leaders to have principles that govern their decisions? John Adams said it well when he said “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other”. It applies to our leaders AND “we the people”. If the Republican party dies because they stand for nothing and welcome all, then so be it. I believe the Republican party – which has been floundering – CAN recover and can return to representing the values they say they stand for. But they better get cracking…..
Jason,
I have to say thanks once again for sparking some interesting thoughts. I believe that there may be some fundamental differences between conservatism and progressivism that might account for why you see a different problem for the floundering GOP than conservative members (like Holly and myself) see for the party – but that is a full post for another day.
Like you I value the benefits of a viable opposition which is why I would like to see a more functional Democratic party in Utah – perhaps Holly missed the fact that your ideological differences with us does not translate into a desire to see the GOP wither and die politically. (I’m sure it does translate into that sentiment for some progressives.)
I believe that there are two different battles going on and people like you and Thomas Frank are identifying one of those battles (grassroots vs corporate conservatives) which others, such as Holly and myself view as secondary to the battle we are currently trying to wage for “ideological purity” as outsiders often call it.
The fact is that he struggle we are engaged in is not for the purpose of excising members of the party, but rather for the purpose of giving the party a direction and purpose which it has lost in years past. We recognize, as Democrats were forced to do a few years previously, that having no direction except to oppose the other party is no way to accomplish anything – that’s just obstructionism which I think you will agree does not provide the balance that you hope to see from a decent opposition party.
Being the party of “No” may be important at times (for either party) but it does not move the country forward on a constructive course. In our time of confused identity we can loudly oppose the direction of the current administration but you and I both know that we will need more than that to fill the vacuum that will be left anytime we actually succeed in thwarting the actions that we have been opposing.
All politicians of whatever party tend to become corrupt if there isn’t a viable opposition to keep them honest. We saw what a one-party system in America looks like during the Bush administration.
I sincerely want the Republicans to get back on their feet. President Obama is doing a lot of things that can be legitimately criticized on principle. But the GOP has gone off into Glenn Beck/Sarah Palin crazy-land instead of addressing real problems.
Amen to the dangers of one party rule. I think Utah is about as good as you can hope to get in the way of government without a viable balancing opposition party. (“Viable” being defined here as having a legitimate shot of electing a candidate to statewide office – nationally that would be having a legitimate shot of electing a president, hence the reason that we functionally have a two party system no matter who the Libertarian or Constitution party choose to nominate.)
Jason makes a good point about social conservatives vs business interests within the Republican party. Though I don’t think that’s why party identification is at historic lows. Where Jason errs is in thinking that Republicans got all they wanted out of a Bush White House, when the truth is the exact opposite. The reason why the Republicans have fared badly lately is because they abandoned social and fiscal conservatives.
Both parties are big conglomerations of multiple groups. There is always a power struggle going on within each party as various factions jockey for position. It has been interesting to see these intra-party struggles occur, but it’s not always fun because it ends up having real impact on our lives.
As far as the corporatists go, the Democratic Party ought to be looking within. Where do you think all of the corporatists have gone that have left the GOP? Who do you think all of the deals have been cut with on the medical bills wending their way through Congress? Geez, folks. Instead of looking at the rhetoric, try looking at the money trail. This ain’t rocket science.
The GOP suffers from many ailments. Among them is that the faction that gained control in the post-Reagan era – post-1994 revolution era had way too much success in getting what it wanted. Cameron is correct that the social conservatives were pretty much left out of this (except for a lot of rhetoric and an occasional dry bone being tossed their way). But when the faction in control got most of its wishes, it ended up ruining the party. In case you haven’t noticed, the Democratic Party may be following this precise pattern at present.
Since political parties are large conglomerations, it only stands to reason that all of the factions within a party will only be able to agree on a very few high level principles. Whichever faction is in control will force other factions to accept some of their most cherished goals, but to do so it will probably have to accept at least a few goals from the next most powerful factions. The power faction cram-down was particularly evident in the GOP as fiscal conservatives and libertarian leaners stood around with smiles on their faces and supported stuff like No Child Left Behind and Medicare expansion.
With the various GOP factions now alternatively scrambling to assert power and to blame other factions for the party’s meltdown, the few goals upon which all factions can agree have become tramped into the mud until the only principle that currently unites the factions is that they are not Democrats.
In my opinion, the GOP power struggle won’t gel or even begin to appear to gel until there is an opportunity for more elections, since the power struggle runs on election cycles. (I’m not saying the GOP will win elections, but that elections will help define which factions have actual power.) In the meantime, the members of the various factions (except for the movers and shakers) will think that they know what it means to be a Republican and that everyone in the party does or should agree with them.
From what I have been reading it looks like Jason is looking at the fight for the GOP to win elections while most of the posters who self-identify as conservatives are more likely to look at the battle to identify what it means to be a Republican. Those among the Republicans who are currently arguing for a loose definition are the ones who thing being a Republican means opposing Democrats and using anti-socialist rhetoric. (They are the kind most likely to say that cutting taxes is always the right answer no matter what the questions is – consequences be hanged.)
Reach is right that all the talk between elections trying to define what it means to be a Republican is nothing more than positioning. What happens at the ballot box is where the party will have a chance to discover which messages are attracting voters – that is how the definition of “Republican” will be discovered. Right now what the party knows is that what they thought they were doing has been turning people away from the party in droves – they just don’t understand why yet or what message will bring them back – locally or nationally.
Its a shame that the 2 party system we have forces all of these factions into the same party effectively forcing them to compromise their principals somewhere to even get elected in the first place.
Holly, you should re-read my comment before you opt to take it as a personal attack. David pegged me correctly in two separate comments here. 1, I firmly believe opposition is necessary for a healthy republic, and therefore have no desire to see the GOP fail. In fact, that is where my frustration with the Tea Party movement I enjoy mocking comes from. They had a great thing: populism. And then they wasted it by not doing their homework, and too often not even making sense. It was infuriating not because I disagreed with what they where saying, but in that they were wasting one of the greatest powers in American politics: an engaged bloc of voters. 2nd correct assumption David made of my thoughts is that I’m speaking of “electoral” politics more than “ideological identity” politics.
These times are cyclical for both parties, and just as the Democrats learned much from the rise and continued influence of Reaganism, and their rejection by the public after Clinton until 2006, the Republican Party now has an opportunity to learn from their time in the woods.
Cameron wrote above that where the GOP stumbled is in not heeding the will of social and fiscal conservatives. I disagree completely. Social conservatives entrenched the party in a political war that could not be won, and pinned it’s success on a battle that (like it or not) fewer and fewer people care about today. Simplest way to explain it: Roe v Wade will never be overturned. Outside of Utah (again, I call this “red state eyes”… and don’t take offense, Holly, others, it happens to Democrats in Blue States I’ve lived in too), and other conservative hubs, abortion is little more than a wedge issue that annoys voters, and will increasingly become a less effective campaign tool. Gay marriage will be a non-issue by the end of this decade. In fact (I’m quoting Ethan Millard here, to give credit), the next successful GOP leader will be pro gay marriage, not say a word about abortion, and will talk only of fiscal responsibility.
I’m not saying any of this as a partisan “mocking” conservatives, as Holly has written in her own follow up post. I’m speaking right now simply as someone who has followed politics for a very long time. There are very predictable and perceivable trends and patterns to it all. And again, it’s cyclical.
Though I’ve never been a Republican, I was raised by them, and have more conservative friends than I do liberal. I respect where conservatives are coming from on many issues, and think it’s an important contribution to the debates we have. But as long as conservatives fail to acknowledge the changing times around them socially, and focus on the very act of once again winning elections, ideological principle has no meaning.
Take a lesson from the progressives. Progressive Democrats spent years in the House and Senate simply sitting around, being right (IMHO, and bare with me for the sake of the point here). They never successfully pushed a single piece of progressive legislation. They never greatly influenced the debate in either chamber. They were just being progressive, and being right, refusing to bend even a little until they could support something that was exactly what they wanted. It wasn’t until they learned to compromise their “big picture” occasionally in order to make a gain here, or an amendment there, that they actually began to play an active role within the Democratic Party, and the legislative process.
I think there’s a lesson there for those who hope to influence the future of the GOP. If you are willing to lose every election until you can say, with pride, that you have a purity of principle, and never compromised the “big picture” perfection in order to win even a single seat, well, let me introduce you to the Green Party. Ask them how that’s working out for them.
Not merely a shameless plug here, it really is relevant…
We delved into this topic a bit (as well as the Constitution in current politics) with conservative author Stephen F Hayward, of the American Enterprise Institute, discussing his “Age of Reagan” book today on FTP. http://kvnuforthepeople.com/2009/10/22/audio-the-age-of-reagan-with-aeis-stephen-f-hayward-const-law-prof-tony-peacock/
It happens sporadically throughout the entire two hour interview, but I believe the most relevant points are made in hour two, when I asked about Reagan’s conservative judge appointments, and Jon asked about his article “Conservativism is Brain Dead” (hit piece on Glenn Beck) and the future of the GOP.
Jasonthe, you are right in much of what you are saying – and thanks for the civility in the dialogue. 🙂 You are not the only “progressive” in on the dialogue, however, and some choose not to be as reasonable.
Just because I think we should have leaders that stand on principle does not mean I can’t see what’s happening. The next time California has a gay marriage bill (and they will), it will pass. Easily, would be my guess.
Politics IS the art of compromise and as someone who worked for over 4 years as a citizen “lobbyist” to pass ONE piece of legislation, I can tell you that there are many areas we can compromise on and many areas we can agree on. Anyone who waits for the perfect piece of legislation waits in vain. There are, however, other areas we can not and should not compromise. I’m not asking for people to be “perfect”. I am asking for those involved in the Republican party to adhere to the platform. Why are they even running as Republican if they are say, Arlen Specter or Olympia Snowe and always vote with the Dems? If you support the Democratic platform, then call yourself a Dem, not a Republican…we can’t even get that level of honesty… It happens here in Utah, too. If you’ve been following politics for a “long, long time”, then you know that many Republican elected officials are Republicans of convenience. Have you not heard people say that’s the only way to get elected in this state? I have and I think it’s wrong. I’ll go back to our lobbying effort – I SOOO much appreciated legislators who – if they did not support us – just told us they could not support us, without accusation, without acrimony or name-calling….even with the ones who did the name-calling we knew were we stood, but the most irritating – and one reason I’m “calling out” the Republican party – were those who told us they supported us, but were campaigning against us behind our backs. What is so hard about being honest? What is so hard about having enough of a moral compass (or political acumen, for the cynic) to not have an affair at least while you are in office?! What is so hard about being fiscally conservative and meaning it? I really am reasonable, at least in my own mind – ha! I’ll say again – I don’t expect perfection. I don’t expect that those politicians I support will always be 100% in agreement with what I think. In fact, since I can and do change my mind, I don’t even agree with myself 100% of the time….for example, I used to hate politics. Now I love it. 🙂 But for heck’s sake, we need to get past the cronyism, the protect-the-good-old-boys-at-all-costs and the current ‘pay to play’ attitude and get to where our elected officials actually stand for something – Democrat or Republican.
And by the way – I hope it’s obvious that I am FOR ethics and FOR reform – but am totally against the initiative being pushed…
Back to your comments – I don’t think the tea party movements have wasted their momentum. They are still mobile, still energized and you will see them have a big impact on the 2010 elections, IMO. In Utah, they will be at the caucuses in droves and for many, it will be their first time. That’s great. Do I agree with all of them? No. Do I think it’s great they are involved? Yes. As with you, I think the overall political picture improves the more voices are involved.
But in the end, I still try to stand on principle and expect those I elect to do so as well.
If I had my guess I would predict that even where he disagrees with the Republican party Jason has ideas about what the party should represent (which things are most important in the platform). Taking the three legs from Mitt Romney’s stool (since they seem to correlate closely to the three general types of conservatives that have traditionally made up the GOP) I would expect that Jason thinks that fiscal conservatism within the party has withered too much, social conservatism within the party was withering just about right until they started their loud complaints about being left behind by the party, and the pro military faction of the party was about right except that they were gaining too much benefit from the lack of any real fiscal conservatives. (Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong Jason.)
As an insider I suspect that Holly’s position is more nuanced than I could predict, but her real message is not so much that one of those legs should be pre-eminent, but rather that talking about party positions (such as fiscal conservatism) and then acting against those party principles is the antithesis of being part of the party and that those who wish to do that should not expect to receive the support of the party machine. (Again, Holly is free to correct me.)
I guess my point is that I think Holly is right about the political integrity issue, and while I don’t agree with Jason on everything he is welcome to his opinion (even as an outsider) and the party can benefit from knowing what those outside the party believe about the party. We don’t have to capitulate in order to understand our audience and craft our message in a way that they can understand the message we are trying to convey.
David, you got my point exactly. And isn’t it bizarre that someone as “anti-establishment” as me is now a party insider…..weird. I also want to know how you get the really good comment threads going – wow!!
I’m in the same boat as you Holly. I’m not as much of a party insider as you are but I started as very anti-establishment and I’m headed toward greater party involvement even as the party is in tatters.
How do I get really good comment thread going? It’s all about you guys. I have to wait for something to catch on, but I just try to treat everybody fairly and you guys do the rest.
Unlike Holly, I still hate politics. Especially the lies and corruption. Unfortunately, we have to pay attention to politics or else the politicians win all the time at our expense.
Voter apathy is the career politician’s best friend.