Oh, I give up: anyone have any ideas for how to fix the Republican Party -- or, more broadly, to rescue conservatives from the radicals, hucksters, and crazies?
(Yeah, feel free to argue with the premise of the question if you think that Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin are the True Conservatives, but good luck with that).
Sunday, October 13, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
We don't have problems with the Tea Party in New Jersey Republican politics. That is mostly due to having strong Republican country organizations that usually can win primaries for organization endorsed candidates. Tea party candidates challenged 3 of our incumbent Republican Congressmen in 2012 (LoBiondo in the 2nd district, Smith in the 4th, and Lance in the 7th), but with organization support these mainstream Republican Congressmen won their primaries with 88%, 84%, and 61% of the vote, respectively.
ReplyDeleteI think the answer nationally is for the Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Businessmen to support mainstream conservatives financially and organizationally in Republican primaries, and for wealthy mainstream conservatives to step up their financial support of electable mainstream candidates in primaries when they are challenged by tea party extremists.
That's a very interesting answer. How should the CoC identify appropriate candidates?
DeleteThe NJ GOP chose a candidate for the open US Senate seat who is a self-identified tea party Republican. The tea party is hardly powerless in NJ.
DeleteIn fairness to the NJGOP, didn't Lonegan get the nod because no one more electable wanted it? Everyone thought Booker was a sure thing. As it so turned out, that may not have been the case.
DeleteBut I think there was a fair bit of laziness (alternately self-preservation!) among NJ Republicans.
Chris, I hear what you're saying. I honestly don't know enough about NJ politics to know what went wrong for the non-tea party establishment -- I'd be interested to hear what anon has to say on that.
DeleteBut I will say that the NJGOP could have offered plenty of inducements to a presentable and ambitious Republican who may not otherwise want to run a race that he or she is almost sure to lose. Even fundraising for a losing campaign is surprisingly easy, especially since there's all sorts of political operatives kicking around with nothing to do.
In the recent Massachusetts special election for US Senate, there were no tea party candidates. But two well-liked elected officials were soundly beaten by a hispanic ex-navy seal that the party establishment plucked from near-obscurity to run a well-financed professional campaign (basically, because they wanted to brand themselves as the party of young, attractive hispanic navy seals). If the pathetic MAGOP could pull-off something like this, then you'd think the NJGOP could as well. But for whatever the reason, it was a Tea Party guy who won the right to represent the party.
I'm the original anonymous here. The Republican Party basically decided not to seriously contest Booker's election to the US Senate, as Booker is supported by some of the same wealthy contributors as Christie. The Democratic establishment in NJ ran a "B" list candidate (Buono) against Christie and failed to fund her, and in return the Republicans ran a "B" list candidate against Booker (Lonegan) and failed to fund him. It was kind of an implicit bargain between the two party organizations in NJ, that Democrats would not seriously contest the Governorship and Republicans would not seriously contest the Senate seat in 2013. NJ Republicans seldom put up Tea Party types in winnable general elections, but of course there is a tea party faction active in NJ and occasionally they win a primary. But given strong county Republican organizations in NJ, not very often, especially for winnable elections.
DeleteAnon, thanks for the background info. That pretty much nullifies my original point. Although I might question the wisdom of handing-over the GOP brand to anyone who wanted to just come along and take it (and it could have been a much more marginal figure than Lonegan).
DeleteAt least, the GOP mainstreamers would think, Lonegan will bring volunteer enthusiasm and a different source of funds to the table. It brings wings of the party together.
DeleteTwo possibilities: victory or massive defeat.
ReplyDeleteThat is, if someone reasonably competent and mainstream gets through the nomination process (Christie?), wins convincingly and appears successful the party divide will be papered over some. With a President, I think the leaderlessness (is that a word?) that lends itself to factionalism and demagogues like Cruz and Erick Erick$on (my own personal touch) will be diminished. Also, everyone falls in line when the team is doing well.
Does this "fix" things or does it
The other option is a crushing defeat. I don't particularly like this option, because I actually do believe in conservative governance, but a "hanging focuses the mind" as the saying goes. A Goldwater-esque wipeout led by a truly odious top of the ticket candidate could help push some of these elements to the sideline. Maybe the business interests (Chamber of Commerce types & such) would fight back. Maybe conservatives - mainstream ones - will be willing to come out and point to the losers and get a large part of the coalition to go with them (you'll never get everyone, there are always fringe elements. The key is keeping them fringe).
Which happens? I don't know. Both could. Of course let's say there is massive defeat in 2016 but Republicans by then have the Senate and hang on to the House. I could also see retrenchment. The "focusing of the mind" didn't last long post-Romney.
I live in Virginia. We're about to have our ass handed to us by one of the more odious men in politics, Terry McAuliffe. Why? Because we nominated (in a tiny convention) one of the more extreme tickets in modern times. We have a full TrueCon (tm) slate. Tea Party-approved, Liberty-seal of endorsement, even Ron Paul vetted! Yet oddly the voters aren't responding!
The only one who will probably win is the AG candidate, Mark Obenshain, who is running the McDonnell playbook from 2009. That is - run to the center. Talk to the middle. The "normal" people who don't care much about politics and ideology but who do care about schools, their children's safety, etc.
Speaking of McDonnell, for those of you not following VA politics, he's been in hot water for some time over questionable gifts he's gotten (lots of smoke, still no fire but we'll see).
And yet he still has a positive approval rating! He's been one of the most popular politicians in the state (particularly before this incident) and he's probably the most popular statewide GOPer in a decade.
But the TeaParty TrueCons disowned him, effectively, earlier this year, because of his transportation plan, which raised the sales tax slightly (there were other components that are "unoffensive" to conservatives but of course the TrueCons didn't get that far). Oh, his approval ratings among actual Republicans? Pretty damn good. They didn't even blink. But not among the TrueCon Faction that decides conventions. To them he's persona non grata.
I feel lucky that I've never had to do a "clothespin" vote yet -- partly, that's because I cut politicians a lot of lack in general, partly because of happy accidents. But the vote for Terry McAuliffe I'll be casting is the nasty bit of party politics.
DeletePart of it, I think, might be traced to our hugely restrictive term limits. VA Governors get one two-year term. This hurts recruitment because it leaves a retiring governor with questionable credentials for the Presidency but probably not much taste for a VA Senate seat.
Chris, Cuccinelli was polling ahead of lieutenant governor Bolling:
Deletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_gubernatorial_election,_2013#Republican_Party
Couves, you're absolutely right about that. But the ultimate reason Bolling dropped out (as you may know) is because RPV State Central got taken over by Cuccinelli-Paul folks last year and they reversed the primary process into a convention.
DeleteHe knew he couldn't win a convention. Now, could he have won a primary? Probably not. But I think Cuccinelli would have had to face his weaknesses since Bolling's campaign was basically "I'm Bill Bolling and I'm Bob McDonnell's successor". ie - I'm mainstream, you're not. I tend to think primaries are more healthy for everyone (a view I've come around to over time). But I could be wrong. And Cuccinelli is Cuccinelli...
It should be noted, FWIW, that the way Cuccinelli got the AG position before (aside from winning downticket of the McDonnell-Deeds landslide) was through a convention in 2009. He faced two more moderate candidates, John Brownlee and Dave Foster.
It was an open-secret that both McDonnell and Bolling wanted anyone but Cuccinelli, but their back-channel maneuvering wasn't enough.
There's also a school of thought that Cuccinelli has been pissed off ever since and chose to run this year instead of waiting (like he said he would) out of spite.
oh...I guess I'd add FWIW that I think the convention vs primary importance is probably more illustrated down-ballot. EW Jackson, the Lt. Governor nominee, has a tendency to make Cuccinelli look a bit milquetoast. He couldn't have won a primary. The evidence? He got <5% last year running in a primary vs George Allen (yes, *that* George Allen).
DeleteHmm...have my chunk in the middle disappeared. Anyway "...does this fix things or is it just cosmetic and temporary?"
ReplyDeleteI don't really know. But at least it buys you time and hits pause on the self-destruction. So I doubt it matters.
Conservative candidates can start by calling the radicals, hucksters and crazies those names, then switch to teacher (Elizabeth Warren). Set them straight (all fact-checkable) and tell them to shape up or leave the room. Don't yell at anyone other than the lazy press who should have already told you what I'm saying. Don't talk much about your opponent. It's amazing how much the wing nuts talk about the opposition, and tell us almost nothing about themselves.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your premise, that there is hucksterism in the Republican Party, but I disagree with your deeper premise, that this is the main threat. Frankly I see the much more serious threat as being from the RINO establishment, against which the current "radicalism" is a reaction - bringing with it, assorted hucksterism.
ReplyDeleteIt's a bit like saying - how do I rescue the patient from this terrible itch he's got because he can't scratch under the plaster cast? Well, sure, an itch is annoying, but it's nothing compared to the broken limb that the plaster cast is trying to fix.
To that end, what do you see as the main problems with the conventional GOP, and what would be the ideal alternative?
DeleteFrankly I see the much more serious threat as being from the RINO establishment, against which the current "radicalism" is a reaction - bringing with it, assorted hucksterism.
DeleteSomehow, triggering a national default over a law that was legally passed, the president won re-election by a huge margin over, and the Supreme Court deemed constitutional strikes me as a bit more serious than an itch under a cast.
The main problems with the conventional GOP are that they don't stand for anything. In fact, they are far more guilty of "hucksterism" than the Tea Party. Say what you will about the likes of Cruz and Paul, but they are quite clearly conviction politicians. The likes of McCain... they are just talking a good game. They talk about the free market and enterprise and so on, but when they get into power they never saw a spending bill they didn't love. This is why it's frustrating to see the media (and the likes of this Bernstein guy) say there's no real difference between the establishment GOP and "True Conservatives." Nonsense. The difference is that the establishment GOP talks a good game, but shows no interest in doing anything. Whereas the Tea Party clearly intend to act (although their tactics are not always ideal). Consider earmarks, for instance, where without Tea Party galvanisation, nothing would have been done. Alternatively, consider state-level government. Scott Walker is a true hero, and a winner, and no traditional Republican would have had the guts to do what he did.
DeleteI am not interested in an "ideal" alternative; what's needed is realistic alternatives. And, for better or worse, I do see Tea Party types, or Tea Party-influenced politicians at the least, as being the best current option. The likes of Paul Ryan, Scott Walker, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, etc... they're all imperfect human beings, and politicians at that. But they're the right direction.
As a liberal, I would be extremely happy if the voters were faced with a national choice between Democrats and the Tea Party. Once the voters learned that the Tea Party is against Medicare, Social Security, food stamps, disaster relief, financial regulation, federal educational standards, civil rights laws, etc. but FOR the government micromanaging women's visits to the doctor...the Tea Party would only be left with the angry white non-elderly heterosexual male vote, and not even all of them.
DeleteTHAT is why you have your so-called RINO establishment -- because otherwise, the conservatives wouldn't have a national party.
"Say what you will about the likes of Cruz and Paul, but they are quite clearly conviction politicians."
DeleteHopefully followed by a sentence of twenty-five to life.
The big problem is that we are stuck with them . . . the 40% of our fellow citizens who believe all kinds of nonsense . . . are immune to facts (indeed, facts make them more stubborn!) . . . etc. Is there any great country that wasn't eventually un-done by folks who called themselves "patriots"? Things looking bleak from here.
ReplyDelete