What Do Republicans Want?
So why can’t the Republicans find someone who excites them?
Is it because they’re becoming Democrats?
The Democrats’ Perennial Problem
Democrats have repeatedly demonstrated an amazing ability; nobody can fractionate themselves as well or as quickly as the Democrats. Consider democratic presidential successes in the last sixty years and we have Kennedy and Clinton. Carter’s election was a response to Nixon and Obama to Bush II. An argument can be made that Clinton was a response to Reagan-Bush I and Johnson’s election was a combination of excellent negative campaigning towards Goldwater plus the free rides generated by Camelot and its demise.
But unifying behind a single cause? That’s not the Democratic way and the best example was the complete floundering Democrats performed when they dominated both the House and Senate following Obama’s election.
The Uniquely Republican Skill
Perhaps starting with Nixon and definitely starting with Reagan, the Republicans have demonstrated an amazing ability to find and capitalize on the nation’s unconscious sweet spot, the single idea or cause that universally brings blood to boil, emotions to rise, passions to flare and above all else, people to vote.
But where is that skill now?
The Democratic Theft
Clinton first stole that skill with “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” (and extra points to readers who know who Clinton stole that phrase from). Bush II — or more accurately Karl Rove — stole it back then Obama once again stole the ball with the Promise of Change. Both Clinton and Obama used wonderfully unifying factors in the common unconscious to rouse the vote.
So What Do Republicans Want?
Obviously none of the current presidential candidates. A previous study demonstrated that no one’s standing out as a real Republican front runner except as an excuse to scratch some box.
The real question is whether or not there’s any single unifying idea or cause the Republicans can rally around.
Or whether any single candidate or ticket can enunciate it.
You can find my
What do Republicans want? For most of them, the short answer is “We want to have Ronald Reagan back.” And the short answer is never the whole answer. And, once again, I have to object to analysis that tries to figure out political issues in terms of political parties. To me, thinking of things in terms of political parties is like trying to perform surgery with a hatchet. It can be done, but not well, and it’s crazy dangerous enough you might want to wait and at least try a Tylenol. The parties are tools, and analyzing the tools does not always help in understanding the products the tools help produce.
That said, the Republican primary seems to be showing complete chaos and self-loathing that is bound to end in ignominious defeat, right? I think it’s far too early to predict that outcome, but surely these Republicans have lost their minds, have they not?
What is going on right now is less an issue of Republicans being indecisive and fickle than a reflection of an ongoing struggle within that party, and it’s not the first time this battle has been fought. In times past, the battle was called the battle between “Rockefeller” and “Goldwater” Republicans. These days it is more likely to be called the difference between the “Establishment” and the Tea Party. Some would say the Republican party is struggling to adapt to chaotic changes in an unruly electorate. Others would say it has strayed from its base and is fighting against being pulled back into line. Which one you believe it is probably depends on your view of the Tea Party.
The problem the Reps face is that, while the number of self-identified conservatives is growing, the number of self-identified Republicans is shrinking. In my view, the Tea Party came into being because the conservatives (who, it should be remembered, still outnumber “liberals” by two-to-one in this country) felt they were no longer represented by those in charge of the Republican Party. Far from being “filled with ideologues” as the left loves to complain, the party had, by 2000, been co-opted by the love of power that seems to claim every politician shortly after arriving in Washington.
So why didn’t Tea Partiers just form their own party? Too many of them remember Ross Perot. The people in the Tea Party, and those who sympathize with them, understand that, for better or worse, it’s a roughly two party system here. The tools are crude, but they’re the tools we have.
A two-party system has its advantages and its disadvantages, perhaps an occasion for a different debate. The Tea Partiers saw that their best hope for getting what they want is to push the Republican Party back to its more traditional positions. And stubborn refusal to be co-opted is the only way to make that happen.
This set up the current situation as surely as the sun rises. (Well, actually, I guess the sun doesn’t really “rise,” we just go around in circles so much we think it does).
Romney was clearly “next in line,” the traditional establishment way of selecting a candidate. It is an approach that yielded Dole and McCain as candidates with obvious results. The establishment likes to point at what happened with Goldwater vs. Johnson, and forgets what happend with Reagan vs. Carter.
Others preferred a different approach, which yielded a raft of “not Romney” candidates each in his (or her) own way trying to be the Reagan.
And none is, of course.
Those in the establishment are panicked by the grassroots upsurge. They see it as people who don’t understand how Washington works trying to come in and make changes, the only result of which will be defeat. Romney may not be much different from Obama, but that’s his greatest strength. Being a lot like Obama is our only chance to beat him.
Non-establishment conservatives, correctly or incorrectly, don’t buy that argument. The result has been a vetting, one after another, of the raft of would-bes. Each, without using the name very much, is (or was) auditioning for the “Reagan Replacement” position. What the primary voters are looking for is that combination of rhetorical competence, conservative principles, leadership mindset, consistency of purpose, and ability to connect they so miss since the 1980s.
Michelle and John didn’t quite have the ability to connect, Rick P. didn’t have the rhetorical skills, Herman didn’t have the political skills to outmaneuver dirty tricks and opposition research.
And then there were four. Newt certainly has the rhetorical power, and on alternate Tuesdays he shows the leadership mindset. That’s enough to keep him going. Rick S. has a smidgen of the rhetorical skill and almost all of the conservative principles and a passionate tenacity that connects. Ron — what to say about Ron? He certainly has consistency of purpose, and on alternate Thursdays a smidgen of rhetorical skills. A Libertarian will necessarily share most of the conservative principles. But in the end, most of his votes are to send a Tea Partyish message. And that message is so important, he will go all the way to the convention to make it heard.
Romney may be the choice, and many still believe he is the best opportunity for victory that can push the country’s momentum back in the other direction for a while. But he does no better than an average grade on any of the important things being sought. And there is the source of his trouble.
And sooner or later, the auditions will come to an end. Much later than the establishment wanted, and sometimes life isn’t what you planned. At that point, the choice will be between ?? and Obama, not Reagan and Obama, the way most Republicans would like it to be. For Republicans and for conservatives, the choice will still be clear.
As for the “fractionation of the Democrat Party,” it is less an issue of political competence than an inevitable outcome of the Democrat Party’s base. With philosophical liberals representing only 20% of the electorate, the party must add to its base from other sources. So it has identified groups and co-opted them, promising results for each group if given power. Since Roosevelt (the second one) the Democrat Party has built its base on loose coalitions of special interest groups. (See “Roosevelt Coalition”). They are the party of this group, the party of that group, the party of the “common man” and so on. With so many groups making so many demands and expecting so many payoffs in return, it is next to impossible to focus on single issues, though it is possible to tap into the natural cycle of dissatisfaction American voters traditionally follow.
It is the resulting chaos and lack of focus among Democrats, more than any skill of the Republicans to tap into single, gripping, emotional, vote-inspiring messages, that accounts for success of Republican candidates. And being tired of Republicans leads to Democrats getting their turn at the tiller. Or till, depending on your level of cynicism.
And probably that’s part of my own cynicism leaking through. I allow myself three days per month of being cynical. You happen to have caught me on one of them.