The Republican Party: Its People and Its Future by ZACK NGUYEN Monday, August 30, 1999 The Republican Party is a party with an uncertain future. It could be said that all political entities face an uncertain future. The advent of the Internet, the growth of cyberspace, the rising age of American citizens, and the changing morality of America has riddled the future political landscape with more questions than answers. Nevertheless, a party that shocked the mainstream with electoral victory and an aggressive new style little more than five years ago, now finds itself consistently on the defensive. The purpose of this article is to examine the various groups within the Republican Party, their political goals and motivations, and to take a look into the future at what is in store for the Republican Party. Not nearly as disparate as their foes across the aisle, the Republican Party nonetheless sports several different constituencies within its ranks that often squabble and only occasionally unite. |
. |
Since the Barry Goldwater conservative invasion of the 1960's, and the Reagan Revolution of the 1980's, the Republican Party espouses a basically conservative philosophy. Concentrations of liberalism and sometimes outright socialism can be found amongst Republicans in the northeast, led by the likes of Governor Christine Todd Whitman of New Jersey, who refused to sign a bill banning partial birth abortion. On the other side of the extreme, constitutional libertarianism can be found in Congressman Ron Paul, who votes against nearly every spending bill that comes out of Congress, and has recently filed a lawsuit against President Clinton for violations of the War Powers Act. As we consider the various constituencies of the Republican Party, the reader should keep in mind that a political party is a fluid entity, and often cannot be neatly categorized. Many voters will fall into more than one voting constituency described in this article. It is fairly common, for instance, for a voter to exist somewhere in between the Christian Right and the Yellow Dog groups. That is, they highly value the Republican Party as their political home, yet they share many of the ideas of the Christian Right. It is useful to consider the following constituencies as voting "tendencies" rather that neat boxes in which to place voters. The first group we will consider is often derisively labeled by conservatives as the “RINO’s” (Republicans In Name Only), who, in their minds, hold what is the last vestige of progressive thought in the Republican Party. LIBERALS Liberals are characterized by the above mentioned Governor Whitman and former Kansas Senator Nancy Kassebaum, who collaborated with Senator Kennedy on an enormous new health care bureaucracy, and those such as Congressman Chris Shays, who refused to vote for impeachment articles against President Clinton. Quite simply, these Republicans do not fit the conservative bend of the modern Republican Party. They go against the grain, disagreeing with the official party platform, which calls for an end to abortion and other strongly conservative notions. Liberal Republicans, whether officeholders or grassroots, typically favor a host of issues that are generally associated with the Democratic Party. They generally vote for increased environmental control by government; they would rather spend "surplus" money to "shore up" programs such as Medicare or Social Security rather than cutting taxes or getting rid of the IRS; they are almost always in favor of abortion rights; they are sometimes supported by unions; and they are often in favor of government dole-outs to organizations like the National Endowment for the Arts. In short, they are in favor of an activist federal government that promotes equality and social justice. What, then, makes them Republican? Most of these types would fit much better, ideologically speaking, into the Democratic Party. However, many of these liberal Republicans that hold particular seats in Congress are the only type of Republicans that can hold that seat. Congresswoman Kay Granger (14-Texas), is a liberal Republican (for the state of Texas, that is), yet she is likely the only Republican that can hold that seat as it is presently drawn. Because of their somewhat progressive voting records, these Republicans rarely incite the liberal Democratic constituencies in their districts, therefore keeping their seats safe from Democrat challengers. However, they do in many cases drive the mainstream of the Republican Party to intense anger. Congressman Shays, for instance, admitted that he lost a great deal of his fund raising base after he voted against impeachment, and has probably attracted a conservative primary challenger. Whether the challenger will succeed in a liberal district remains to be seen. Nevertheless, why these officeholders chose the Republican Party to begin with is puzzling. In most cases, this author suspects that much like ideological soul mate General Colin Powell, liberal candidates perceived the Republican Party as where "the action was," the party on the offensive (at least a few years ago), and from where the new ideas that will shape the nation will come. There is also this political reality: The Republican Party enjoys a strong fund raising advantage across the country that many potential candidates are attracted to. Many party switchers over the last five years have switched to the Republican Party because of the ability to win under the Republican ticket with Republican money. Perhaps they were queasy with the idea of attaching themselves to a party that favored Bill Clinton. Perhaps they felt that, even in the Northeast, a Republican would be more likely to awaken his or her voting base than a Democrat. Or perhaps they were simply uncomfortable with extreme leftism, the likes of which is manifested in feminism and the other rank and file of the Democratic Party. As far as the grassroots goes, liberal Republican activists are not prevalent -- except in a few pockets of northeastern states like New Jersey. They remain fairly rare in southern states such as Texas and Georgia. The Republican Party sports a conservative platform. For the time being, the rank and file have remained conservative on a nationwide level. BUSINESS AND CORPORATE INTERESTS A common and very serious complaint from the conservative grassroots is that the leadership pays little attention to the wants of the conservative base, which forms the vast majority of the activist branch of the Republican Party. This is a legitimate complaint. It is an indisputable fact that conservative leaders have failed to bring about the changes that many conservative activists expected when they pounded the sidewalk for Republicans in 1994. Little change in this attitude seems to be on the horizon. Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, who was hastily nominated as Speaker when Bob Livingston suddenly stepped down, has stated that he would like to lead the way that former Minority Leader Bob Michel led. This statement was unintentionally ironic, because under Bob Michel the Republicans were a minority with no real prospect of gaining the majority. Bob Michel was forced out before the 1994 election by conservatives like Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey. So why is the leadership of the Republican Party so deaf to the social and political policies of the right wing at the party's base? There are several reasons, but in this section, only one theory will be discussed. It goes to the heart of our political process. The theory is simple: soft money and PAC contributions. Fortunately for the leadership of the Republican Party, they have a ready made constituency with almost unlimited funds, that cares not a whit if the Republican Party is for or against abortion or gun control. Corporate America gives money to both major parties (but more often than not, Republicans) because of what they can receive in return. And what they receive in return is substantial. The Republican Party is perfectly willing to give donors what they pay for. According to Common Cause, of the 249 Members of President George Bush's Team, 100 contributed $25 million to his campaigns, and received in return federal favors worth $100 billion. In the mid-1980's, according to journalist Phillip Stern, AT&T's PAC's contributed $1.4 million in donations, and promptly received $12 billion in tax exemptions. During the 1997 budget battle, an embarrassing addition to the 1997 tax code received publicity -- a tax exemption for one large Republican donor for the sale of a beet processing plant. It should be stressed here that the Republican Party is by no means the lone transgressor of favors-for-contributions. It is well known, of course, that Bill Clinton is not only willing to do favors for donors, he is willing to give away nuclear weapons technology to a hostile state in return for campaign donations. It should also be stressed that many large corporations give money to politicians because they hope, as most Republicans do, that methods of governmental revenue collection will radically change. They also give in some situations because it is the easiest way to ensure that their business thrives. With a government that is as enormous and intrusive as is the U.S. federal government, whole industries have been wiped out by a particular policy enforced by our leaders. The luxury tax under President George Bush and the yacht making industry come to mind. Regardless of the motives, whether pure or corrupt, Corporate America represents a consistent flow of cash into the coffers of the RNC through enormous soft money donations or PAC contributions to individual candidates. These donations occur whether the Republican Party pays attention to its conservative base or not. The only qualification is that they have the power to ensure a permissive environment for commerce. It is important to note, however, that while Corporate America may have millions to give, it does not command votes on election day. BUCHANANITES Pat Buchanan exploded on the political scene in 1992, attacking President George Bush for his moderate record, including new government programs and higher taxes. Buchanan surprised the Republican establishment early, but then was overwhelmed in later primaries as he ran short of cash. Also, accurately or no, the term "extremist" was placed upon him and remains to this day. In 1996, Buchanan again surprised most observers. He won the New Hampshire primary, throwing the Republican leadership into disarray, and came close to snatching the nomination from the heir apparent, Bob Dole. However, Bob Dole's superior organization and widespread appeal (at least in the primaries) carried the day and Buchanan settled for second place. Buchanan and his supporters are economic nationalists, as Buchanan gamely admits. He believes in an "America First" trade policy. He favors enacting barriers to trade to protect American industry. He favors restrictions on immigration to protect American jobs, and he wants to make it as difficult as possible for corporations to leave America. He is against nearly every type of foreign aid. Aside from his stance on trade, Buchanan holds many convictions that mirror those of the Christian Right, being pro-life, anti-homosexual rights, and against big government. The constituency that Buchanan has tapped into is a fascinating example of changing macroeconomic realities. In the coming decades, there will be many more Pat Buchanans. The changes coming in our economy will ensure it. Buchanan said in a recent Chicago speech: "Industrial power is at the heart of economic power." This was true a few decades ago. But it is no longer the case. The strength of the future economy will be informational. The basis of our economy will no longer be the human hand, but the human brain. Obviously this is not good news for many who will be left behind. Those "left behind," along with a few stray religious conservatives, form the ranks of "Buchanan's Brigade," as they have been termed. Many of his supporters are angry - angry at perceived enemies among the rich; angry at companies that move to Mexico; angry at illegal immigrants. Buchanan is a relic -- a Luddite who wishes to dismantle a macroeconomic trend that cannot be dismantled. Buchanan vigorously points out that many of the Founding Fathers acted to protect markets. Indeed they did, but a century ago if the government demanded that trade cease, then trade ceased. There was no Internet to conduct commerce in the trackless realm of cyberspace. Within a few years, protectionist policies of a Buchanan or his supporters will likely be unenforceable. Buchanan once stated: "In the Democratic Party or the Republican Party or the Reform Party or some new party, economic nationalism will find its vehicle and its voice. Rely upon it." Buchanan is absolutely correct. One way or another, those that feel their skills are not marketable in the present economy will find a candidate to reflect their anger. The notion that Buchanan is stupid is an easy one to forward by those who despise him. However, Buchanan is, in reality, highly intelligent. Buchanan and his supporters represent an odd dichotomy between conservative Republicanism and resentful populism that usually finds its place in the Democratic Party. Buchanan to a certain extent will succeed in drawing blue-collar union Democrats to his Republican candidacy. These people, and Buchanan's supporters in general, are culturally conservative, and have little patience for the moral chaos of the Democratic Party. They favor less government in the form of lower taxes and smaller budgets. They favor the end of government largess such as the NEA, which Buchanan once said he wished to "padlock" and "fumigate." However, they favor massive government intervention in the form of tariffs, and to "stop our jobs from going overseas." They favor drastic means to head off illegal immigration, and in some cases legal immigration as well. Christian conservatives like Buchanan's stand on moral and cultural issues, his unabashed belief in God, and his firm stand against the interference of the United Nations. However, candidacies like Buchanan's generally have a difficult time achieving great success in a good economy. As the Republican Party now stands, protectionism does not appear to have a foothold that it can grow on. Buchanan's Fair Trade doctrine would make strides in the Democratic Party, but his fierce criticism of abortion rights and the homosexual agenda have locked him out of widespread support. Buchanan's untamed rhetoric has earned him disagreeable headlines, as when he referred to Israel supporters in Congress as "Amen Corner." And Buchanan's criticism of high corporate salaries has not endeared him to the Republican Party's fund raising base. Buchanan's Fair Trade doctrine might grow, but probably will not find fertile ground within the present-day Republican Party. YELLOW DOGS These members of the Republican Party are Republican because they are Republican; that is, they identify more with the party than with a core ideology. That is not to say that they are without principle, but they are different from the other great constituency in the Party, the Christian Right, who view political parties as simply a means to an end. Yellow Dogs are sometimes religious people, yet their faith does not shape their politics with the same all-encompassing fervor of the Christian Right. Yellow Dogs wish, first and foremost, to elect Republicans to office, and the ideological purity of those candidates are not as important as the fact that they are not Democrats. The Yellow Dogs, along with the Christian Right, form the majority of activists and officeholders in the Republican Party. There is a constant tug of war between the two. The Yellow Dogs can best be represented by the career and presidential candidacy of Senator Bob Dole. Dole was a party man; he gained the nomination through the sheer force of organization of the dozens of Republican officeholders that endorsed him. The front-loaded primary system is designed to favor candidates with a strong organization (i.e. a Yellow Dog such as Bob Dole.) Bob Dole was not an ideologue. He was more interested in "getting things done," whatever that happened to mean at the time according to the prevailing political winds, than in using his position to enact earthshaking governmental reform. This practical, "blue-collar" approach to politics made him highly effective as a legislator, but on the stump as a Presidential candidate facing an increasingly ideological Republican base, he floundered. Obviously uncomfortable with the Christian Right and its strict adherence to conservative doctrine, Dole based his general election campaign on a 15% tax cut, when a good portion of the Republican Party wanted a complete end to the current tax system. He refused to speak about such widely popular reforms as a ban on partial birth abortion, and disdained the strongly conservative platform ratified at the 1996 convention, saying that he had not bothered to read it and did not feel bound by it. Another example of the "Yellow Dog" politician, though a far less obvious one, is the current presidential front-runner for the 2000 election, Texas Governor George W. Bush. Governor Bush does not reflect the activist fervor of the Christian Right, though he himself is a professing Christian. He does not see his politics or his position as being one to enact policies to radically change the course of state government, as a Christian Right governor surely would. He rather sees himself as a representative of the people, one who works "for the good of Texas," and one who provides strong moral leadership and sound government. Bush's lack of activism is reflected in his legislative record. The state budget has grown by billions over his Democratic predecessor. Bush promised to rid the state of the Texas Education Agency, Texas's liberal education bureaucracy, and return power to local school boards. Five years later, the TEA continues to thrive. Christian Rightists on the State School Board have fought bitterly over issues of local control and textbooks against moderate Republicans appointed by Bush. Parental notification for teenage abortion passed only after being presented in the third legislative session of his Governorship. However, Bush's lack of activism as Governor of Texas sometimes works to his advantage. Bush rarely takes controversial stands that are likely to ignite liberal opposition. When he does take a stand, it is often one that enjoys bipartisan support, as in his backing of a concealed handgun measure. Like his father, Governor Bush stays off the front page for weeks at a time. He has been lucky enough to hold office during a time of economic prosperity in Texas, and the less people hear of government during an economic upswing, the more popular the elected officials tend to be. Bush has an easygoing, passive demeanor. He often speaks of morality and compassion, and uses value-heavy language in speeches, yet does not come across as legalistic and angry, rather uplifting with emphasis on synchronicity between opposing groups. In other words, Bush is in many ways the ideal Yellow Dog candidate. He appears to live as a principled, religious man, without all the "difficulty" that a religious Christian Rightist would bring to a ticket. Bush would rather win in 2000 than lose while maintaining the letter of the Republican Platform. Getting elected will be his first priority. Yellow Dog Republicans are quite patriotic, and believe strongly in such ideals as "the good of the American people." They combine a sentimental love of country with a personal moral code that makes them abhor Bill Clinton's sexual escapades in the White House. And if they abhor what Bill Clinton did in the Oval Office with Monica Lewinsky, they are rendered speechless at the wholesale giveaway of military technology to the Chinese in exchange for campaign contributions. Yellow Dogs believe in a strong military, value military service, and find unconscionable Bill Clinton's gutting of the armed forces budget. They remember Ronald Reagan with fondness. Rush Limbaugh is "their kind of Republican." Many are disappointed with the performance of the Republican leadership, particularly in the Senate, but would endure a great deal of foolishness on the part of Trent Lott and Dennis Hastert before leaving the party or voting for someone else, while the Christian Right has met its saturation point. Ideologically speaking, Yellow Dogs hold many of the same values as the Christian Right does. They are overwhelmingly pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, and anti-taxation. Perhaps the main difference between Yellow Dogs and the Christian Right is how much they value the Republican Party, and how issues motivated they are. Assuming nothing unexpected happens between now and the 2000 primary, Yellow Dogs will vote almost entirely for George W. Bush. The more Yellow Dog a voter is, the less they will be concerned with Bush's somewhat ambivalent antiabortion stands, and the more taken they will be by Bush's strong character and sense of reverence for America and it's institutions. The less Yellow Dog tendencies they have, the more suspicious they will be of a Bush candidacy. Yellow Dogs are one of the great pillars that hold up the Republican Party. We shall now move to a group that is comparatively small, yet is gaining many converts from frustrated Republicans. LIBERTARIAN This subconstituency could be termed the "forgotten" voters. It is difficult to measure their strength, because as a whole these voters do not engage in the political process. Many in this subconstituency have left the Republican Party entirely, vowing never to return until, in their minds, the Republican Party ceases to be "Democrat Lite." Their extreme dislike for "statism" is almost, but not quite, matched by their loathing of liberal Republicans. Many pure libertarians moved to the Libertarian Party banner, though some continue within the Republican Party within the banner of the Republican Liberty Caucus. The essence of libertarian thought is that government should retreat entirely from private life, intervening only to stop one citizen from infringing on the freedom of another. To the pure libertarian, this means the complete legalization of all drugs, complete abortion rights, the end of a standing army, the dismantling of Social Security and other welfare programs, outlawing the draft, legalization of prostitution, the end of all laws banning discrimination, and the end of federal education. Some libertarians, like their ideological godmother, Ayn Rand, are atheists, and are highly suspicious of the Christian Right and their use of the Bible in public debate. Some libertarians are pro-life, but the Libertarian Party Platform is pro-choice. Many Libertarians are former Republicans attracted to their limited government stand. Some are former Democrats attracted to their pro-choice and drug legalization plank in the platform. Libertarians and their close cousins, Constitutionalists, generally leave the Christian Right far behind in their ironclad ideological litmus testing of candidates. This in part is what places them along the fringes of the political process. Libertarians in particular are so disgusted with the Republican Party that only a major shift could bring them back. SECOND AMENDMENT VOTERS Though Second Amendment voters are present in nearly every Republican constituency (with the exception of liberals), they are worth a close examination as a separate voting bloc. This constituency is what is commonly referred to as "one issue voters." Some Second Amendment voters reside in the Libertarian sector, and many in the Christian Right sector. Other constituencies value firearms rights, but it is not their number one issue. Second Amendment voters think of firearms rights the same way that many Christian Rightists think of abortion. It is their litmus test, and their method of determining which candidates are "for freedom" and which are "against freedom." They are instantly suspicious of anyone who supports firearm ownership solely for hunting or sporting purposes, as this in their view is secondary to self-defense and the defense of freedom itself against government tyranny. In their minds, sporting and hunting can be regulated. Self-defense and freedom from tyranny cannot. Second Amendment voters have also begun one of the more unusual reversals among conservative voters in the last few decades: a sudden awakening of conservative concern with civil liberties. In previous decades, the New Left of the 1960's and it's ideological descendants, the current Democratic Party, was the political party more concerned with civil liberties and the rights of the individual. Recently, though, with several high profile violations of civil liberties within the last decade (Waco Branch Dividian incident, Clipper Chip, Ruby Ridge, etc.), the aggressive tactics of federal police agencies to arrest firearm owners, and encroaching gun control laws, many gun owners have grown highly suspicious of federal police action of any kind. This reversal, and the actions of the Clinton Administration, have helped bring civil liberties to the forefront of Republican concern, at least amongst their activists. To say that Second Amendment voters distrust the BATF, FBI, and DEA would be a serious understatement. Any casual surfing of the Internet can find examples of deep seated discontent among Second Amendment voters. This discontent is mainly centered around federal law enforcement, gun control laws, and violations of civil rights. There is dark talk of giving up their guns "bullets first," and widespread rebellion against the government when guns are outlawed. Many readers will dismiss this as the raving of a few nuts who grow beards and dress in camouflage on weekends. This would be a mistake. Though not every gun owner dreams of full-scale rebellion, nearly all are extremely concerned about the federal government encroaching on second amendment rights. These concerns determine who obtains their political contributions, and who gets their vote at the ballot box. First and foremost, Second Amendment voters value the liberty that they feel only firearms can ensure. In their eyes, without the right to keep and bear arms the entire Constitution is at risk. We will now consider another, even more high profile group that puts ideology over party. CHRISTIAN RIGHT This group is by far the most publicly exposed and the most demonized of the Republican Party's constituencies. Disliked and treated with suspicion by other groups in the Party, the Christian Right has nonetheless emerged as the largest constituency in the Party, along with the Yellow Dogs. They did this by starting at the precinct level a decade ago and then bursting on the scene in 1994. Now evangelical Christians dominate state Republican caucuses in several influential states. The Christian Right is unlike any other constituency in the Party. Second Amendment voters are widespread and cannot really be considered their own subgroup. The Christian Right, however, is very much its own constituency, and in many ways its own American subculture. CR's view the Republican Party as a means to an end. In this case, the end is to outlaw abortion except when the life of the mother is at stake; encourage vouchers for private schools; protect the rights of home schoolers; oppose special rights for homosexuals; bring about the end of the IRS; and cure the amoral climate in government. CR's believe that America is fundamentally sick, and only a morality based cure can bring about moral and spiritual renewal. Decades ago, when Christians voted at all they voted Democratic, particularly if they came from the South. With the New Left's takeover of the Democratic Party in the early 1970's these conservative voters, bit by bit, began to enter the Republican Party along with many non-Christian Right mainstream conservatives that fit nicely into the Yellow Dog end of the party. It is worth noting that without a Bill Clinton presidency the Christian Right would not have the influence it currently has. Seemingly coming out of nowhere to become the largest single voting block, liberal or conservative, in the 1994 elections, in reality the genesis of the Christian Right can be traced to Pat Robertson's presidential campaign. The Christian Coalition, which is the chief representative of the Christian Right, rose from the ashes of Robertson's campaign in 1988. Under the direction of Ralph Reed the Christian Coalition attacked Republican precincts in 1990, 1992, and 1994 and printed tens of millions of voter guides that were distributed across the country. Bill Clinton set the stage for a near Christian takeover of the Republican Party with his consistent liberal policies from 1993-1994. Indeed, it is difficult to overstate the disdain Christian voters have for Bill Clinton, and how successfully this has parlayed into a Christian assault against the Democratic Party (and liberals within the Republican Party) across the country. In 1995, the Christian Right seemed to have the Republican Party in its palm, and was on its way to becoming the party's largest voting group. Then, in 1996, the Republicans gave into Clinton on the budget shut-down and nominated Bob Dole, who was clearly uncomfortable with the new power of the Christian Right. Christian voters, to the astonishment of Republican leaders, refused to vote for a candidate who did not seem to share their values and stayed at home in large numbers. Dole lost; and Republicans lost seats in the House. In 1998, CR's were extremely frustrated as Republicans vacillated on impeachment, again signed a budget that increased spending, and addressed none of the problems that are crucial in garnering votes from conservatives of all stripes. In their minds, the Christian Right had given the Republican Party four years, and had seen little to no return on their grassroots investment. Abortion had gone uncurbed, the tax burden was higher than ever, school choice was still not a reality, Clinton was still in office despite brazenly committing perjury and obstruction of justice, and most of all, Republicans seemed to have no direction and no plan to counter Clinton. Week after week went by in 1998, as the Republicans said and did nothing to counter the vicious assault against Ken Starr, or to defend the rule of law as Clinton and his allies leaked damaging information about Republican officeholders. The result was a catastrophic defeat for the Republican Party in 1998. Many Christian Rightists again stayed home, as did many conservative leaning Yellow Dogs. Democrats picked up 5 seats -- unheard of in an off-year election. The Senate's obvious intention to acquit Clinton before the impeachment hearings even began angered many conservatives all over again. The treatment of the House Managers, and the Senator's flat refusal to consider the evidence brought to them by the Independent Council, infuriated Republicans across the country, as the only chance to bring Clinton to justice slipped away from them. Voters with a strong Christian Right tendency will be rather suspicious of George W. Bush's vague rhetoric, and will not be taken in by his positive outlook and high spirits. They will be much more interested in a checklist of his stands on issues. They will want to know, specifically, what he will do to curb abortion, whether he will support homosexual rights, what his tax policy will be, and how he views foreign policy. Christian Right voters are highly suspicious at this point, believing they have been "rolled" over the last few elections by the Republican Party. In other words, right or wrong the Christian Right now considers the Republican Party guilty until proven innocent. CONCLUSION
It is no exaggeration to state that that the Republican Party is in serious danger of losing its largest constituencies: the Christian Right and Second Amendment voters. Even conservative Yellow Dogs, which generally have a higher threshold with regards to abandoning their party, are growing frustrated. Without these constituencies, the Republicans have no electoral future. The strategy the Republican leadership is currently following seems to be to wait for George W. Bush to gain the nomination, and hope that he will pull their party out of the doldrums. This "strategy," such as it is, could be a headlong rush into disaster. The Republicans could very well find themselves in control of the White House in 2000, yet facing a Democratic House. Increased freedom through less government, tax reform, defense of the unborn, a strong military, and local control of education are viable ideas. They have won elections, and they are the reason why the majority of the Republican Party's activists signed on in the first place. This is what these activists have failed to see in their Congress, their Senate, or their Presidential candidates. Many presidential candidates such as Elizabeth Dole hunt for a moderate liberal constituency within the Republican Party that simply does not exist in sufficient quantity to win elections. Dick Morris was able to guide President Clinton in a "triangulation" strategy (taking studiously moderate positions to win the "swing vote") in 1996 because he gambled that Clinton could champion many Republican issues, obtain the swing vote, and still maintain his core liberal base. Clinton won with 49% of the vote, receiving a few percentage points more than the core Democratic base, which seems to hover around 40%-45%. Liberals did not flee the Clinton camp; but conservatives fled the Dole camp. This author believes that triangulation as Bill Clinton practiced it with some success in 1996 is not possible in the Republican Party as it currently exists. The Democratic Party is highly dogmatic - much more so than their Republican counterparts. Despite media propaganda to the contrary, liberals are much more likely to vote for whomever is not a Republican than Republicans are likely to vote for the non-Democrat. As has been discussed, the right wing of the Republican Party, whether they are Christians, Second Amendment voters, or particularly conservative Yellow Dogs, do not behave this way. If they are faced with no attractive alternatives, many will not simply vote for the "R" and hope for the best. Many will simply not vote. The inability of the Republican Party leadership to grasp this has brought electoral defeat in 1996 and 1998. A successful Republican presidential candidate must have the conservative wing of the party firmly in his camp before venturing for the famed "swing voters." This is not to say that the conservative wing of the party mercilessly grasps their candidates in a tight ideological claw, forbidding them to expand their message past abortion and homosexuals. Reagan expanded past his ideological base because his core conservative supporters were confident that his heart was with them. Reagan's 1984 "Morning in America" campaign was not particularly issues driven, yet conservatives were well aware of where Reagan stood, and he could reach out to union Democrats and moderates to forge his coalition without endangering his base. Storm clouds are forming on the horizon. Senator Bob Smith, conservative Republican from New Hampshire, has taken the unprecedented step of leaving the Republican Party. He has sharply criticized the party structure as standing for nothing, and has even gone so far as to publicly attack George W. Bush for his perceived moderate-liberal stands. Any third party candidacy by Bob Smith will be doomed to failure. Third party candidates achieve success only when they capture a certain number of votes from both parties, and are perceived as the moderate position between two extremes. Ross Perot, though he probably grabbed more Republican than Democrat voters, took many moderate positions on social issues that attracted more conservative minded Democrats. In addition, the excitement surrounding Perot or any viable third party candidate inspires many to vote who would not vote otherwise. Bob Smith has none of these things going for him. He will appeal to the right wing of the Republican Party and that is all. Few moderate voters will be attracted to his candidacy. THE NEAR FUTURE In 2000, a new census will be taken, and for the first time, legislatures across the nation that have never been Republican will have the opportunity to redraw districts for Congress. Assuming a complete collapse does not take place between now and then, this will result in net gains for Republicans around the country simply by virtue of having districts drawn with traditional Republican demographics in mind. Whether the Republican Party will be in condition, organizationally, to take advantage of this remains to be seen. THE BUSH EFFECT George W. Bush has become the heir apparent to the 2000 Republican nomination. Establishment Washington has been drawn to him inexorably, and the consensus among most leaders in the Republican Party is that Bush is the only candidate that can rescue the party from its doldrums and return them to the White House. This desperation on the part of the Republican establishment stems from a faulty analysis of the Republican Party's woes: that they have drifted too far to the right, that they are held captive by a small ruthless band of conservatives and Christian Rightists who demand absolute allegiance to the pro-family message. This analysis is dangerous and could lead to the dissolution of the Republican Party. With conservative candidates such as Forbes, Quayle, and Buchanan in the race, Bush can win the primary without overwhelming conservative support. However, as the general election approaches, Bush will not have the luxury of several opponents to tie up the conservative vote for him. This places him in the unique position of being free to moderate his positions during the primary campaign, yet being forced to run to the right during the general election. Whether Bush likes it or not, he will need the right wing to beat the Democratic nominee. Contrary to popular belief, it will not be difficult to gain their loyalty. The resentment against Al Gore and the Democratic Party is so strong that Bush would have to take blatantly offensive stands to lose the right wing vote. One of these offensive stands would be to name a pro-choice running mate, which has apparently been the topic of open speculation within the Bush camp. If Bush is foolhardy enough to attempt this, a bloody fight will ensue on the convention floor. Either the nominee would be rejected outright by the conventioneers, or failing that a substantial number would leave the party. Much of the "issues oriented base" mentioned in the Wall Street Journal article would vote third party in a few cases, or more likely would not vote at all. At best, the Republican Party would limp into the general election season with its grassroots in shambles. George W. Bush would almost certainly not be elected President. THE FAR FUTURE We have discussed Republican voters and their effect on the upcoming elections. But what of the years following the next election and into the next century? As has already been discussed, if the Republican Party can continue in some form or fashion through 2002, they will most likely have a substantial gain in seats from redistricting of Congressional districts by state legislatures across America that are Republican for the first time in decades. The economy, at the moment, is in an unprecedented expansion, going on its seventh year of growth. However, the good economy is masking very serious cracks in the American economic landscape. For the first time in history, as a group, Americans are now spending more than they earn every month. For every $1.00 earned, roughly $1.10 is spent. Two thirds of Americans have not saved a single cent for retirement. Bankruptcies are at record levels. The average American has $4000 in credit card debt. But as the above statistics indicate, few are worrying about outstanding debt. These statistics tell an important story. When the economic downturn begins, as it surely will, the average American is not in any way prepared for even a momentary loss of income, whether it comes from high unemployment or a stock market crash. The Republican Party will determine whether the Democrats will be able to convince the American people that the economic downturn is the result of Republican tax cuts for the "rich," a lack of racial quotas, and the product of "underfunded" public schools. It is also up to the Republican Party to determine whether the Democrats will be successful at convincing the American people that the panacea for the future economic downturn will be a tax hike on the "wealthy," more money for inefficient public schools, universal health care, and a restoration of unlimited welfare benefits. The Republican Party should be aware that the public will embrace these measures for relief if given no alternative argument to weigh against it. A population that sees a severe economic downturn for the first time in a decade; that realizes that it has mounting credit card debt it cannot pay; that notices its 401(k)'s losing money instead of making it hand over fist; that has absolutely no savings as insurance in case of unemployment, is likely to blame any boogie man it can find. Democrats have proven themselves experts at providing that boogie man, particularly if Republicans fail to bring up the obvious, that these families are paying one third of the income in taxes to a government that cannot stay within its means. An economic downturn must be handled politically by aggressive Republican leaders who can use the public's sudden concern for its economic future by making the case for radically reducing the size and scope of government THE WELL RUNS DRY Much of the Democratic Party's continued success hinges in large part on the redistribution of taxpayer funds to targeted constituency groups, including unions and the poor, in order to purchase their votes. It is a seldom mentioned fact that within the next two or three decades the government well will run dry. Social Security will incur a deficit and will go bankrupt. Medicare, if allowed to continue on its present course, will go bankrupt much sooner - in the middle of the next decade. The national debt, which according to official government numbers is around $5 trillion, will continue to spiral out of control. The tax burden, meanwhile, is currently at its highest peace time levels in American history, and will only grow higher. Baby Boomers who have been paying Social Security taxes for decades will suddenly discover, around the year 2020, that their money did not go into a retirement account as they had been led to believe, but rather, went immediately to pay the benefits of the current retirees, and to fund other completely unrelated budget items*. They will also learn that Social Security payroll deductions of the average American worker, when finally paid out, technically run out after seven or eight years of payments. Yet all of the retirees who live past the age of 73 continued receiving benefits until their death -- benefits most had never earned. All this will contribute to the eventual collapse of Social Security. Unless the political will is summoned by one party or the other to radically change the Social Security system or to eliminate it entirely, it will fail and possibly bring the financial stability of the government down with it. When this happens, citizens who have grown up with the welfare state all their lives will suddenly be without benefits from the government. It is likely to be a watershed moment in American history, a true economic crisis of the like seen before only in third world countries. Unless the Republican Party can fundamentally re-educate the American voter about the Constitution and the role of government, the future government crunch will destroy American economic credibility abroad, and will provide a prime environment for socialistic solutions to the nation's economic problems. The Republican Party can influence the national response to these future crises; it can help guide the nation and its people to a new birth of freedom; but first it must begin to rebuild electorally what it has destroyed thus far. It must accentuate the conservatism in its candidates to appeal to conservatives, Christian or otherwise, around the country. These conservatives will not be particularly difficult to win back, but they will demand something substantive in return for their money, activism, and votes. The future begins now, and the only question is whether the Republican Party will rise to meet it. Will it court the constituency that has won it landslide elections, or will it continue to "moderate" its positions in a vain attempt to please the media and the Washington oligarchy? If there was ever a time when America needs firm, responsible leadership, it is now and within the next three decades. The Republican Party must decide its fate, and whether it's worthy of wearing the mantle of political majority into the next century. * It is interesting to note that Republicans recently attempted to change the Social Security system to make all payroll deductions inviolable, to become a true trust fund, unused for any other purpose. In a stunning turnaround, Democrats, having used the scare tactic "they're going to take away your Social Security" against Republicans on many occasions, lined up en masse to defeat the bill. Even more shocking than this brazen flip-flop was the utter failure by Republicans to exploit this chink in the Democratic armor for any purpose whatsoever. |
Send your comments to Coffee Shop Times columnist Zack Nguyen.
|
Copyright © 2001 The Coffee Shop Times
