send to a friend | print | comment

Defining the party

“I’m not a part of any organized political party, I’m a Democrat.”
-Will Rogers

In 2010, the above would be a better description of Republicans.

The party of Arlen Specter, John Heinz, and Dwight Eisenhower is now the party of Sarah Palin, Joe Miller, Christine O’Donnell, Sharon Angle, Joe Paladino, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul and Pat Toomey. In 2010, both Richard Nixon’s and Ronald Reagan’s views would get them kicked out of the party, and no, I am not exaggerating.

A Tea Party victory in Delaware is a shocker, but conservative primary wins in Delaware, Pennsylvania, Utah, New York, Nevada, Florida, Kentucky and Alaska do not constitute a surprise, they amount to a trend.

I don’t want to marginalize the sincere anger from people on the right toward the political class and directed at changing the Republican Party. They have every right to express their views and get involved in the political process. Everybody should be involved in politics, whether they are liberal, conservative, moderate or any other amalgamation of philosophies. However, Republicans might want to decide how they want to be defined, because it is becoming increasingly clear that they cannot be both moderate and conservative. The new Tea Party rules forbid it. As much as they may want to be a “big tent” party, their base is showing that they will not agree to being both the party of Mike Castle and Sarah Palin.

It is one or the other.

One comment I saw Tuesday night after Tea Party candidate Christine O’Donnell beat moderate Republican Mike Castle in Delaware, effectively changing the Delaware Senate race from likely Republican to likely Democrat, was that we now have three parties in a two-party system. The question for Republican candidates now should be, which party do you represent?

Democratic candidates would be wise to pose the question directly to their Republican opponents. They should ask them what wing of the Republican Party they represent. In Pennsylvania, will they seek to work across the aisle like Arlen Specter was often willing to do, or will they embrace the direction of Sarah Palin and Jim DeMint instead? Do they want their party to be the party of President Eisenhower and President Nixon, who created the EPA and proposed ideas on national health care, or do they want their party to go the direction of culture warriors like O’Donnell, Angle Miller, the Republican Senate nominee in Alaska who has made no bones about his desire to end Medicare and Social Security?

They can’t be both.

Make no mistake, the Republicans will pick up seats in both the Senate and the House this November. However, by all indications, it will be a short-lived victory. Conservatives are winning in Republican primaries, but they still aren’t extremely popular with the general public. For example, on taxes, the issue that Republicans like to talk about the most, voters prefer the Democratic position 55 percent to 38 percent.

Maybe Republicans should be more concerned with demographics. In the next 20 to 40 years, America is poised to become a majority-minority country, and the conservative outrage against comprehensive immigration reform—not to mention the ugly language directed toward Muslims by cultural conservatives—show that any gains in 2010 are likely to be tenuous at best. Couple that with the a nagging—if secondary just for now—emphasis on hot-button social issues that drive socially liberal or moderate young voters, and one wonders how long this conservative celebration can last.

I have purposely avoided using the term GOP here because this isn’t the Grand Old Party anymore. It is something new that goes against some of the traditions of previous generations of Republicans who are at least willing to respect different viewpoints and work with the other side to achieve bi-partisan solutions.

Voters in 2010 are not happy with incumbents or with Democrats, but while they may have thought that a Republican majority would be better, this might not be the Republican Party they were expecting. They may be unhappy with a Democratic majority with Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer as leaders, but they may think twice when the alternative has eschewed any sense of moderation and embraced the extreme conservatives of Joe Miller, Rand Paul, Sharon Angle, and Christine O’Donnell.

There are a lot of new faces taking on the GOP from the right, but good governance is a marathon, not a sprint. Democrats can make clear contrasts to their opponents and demonstrate to voters that there is a real difference not just between candidates in 2010, but over the long haul.

While they may not produce big victories in the sprint this November, they are in a better position for the marathon

September 15, 2010 at 1:58 pm

--Tony Heyl

comments

comments [3] | post a comment