Harkening back to my first post here, recall my point that the party that votes together matters.
In that vein it’s important to point out that the GOP took a huge step towards irrelevance yesterday when moderate Republicans refused to go along with Medicare cuts, ANWR drilling and irresponsible tax cuts, and fringe Republicans refused to give up on any of those. If this goes on we will basically have a parliamentary system with two or three 25% parties on the right and one 45% party on the left.
Until the 2006 elections, of course. Carpetbagger has the details.
Mr Furious
Boy, they fell apart fast without the Hammer.
p.lukasiak
Lots of people are saying this is happening because Delay is no longer majority leader — but that is complete bullshit.
Moderates are seeing the writing on the wall — the American people are disgusted with the GOP, and any rep whose district could even be remotely considered “swing” has got to start putting distance between themselves and the GOP leadership.
John Cole
I think I agree with Paul.
Lines
Isn’t this what I was saying yesterday or the day before? A parlimentary system where compromise and debate rule the day can be much less divisive to the country and can give the appearance of better representation, right?
At least, in my fevered mind thats what I like to believe. Of course we have the Brits as a prime example of how to be divisive with a Parliment.
Never mind. I think I’m moving to the woods to live in a little shack now.
Jcricket
The questions for me are: How will the conservative wing attempt to re-gain control? Will they run more conservative Republicans in those districts (like the challenge Chafee is facing) and force party unity by ousting the moderates in their midst? Will they keep moving the official party platform farther to the right to appease the fundamentalist + anti-tax zealot wing?
Will Republicans keep demonizing honest Republicans like the governor of Colorado and Arizona, who attempted to “do the right thing”, i.e. raising taxes to avoid bankrupting their state?
What will the response be? Will some of the most moderate Republicans (Snow, Collins, Chafee) switch parties if they feel they’re being attacked by their own leadership, if just to increase their chances at re-election? Look at Chafee right now. He actually waffled last year in that regard. It’s not as far fetched as I imagined.
If the GOP keeps moving farther to the right, long term we’re looking at a right-wing Republican party that wins 30% of the vote, max. And a Democratic party, that if it’s smart, picks up 60%+.
The moderate Republicans in blue states are hanging on by a thread, both personally and politically. If the GOP solidifies it’s reputation as the “party of Bush and the evangelicals” and goes after those moderates, the independent voters in those states will abandon those Republicans and elect Democrats. Couple of party defections and a pickup and the Senate (which is non-representational) is back in the hands of the Dems.
And, remember that Dems have had some success in Red states (see Montana, Virginia) with a message of personal liberty. Those states could end up being blue in some regards just out of opposition to the intrusive policies of the fundamenalist GOPers.
Jcricket
I just realized you could have finished my post with “…. stay tuned for the next episode, of Political Fear Factor on CSPAN-3 for the answers“
stickler
It’s not the party discipline, it’s the policy. Passing big Medicare cuts and then big tax cuts has always stunk in the nostrils of God, and it’s finally starting to sink in on Capitol Hill that it stinks in the nostrils of 70% of the electorate, too.
The White House and Congressional leadership could still try to enforce iron discipline, and ram through its unpopular policies. Or, they could trim their course, and work with the moderates in the party and adopt (choose one or more): fiscal discipline, less-conservative social agenda, spirit of compromise with the Democrats.
They won’t, of course, but they could.
John Cole
Personally, I think if the Republicans lose in 2006 and again in 2008, political scientists will be able to trace the beginning of the end of the Republican dominance to the event that I know threw me and any number of other right-leaning bloggers off the GOP bandwagon.
Terri Schiavo.
Dodd
“or three 25% parties on the right and one 45% party on the left”
John should add that to the funniest quips post above.
This is a center-right country. If either party does split up, the left-leaning one (that doesn’t reach 45% now, when there are only two) isn’t going to swallow almost half the population. More likely a lot of centrist Democrats would leave the party to the moonbats and another – centrist – party.
Don’t count your chickens before they hatch. Until their recent run of good luck in the form of GOP disarray, the Democrats spent years looking like they were headed to imminent collapse. That hasn’t happened yet, either.
Snakes & Foxes
Part of my disgust with the GOP isn’t over “irresponsible” tax cuts but irresponsible spending. But I’m most disillusioned by the social conservatives (Religious Right) making a mockery of limited government…the scales fell from my eyes over the Shiavo matter. If it weren’t for the the War on Terror I’d probably quit the GOP and become an independent.
TBH, I don’t get it. It like Barry Goldwater’s conservatism never existed.
yet another jeff
Well, that was definitely the event that started to wake up the GOP moderates to the realization that they were surrounded by crazies, and started turning off the harder to convince members of the Independents.
Makes sense, the GOP obtained power due to the meddling with personal affairs by the Dems…now comes the “leave us the f**k alone!” backlash.
Mr Furious
John and Paul are right, to a degree. I think DeLay would certainly made these defections much more painful or come at a higher cost that what is occuring now.
It’s true they are afraid for their lives, but DeLAy’s abscence at the top has emboldened them
Horshu
The Dems had to unify to counteract the GOP and it’s “51 percent” strategy. It’s just an issue of timing, as the Dems are unifying while the GOP splinters; it happened the other way around, but the “parliamentary system” was avoided because the GOP was in power while unified. The parliamentary system I’ve been hearing about so much in the past few days (and I heard it at least 3 times on FoxNews last night, so I figure it must be a talking point by now), is a consequence of banking on the notion of “my unified party beats your unified party.”
Steve
I’m sure John is right to focus on Terri Schiavo. What’s interesting about that case is that it’s so obvious the Republican lawmakers thought this one would be a slam-bang win for their side, a wedge issue that would appeal to a huge electoral majority like gay marriage or partial-birth abortion. They must have been truly shocked to learn that it was only the far right taking their side, and that EVERYONE else was strongly opposed.
Steve S
Honestly. I think you’ll find that this medicare prescription drug plan is also a big turning point. Because enactment was delayed until after the 2004 election, most people didin’t really understand it.
My parents are retired, and in talking to a lot of seniors they get the impression that the Republicans fucked them over. That is, this plan isn’t much help to them, but appears to have been a way for a handful of companies to profit from our tax dollars.
Monetary issues trump social issues 9 days out of the week.
Schiavo might have changed some pundits minds… but I think the Medicare thing and the coming dawn of some of these other bills like the bankruptcy thing is going to have a tremendous impact on the voters.
J. Michael Neal
I look at the Republicans right now, and what I see is the Democrats circa 1969. The difference is that there was no Wallace in 2004, so the electoral college tally was fractured.
When a party coalition fractures this badly, there is a possibility of spending 20 years in the wilderness. Se also: British Labour Party, 1979-1994.