GOP: Here to Stay

I agree with Noam Scheiber that the Republicans probably should evolve in a "Sam's Club" direction and also that they probably can't evolve in a "Sam's Club" direction. But this seems way overstated:

Having said all that, these guys are right: The GOP is absolutely screwed. Even though the money comes from the same place it has for decades, the votes increasingly come from socially-conservative working-class people. At some point something's got to give. I just think it's going to be the GOP--which will basically cease to exist--rather than the moneymen and powerbrokers.

In the real world, it seems to me that in terms of the White House and governor's mansions, there's just a natural dynamic that leads the parties to more-or-less alternate in power since bad macroeconomic conditions are very bad for incumbents and yet not something that can be uniformly avoided. Beyond that, from 1933-1968 the GOP was almost uniformly shut out of power in congress, and rarely held the presidency, but even then it didn't "basically cease to exist." On top of all that, I don't think this is going to happen but you can easily imagine a scenario in which Barack Obama takes power in 2009, the country faces some kind of foreign policy fiasco followed by a terrorist attack at home, and the GOP comes roaring back in 2010 and 2012 without changing its ideological stripes much at all.

Comments

In general, I agree with you-- beware any political trends that appear to be permanent, especially when they favor your ideology.

However, I think that saying that another terrorist attack will by default favor Republicans is wrong and dangerous. It's precisely that kind of thinking, that foreign policy will simply default to the GOP, that has caused a lot of unnecessary ground giving by the Dems. Also-- I don't think 9/11 was a huge boon to Republicans; it was a huge boon to the sitting President and his party. People didn't rally around conservative governance, they rallied around their leadership, as is typical of times of crisis. (Even overblown crisis.) A President Gore would have gotten a similar bump.

Posted by Freddie | June 29, 2008 10:25 AM

I'm with Freddie.

I also think the GOP's foreign policy credibility has been significantly damaged by their behavior the last few years. Why should we assume their stewardship would be better in 2-4 years?

Posted by Herb | June 29, 2008 10:54 AM

Even though the money comes from the same place it has for decades, the votes increasingly come from socially-conservative working-class people.

Would love to see some analysis as to how regional influence plays into this dynamic. Perhaps that's in the book. But in a world in which 40% of GOP votes come from the South (or so claimed George Will), I have to think that matters. If what at least used to be the distribution of income among states still obtains, wouldn't you expect Sam's Club Republicanism to have its strongest purchase in the South? And wouldn't standard Republicanism be under severe pressure from Democrats, newly talking about economic insecurity? Yet no one thinks that the South is likely to turn blue anytime soon.

Also, it's not clear to me to what extent federal programs promoted by Democrats end up allowing Southern Republicans to rail against any and all redistribution programs while depending on such distribution programs to make sure that their voters never fall so far down as to reconsider the electoral bargain those voters have made.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 29, 2008 11:33 AM

Let's not forget the 2000 election. Can you seriously think of a better situation to campaign in as the incumbent party. OK, the sex part is a qualifier, but WJC wasn't on the ballot. And the Democrats had the better potential president: (history has proved half of that assertion).

But the voting public had other ideas, or at least it wasn't a landslide for Gore.

The lesson seems to be if you solve the insolvable (i.e. balance the budget), bring peace to Europe, and have an economy that is creating 22 million jobs, the voters relax and take a chance on the alcoholic they want to have a beer with.

There will always be two parties in a two party system.

Posted by PDX Pete | June 29, 2008 11:46 AM

MY: there's just a natural dynamic that leads the parties to more-or-less alternate in power since bad macroeconomic conditions are very bad for incumbents and yet not something that can be uniformly avoided.

Yeah. Funny, it wasn't too long ago that Dems were wringing their hands about the possibility of a permanent Republican majority under Bush. Human tendency to make straight-line projections, I suppose.

Posted by perfectlyGoodInk | June 29, 2008 12:02 PM

Maybe I'm just an ivory tower, latte sipping, prius driving, soccer loving, left coast liberal, but what the heck is "Sam's Club?"

Posted by adlsad | June 29, 2008 12:04 PM

Weren't Democrats "this close" to complete annihilation just a couple of years ago?

"There will always be two parties in a two party system." Very true. The Republicans may have to spend a few years remessaging and waiting for the inevitable stumble by the Democrats in power. Then they will win elections and equilibrium will be reestablished.

They may win in November if Democrats assume victory in June.

Posted by danimal | June 29, 2008 12:08 PM

The US just isn't constructed to have multiple political parties. Well, it really wasn't constructed to have any, but that means by default it has two: us and them. The successful parties are just ever shifting coalitions, and therefore pretty versatile. The last time a major party imploded was a hundred and fifty years ago.

This is also why third parties are never more than variables, either curiousities or spoilers. Most of the people who share their general ideology prefer to stay in a big party and change the system from within to get a dominant position in the coalition. It isn't as easy as starting up your own little party, but the results can be more successful in the long term.

Posted by sweaty guy | June 29, 2008 12:12 PM

Given that McCain is outspending Obama by over 2:1 in Missouri, and establishing a constant TV ad presence in that important swing state while Mr. "Change We Can Believe In" is comparatively invisible, I've come to the conclusion that Obama isn't truly serious about competing. He evidently regards his money in the same way that McClellan viewed his army.

Besides, the calamity most likely to face the new President is a complete economic collapse, led by the implosion of the credit markets. I can understand Obama's less than stellar campaign efforts; far less stressful to collect buckets of cash, lose in a relaxed and dignified effort, and enjoy the fiancial fruits while McCain bumbles his way from one crisis to another.

Posted by bluestatedon | June 29, 2008 12:21 PM

How can people like you Matt still trumpet this false idea that somehow a terrorist attack would somehow lead to a gain for Republicans? What do you base this off of? I deeply feel that if a major terrorist attack hit the US, not much would change. Our country is so divided and pissed that something like that would hurt the GOP if anything and cause our nation to be almost violently partisan.

Most people would see such an event at this point as just another failure of the Bush Administration. Plus, it would blast a hole through the "we are safer with Republicans" because such an attack would be evidence that we are not.

Come on Matt, you know things have changed. This is not 2001, 2002, or 2004. This is 2008 and with nearly 90% of the country worried already and only 20% of the country approving of Bush, the numbers do not lie.

Mark my words, if conservatives think that an attack would benefit them and are honestly hoping something like that happens, they are in for a world of election hurt!

Posted by Josh | June 29, 2008 12:41 PM

After two terms of Brian Mulroney as Prime Minister, the Progressive Conservatives in Canada dropped to only two seats in Parliament. Yet, less than two decades later, the Progressive Conservatives are once again the party of government, albeit a minority government. This leads me to believe that the GOP is going to survive, regardless of how bad the results are in November.

Posted by Vadranor | June 29, 2008 12:42 PM

Political parties are vessels. What matters isn't the vessel but what it contains. The Republican Party 20 years from now will consist of an entirely different set of beliefs from what it espoused during the Reagan-Bush-Bush years.

I'm old enough to remember when some of the most important leaders in the GOP were honest-to-god liberals. They existed even into the late 1970s -- Clifford Case, Jacob Javits, et al. Political parties mutate quickly.

The Republican vessel changed its cargo once during the postwar era (from Eisenhower centrism to Goldwater/Reagan/Bush conservatism), and it's about to change again. It has no choice. Conservatism has reached the point where none of its orthodox beliefs apply to a world of peak oil, climate disaster, and American postindustrial/postimperial depression.

Bottom line: Republicans will remain with us, but they will be a very different breed.

Posted by davep | June 29, 2008 12:48 PM

what the heck is "Sam's Club?

It's a wholesale shopping club, like Costco but run by the Wal-Mart company. Membership costs $40/year. For that, you can buy groceries in bulk at low prices. They also sell big ticket items like electronics at what seem to be decent prices. Most people who shop there, pace Douthat et al, are value-conscious but not really struggling, except maybe to keep up with the Joneses.

Rhetorically, as you might guess, "Sam's Club Republican" is a synecdoche for middle-class residents of exurbs and medium-to-small towns, and their discontents.

Posted by kth | June 29, 2008 1:30 PM

Vadranor,

It's true that a party called the Conservative Party is in power in Ottawa. They aren't, by any stretch of the imagination, Brian Mulroney's Progressive Conservatives. The name change wasn't merely a cosmetic thing, but the final name of a series of mergers between the various parties the PCs splintered into in the nineties. And a different group is in charge now than were in the eighties.

Posted by Ian Gray | June 29, 2008 1:58 PM

There is just not enough blue collar whites to keep a political party going. There would be at least 15 states where the Republicans would not field viable candiates in such a scenerio.

Given that less than half of the children in kindergarten are white, there is no long term hope for the Repubicans to remain viable.

A better discussion is how will the U.S function as a one party state after the Republicans become irrelevant. Given that in 1960 over 90% of the voters were white compared to less than 80% today and soon to be less than 50%, no conservative party can survive in the U.S. but no progressive party made up of college educated elites can survive either.

Posted by superdestroyer | June 29, 2008 2:16 PM

No matter how badly one of the parties is damaged, the current legal underpinnings of the two party system ensures that some coalition of interests that is on the outs with the dominant political party will coalesce around the other political party.

The only thing that will put the Republican Party as an institution at risk will be the removal of some of the bulwarks of the two-party state ... like repealing anti-fusion ticket laws, or putting in place second-preference and instant run-off voting.

Posted by BruceMcF | June 29, 2008 2:28 PM

demographics and campaign finance will ensure that the Republicans fade away. With the government being involved in very aspect of the ecnonomy and in personal lives, no special interest group can afford to be out of power for very long. As soon as the moneyed interested realize that they Republicans are irrelevant, they will stop donating.

The tipping point will be whne a state Republican Party folds due to lack of funds. Soon after that point is reached, the Republican Party will collapse and the U.S. will be a de facto one party state.

Posted by superdestroyer | June 29, 2008 2:35 PM

I don't think this is necessarily overstated. What will happen to the republican party if the best-case scenario happens in November -- i.e. huge majorities in the House and Senate, and a crushing win for Obama in the presidential campaign? It's the sort of thing that would have the potential to completely change the opposing party. I think a more instructive historical comparison (or at least an alternate one) would be to look at the late 18th through the mid 19th centuries, instead of the last 50 years of politics. American political parties are not forever and indestructible; just think of the meandering paths from Jeffersonian republicans to Jacksonian democrats, or federalists to whigs to republicans. Major political parties do disappear; just because it hasn't happened in a century and a half doesn't mean it never will. Who's to say it couldn't in the future?

Posted by jackson | June 29, 2008 5:27 PM

Re: I don't think this is going to happen but you can easily imagine a scenario in which Barack Obama takes power in 2009, the country faces some kind of foreign policy fiasco followed by a terrorist attack at home, and the GOP comes roaring back in 2010 and 2012 without changing its ideological stripes much at all.

Uh-uh. The GOP might come roaring back but it's still going to have to disown Bushism. That was true back in 1980: the GOP had to disown Nixonism in order for Reagan to win against Carter-- which he did, subtly and without naming Nixon by name, but still Reagan made sure everyone knew he was not "tricky Dick" and would not be making the same mistakes.

Re: But the voting public had other ideas

Yes, the voting public elected Gore-- it was the Electoral College, with an assist from the Supreme Court, which had other ideas.

Re: Given that less than half of the children in kindergarten are white

Huh? I assume you have a very restrictive definition of white-- probably something like "descended 100% from northern Europeans". But in reality Southern and Eastern Europeans are also white, in fact Middle Easterners and folk from India and environs belong to the same racial group, for what it's worth. And there are a lot of people with mixed ancestry now, who think of themselves as "white" or at least don't classify themselvse racially at all, which is a very "white" attitude. At the extreme even I belong in that group, having a Native American great-great grandfather. Am I "white" by your definition?

Re: A better discussion is how will the U.S function as a one party state after the Republicans become irrelevant.

We've been over this before. Can you really imagine the GOP ceasing to exist in places like Alabama and Utah? Also, I would suggest a primer on US history: We've had two eras (back in the 1800s) when there was a one-party situation in the US. On both occasions the one party fissioned into new parties, picking up a lot of unaffiliated (and dicontented voters). Today's Democratic party is the offspring of such a mitosis in the old Democratic-Republican Party in the 1820, the other daughter being the old Whigs. And the collapse of the Whigs in turn created a party free-for-all in the 1850s, with the Democrats splitting into Northern and Southern branches in 1860 thereby providing the infant GOP with its opening.

Posted by JonF | June 29, 2008 5:47 PM

The demographics of a potential third-party were revealed by Perot in 1992: broadly speaking, it would be a libertarian-oriented one, mainly attracting non-upper class whites and some middle-class or higher non-African-American minorities, who are not part of the religious right. Not only a sizeable portion of the Republican coalition could be attracted to such a future reform party, but some liberals and centrist independents as well.

Prior to Obama clinching the nomination, if Clinton had won the nomination but lost the election, I would have predicted the Democratic Party would finally shatter, since Nader would have been proven right. Fortunately that didn't happen, and I now think if the Republicans completely implode in 2008, and we see an influx of corporate money seeking to coopt the Democratic Party, you could in see a revolt to create a new alternative to the one-size-fits-all Democrats.

Long-term I could see three viable parties in the U.S.: a theocratic, religious conservative one based in the South; a quasi-populist Reform-style party; and a centralist DLC-type, made up of moderate Republicans and non-progressive Democrats. I wish I could say a strong liberal/progressive party could make it, but it's probably not going to happen for a long time.

Posted by Joey C | June 29, 2008 5:51 PM

We've been over this before.

That's *all* he ever talks about it. When I saw the post title I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt you would find superdestroyer flogging this. It's the wierdest damn thing I've ever seen anyone get monomaniacal about.

Posted by Ed Marshall | June 29, 2008 5:59 PM

Ed Marshall,

What I find oddest is that people who live in urban areas that are Defacto one party states like DC, NYC, Boston, SF, LA keep telling me that the system is built to maintain two parties. I guess that fail to realize that they actually live in one party jurisdiction.

Also, when everyone else wrties about the Republican Party they have to pretend that everyone votes like whites voters. Since every non-white demographic groups votes overwhelmingly for Democrats, it is hard to understand why everyone else refuse to consider demographics.

In the end, there is just not enough middle class, private sector employed whites to maintain a second political party. That means if you want to have a say in the political future of the U.S. there is no alterantive to the Democratic Party.

Posted by superdestroyer | June 29, 2008 6:58 PM

In the end, there is just not enough middle class, private sector employed whites to maintain a second political party

This assumes that whites will only accept being members of a political party in which they are the center of power and attention. Though, I'd agree with you otherwise: if there was a party of "rich white people" and "everyone else," then the "everyone else" party would win every time. Political parties are monsters onto themselves, however, and will feed off of anyone willing to provide them with money and votes. If private sector employed whites can't provide money and votes, the political party will go off in search of people who can.

Seriously, sd, isn't it a bit embarrassing for you to cut-and-paste the same stuff over and over again with no additional insight or evidence of learning on your part over the course of at least a couple of years?

Posted by Tyro | June 29, 2008 7:36 PM

tyro,

I always thought that the Republican Party would become irrelevant between 2020 and 2030 strictly due to demographic changes. HOwever, the incompetence of the Bush Administration and the Republicans in Congress have sped up the process by about 20 years.

Also, Karl Rove and the Bush ADministration were in search of new voters when they proposed the illegal immigrant amnesty bill. Their attempt was a complete failure. They attracted no new non-white voters but alienated many middle class private sector voters. Those voters many not support the Democratic Party but they have stopped supporting the Republican Party.

And last, it is much harder for the minority party to attract new voters due to the changes in the media. Politicians used to be able to make opposing appeals to the upper classes and the lower classes because other than a few newspaper reporters, no one heard both appeals. With the internet and electronic MSM, white politicains just cannot tailor their message.

Only the big government, spend more political party can succeed in the new media age. That part can get people to agree to things by using government funds to bribe them. That is basically that "Grand New Party" is proposing.

Posted by superdestroyer | June 29, 2008 8:22 PM

What I find oddest is that people who live in urban areas that are Defacto one party states like DC, NYC, Boston, SF, LA keep telling me that the system is built to maintain two parties. I guess that fail to realize that they actually live in one party jurisdiction.

Shhh, don't tell Michael Bloomberg or Rudy Giuliani. (I know they're nobody's favorite Republicans, but they are Republicans.) And I suppose the governors of the states that Boston, SF and LA are in count for nothing at all, right?

With the internet and electronic MSM, white politicains just cannot tailor their message.

But politicians of other races can? Or something? I don't even understand the point of this part.

Posted by Cyrus | June 30, 2008 10:16 AM

Cyrus,

Considering that black politicians are elected in majority black districts, they do not have to adjust their message. They have can play the race card and win. It took white Republicans crossing over in the Democratic Primary to vote Cynthia McKinney out of office (twice). Former Congresswoman McKinney aimed her message strictly at blacks and knew she could win.

Mitt Romeny spent four as governor having his vetos overridden. He had almost no effect of policy and the day after he left office, it was like he had never been there. Bloomberg is not longer a Republican and was actualy a life long Democrat until running for mayor in NYC.

The voters in SF have two Democratic Senators, a DEmocratic Congressman, and are represented at every level by Democrats. ONly the governors office is held by a nominal Republican who has perform about the same as any Democratic governor of California would have.

Posted by superdestroyer | June 30, 2008 10:55 AM

What concerns me about 2008 is that we will most likely see McCain pick up the Clinton "resentment" strategy that helped Hillary win in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Although the longer term trends work in the Democratic Party's favour, I think that a bare majority can be achieved by McCain using the Clinton strategy.
With the employment picture worsening and the economy slowing down, resentment is going to be a powerful force in November, if Obama doesn't start directing this anger where it belongs, on the head of the GOP, then the republicans have an opportunity to channel it on him. And his bi-partizan approach makes him perhaps a little blind to the power of resentment. Clinton was able to beat him with it which if you step back and look at it is pretty amazing. (in the gee that should not happen meaning of the term) Obama has to win the right to represent the resentlfull if he wants to take it Nov, and right now he hasn't quite clued in. I just hope he clues in before September 1st.

It would be a horror but there it is. So, complacency by liberals and Democrats is not justified at this point.

Posted by Northern Observer | June 30, 2008 11:46 AM

Considering that black politicians are elected in majority black districts, they do not have to adjust their message. They have can play the race card and win.

I still, still don't get what you mean here. White candidates are often elected in majority white districts too, and majority white districts will continue to exist for a long time, and haven't you noticed that some Democrats here and there are white?

More and more it seems like Tyro's right; your complaints only make any sense at all if you assume "that whites will only accept being members of a political party in which they are the center of power and attention." And also, for the dozenth time, assume that the Republican Party will and should continue to be that party.

Bloomberg is not longer a Republican and was actualy a life long Democrat until running for mayor in NYC.

So you're conceding that being a Republican isn't electoral poison in New York or Massachusetts after all, then. Thanks. Not that there should have been any doubt after Giuliani.

Posted by Cyrus | June 30, 2008 11:56 AM

Posted by superdestroyer | June 29, 2008 6:58 PM

What I find oddest is that people who live in urban areas that are Defacto one party states like DC, NYC, Boston, SF, LA keep telling me that the system is built to maintain two parties. I guess that fail to realize that they actually live in one party jurisdiction.

The reason you find it odd would seem to be that you don't understand the claim about the system.

Since what you point to above is part of the reproduction of the two party system ... if one party dominates in large cities, which is not enough to form a governing coalition, then they have to form a coalition with interests outside large cities. Whatever the coalition platform, it will imply winners and losers. The losers have an incentive to support an opposition party.

The question is not whether that process will generate multiple parties, but whether it will be channeled into two political parties, so that as one party forms a governing coalition, those on the outside looking in are driven to try to form a competing coalition.

Since the formation of the two party system and its legal entrenchment in the late 1800's, the parties have swapped places on a variety of policies ... however, since the legal entrenchment was put in place by Republicans in position of authority in the North who did not want to run against a coalition of the Democrats and the Progressives, supporting the entrenchment of the two parties is one thing that they have by and large agreed upon.

Posted by BruceMcF | June 30, 2008 1:13 PM

As long as Drudge rules the media's world, there will be a viable GOP.

Posted by howie | June 30, 2008 1:23 PM

Cyrus,

The only assumption I make of white voters is that they are the only voters that really are swing voters. My main assumption is that non-white voters are overwhelmingly Democratic voters. That means that the Repubican Party cannot exist because it cannot atract enough of the white vote to offset the Democratic Party's advantage with non-white voters.

Also, I assume that union employees, university employees, public sector workers are also overwhlemingly Democratic and are growing versus white workers in the private sector.

There just is not enough demographic groups of adequate size to support a conservative party in the U.S.

I also assume that the U.S. will not support two liberal political parties. It is much easier to assume that there will be one political party and that the primaries will become much more competative.

And last, I assume that fewer people will be interested in politics in the coming one party state. Any 20-something interested in conservative politics has no future in politics. They will just find other areas to pursue a career. This can be seen in the Republicans inability to attract candidates for office or even quality staffers.

Posted by superdestroyer | June 30, 2008 5:02 PM

Re: There just is not enough demographic groups of adequate size to support a conservative party in the U.S.

30% of the public is conservative in some sense or other. That's enough to keep the GOP (or some other conservative party) in business, especially because there are many areas where far more than 30% of the people are conservative. And indeed: there are fewer self-described liberals in the US than self-described conservatives, so how is it that the Democratic party has stayed viable all these years? Moreover bear in mind that large numbers of peopel in this country are politically alienated and do not bother to vote at all. That 30% can easily become a winning majority.
Right now it has disgraced itself, but don't think for one minute that that is some sort of permanent result.

Posted by JonF | June 30, 2008 7:32 PM

Posted by superdestroyer | June 30, 2008 5:02 PM

There just is not enough demographic groups of adequate size to support a conservative party in the U.S.

I also assume that the U.S. will not support two liberal political parties. It is much easier to assume that there will be one political party and that the primaries will become much more competitive.

If one political party loses its access to power via its previous coalition, it will re-invent itself around a new coalition. In terms of regional politics, there are enough different cultural regions in the United States that it is guaranteed that one party with enough dominance in one cultural region will generate a reaction in one or more other cultural regions to provide an opposition party with an institutional base of support.

Obviously, the current framing of "conservative" versus "liberal" does not describe the Democrats versus the Republicans in 1950, let alone in 1875, and, certainly, that particular frame could fall be the wayside over the next decade or two.

But between Peak Oil and the Climate Crisis, there will be plenty of wrenching policy proposals that will attract fierce support and fierce opposition, and the idea that both of those will get channeled through one political party has no historical foundation.

Posted by BruceMcF | June 30, 2008 8:09 PM

When the government consumed a few percent of the GNP and the CFR did not exist, it was easy for people to be involved in political movements that did not win. HOwever, with the government consuming 40% of the GDP and the CFR filling tens of thousands of pages, no group can afford to be out of power. The business interest that fund the GOP will quickly have to move to the Democrats (just like they are doing now) or be regulated out of business.

Also, no political party can exist as a regional party. If the Republicans do not field candidates in New England, they cannot exist as a poltical party. Since they are failing to field candidates in New England, it is a sign that the U.S. is becoming a one party state.

Historical references are meaningless because the voting population used to be all male and all white. Since they is not the case now, there are fewer swing voters. Thus, a conservative party that is being overwhelmed by demographics cannot survive. There is not enough swing voters to keep it going. When you realize that over 125 incumbent Democratic Congressmen are running unopposed, it is not hard to extrapolate what happens with a kindergarten class less than 50% white.

Posted by superdestroyer | June 30, 2008 9:23 PM

When the government consumed a few percent of the GNP and the CFR did not exist, it was easy for people to be involved in political movements that did not win. HOwever, with the government consuming 40% of the GDP and the CFR filling tens of thousands of pages, no group can afford to be out of power. The business interest that fund the GOP will quickly have to move to the Democrats (just like they are doing now) or be regulated out of business.

Also, no political party can exist as a regional party. If the Republicans do not field candidates in New England, they cannot exist as a poltical party. Since they are failing to field candidates in New England, it is a sign that the U.S. is becoming a one party state.

Historical references are meaningless because the voting population used to be all male and all white. Since they is not the case now, there are fewer swing voters. Thus, a conservative party that is being overwhelmed by demographics cannot survive. There is not enough swing voters to keep it going. When you realize that over 125 incumbent Democratic Congressmen are running unopposed, it is not hard to extrapolate what happens with a kindergarten class less than 50% white.

Posted by superdestroyer | June 30, 2008 9:24 PM