The Republican "civil war."
The RNC meetings are going on, with all the participants trying to shape the chairman's race. (See vote estimates here.) The debate on the direction of the party (the "civil war") seems to be breaking into two camps.
1) The southern based "we just weren't conservative enough" group. This is the group of the hardcore social conservatives who still want to run social hardline politics and really want to take over the party. They believe they're morally "right," and if given control, they can win over the rest of America through their purity.
2) The "insider" group who are largely backing the continuation of Mike Duncan as chair. They're afraid to really rock the boat, but want to make sure that the current political power/money structure continue with some minor modifications. They're terrified of what will happen if the first group were to take over. (Mitch McConnell is obviously in the second group as he warns today about the danger of a "regional party.")
What's interesting is that this battle has developed so that there's really no presence for the seemingly apparent third group. The entire argument seems to be either further right or stay the same. Those genuinely preaching outreach and shift towards the demographics of the future appear to be entirely shut out.
Several bits in the last few weeks show the ridiculousness of their argument. Ron Brownstein writes about both the "Big Blue Wall," the increasing number of safe Dem states in Presidential politics, and the shift broader demographics away from the Republican base.
Then, of course, there's the Gallup "state of the States" showing the "Blue Wall" as even bigger.
So, as the demographics of the country shift away, the Republicans find themselves arguing over just how white and how limited a party they are going to be. The idea of broadening the coalition appears to be no more than talk.
(Sorry for the rambling post.)
1) The southern based "we just weren't conservative enough" group. This is the group of the hardcore social conservatives who still want to run social hardline politics and really want to take over the party. They believe they're morally "right," and if given control, they can win over the rest of America through their purity.
2) The "insider" group who are largely backing the continuation of Mike Duncan as chair. They're afraid to really rock the boat, but want to make sure that the current political power/money structure continue with some minor modifications. They're terrified of what will happen if the first group were to take over. (Mitch McConnell is obviously in the second group as he warns today about the danger of a "regional party.")
What's interesting is that this battle has developed so that there's really no presence for the seemingly apparent third group. The entire argument seems to be either further right or stay the same. Those genuinely preaching outreach and shift towards the demographics of the future appear to be entirely shut out.
Several bits in the last few weeks show the ridiculousness of their argument. Ron Brownstein writes about both the "Big Blue Wall," the increasing number of safe Dem states in Presidential politics, and the shift broader demographics away from the Republican base.
The big losers were blue-collar whites -- those without college degrees -- whose share (of the electorate) plummeted from 53 percent in 1992 to just 39 percent now.
Then, of course, there's the Gallup "state of the States" showing the "Blue Wall" as even bigger.
So, as the demographics of the country shift away, the Republicans find themselves arguing over just how white and how limited a party they are going to be. The idea of broadening the coalition appears to be no more than talk.
(Sorry for the rambling post.)
posted by mikevotes at
1:35 PM
3 Comments:
I think this is what is terrifying Republicans currently. They actually have divisions and internal dissent, and all of that was very tightly controlled before November 4. Once the rank-and-file get a taste of party dissension, they may like it.
The first group (social cons) is scared because they are losing relevance nationally, and losing out to fiscal cons in the Party agenda.
The second group (Duncan, et al) is scared because the old tricks aren't working anymore, and that's all they have to work with. They were never the faction with ideas; they just had a script that they followed.
By
Todd Dugdale , at 7:21 PM
Yeah.
The thing that gets me is the battle is whether to go crazy right, or just stay where they are. Despite the rhetoric, there's no force really pulling for inclusion or a bigger tent.
When your demographics are shrinking, that's just crazy.
By
mikevotes, at 9:14 PM
Second thought, If the Republicans are the party solely of the shrinking white majority, where does that lead?
By
mikevotes, at 9:14 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home