Yesterday, after wisely infusing his lede with the qualifier of “early evidence” only, the Politico’s Jonathan Martin made a compelling case for signs of a GOP truce – an internal one, that is; one that “suggests that party leaders and even most grass-roots activists are more interested in winning elections than in ideological bloodletting.”
Martin’s piece was, in effect, suggestive of an indirect warning shot across Democrats’ bow: Beware, for as you bicker and divide, a unified GOP can – and will, should you persist -- do wonders with even exceptionally trashy favorability ratings.
The key word, of course, is “unified,” and so far it seems that “skilled Republicans” will be able “to bridge or blur the ideological divide between the conservative activists who dominate the party and the more moderate swing voters whom candidates need to win office.”
It’s the old GOP shell game: defer the internal “bloodletting,” then bamboozle the middle with happy talk of moderation, and then, finally, with a majority secured, ram rightward.
This strategy ain’t, as they say, rocket science. They’ve been pulling it off for decades; but largely because Democrats, through disunity or apathy, have opened their windows of opportunity.
Still, Republicans know how to close ranks when necessary; which is to say, Democratic disunity would mean little if Republicans were just as scattered as their opposition. But they aren’t, even though they are -- and that’s the objective beauty of their game.
Take, for instance, Illinois’ Rep. Mark Kirk, who just won his party’s Senate primary, although he’s “hardly a conservative heartthrob” (e.g. his House vote for cap and trade didn’t earn him much right-wing love). Yet for all the hardcore tea-party agitation of disapproval, Kirk not only won, he “easily won … in part because he is seen as having the best chance to capture President Barack Obama’s old Senate seat.”
This is smart politics, from the bottom up.
And from the top down, it’s been more than smart. It’s been brilliant.
Massachusetts’ Scott Brown, for example, was for years a “party regular” and scarcely a tea-partying kind of insurgent, as Martin noted, yet he managed to enthrall hyperconservative activists by passing himself off as one of them, and all without alienating moderates.
The top-down flipside of Brown’s brilliance was Virginia’s Bob McDonnell -- “a genuine ideologue” of the far right -- who, however, through “carefully tested ads that blanketed Northern Virginia,” thundered straight to the middle and captivated moderate independents.
But again, there was an internal symmetry in play – that profitable byproduct of bloodletting deferred -- that capped McDonnell’s success, and which Democrats just can’t seem to imitate: “There was grumbling at times from Christian conservatives that McDonnell was ignoring their issues, but … the right wing was more hungry for a win than agitated that one of its own wasn’t railing against abortion and gay marriage.”
All of this suggests that the “widely anticipated civil war within the Republican Party” – that is, the Tea Partyers vs. the GOP Establishment -- will fizzle.
Yet perhaps there was never much gunpowder there to ignite. After all, what are the Tea Partyers’ demands? Rather traditional conservative dogma: chiefly, less government and states’ rights. And while they may be more vocal in their demands than other activists since Goldwaterites and the 1970s’ New Righters, the GOP Establishment has long since absorbed their philosophical intensity.
Obviously, as I’ve noted elsewhere, contradictions abound within the Tea Party movement: principally, Smaller Government means even Bigger Corporate Control, which paleoconservatism (“Tea Party,” it seems to me, is euphemistic) despises. But in the interest of slamming the generally pro-government Democratic opposition, “the movement” is all too willing to compromise and cooperate with GOP deviltry.
And in this, there’s a strategic lesson for Democrats of all philosophical stripes. It is often objected that their party is but the lesser of two evils; nonetheless the material distinction endures -- the lesser of two evils.
Let's not jump the gun
Carp, You're basing a heckuva lot of your premise from a single article from the dreadful Politico, so you really should step back from drawing conclusions this early in the game. You may be right, of course, it doesn't take a hack article to tell us that a good conservative likes nothing better than following the leader. But there is something the dems could do about this--namely, expose the DC GOP for who they are--corporate whores of the 1st order. (Even worse than the dems, if that's possible)
You see, there's this perk about being in the majority, you get to pick the bills which come up for a vote. Why would the dems fail to do what the repugs would surely do--schedule votes on corporate issues with the express purpose of driving a wedge between the tea-buggers and the party establishment? Oh, that's right. I almost forgot. This is the Obama/Reid led democrats we're talking about here.
But if Reid could find his spine he could force vote after vote after vote to drive the wedge home, and--here's the main thing--he could force the GOP bastards to stand in the well of the senate and explain on CNN day after day why they're filibustering a jobs bill or banking regulations or whatnot.
It all seems reasonable and a common sense approach--a junior high level strategist could come up with this it's so simple and effective--which is precisely why Harry Reid won't do it. He hasn't applied any backbone or common sense up to this point--why start now?
Democratic Party Discipline
http://TheHarvView.blogspot.com
Wonderful article. The Rupublicans are smart enough to make Dems think there is disarray or a divide in the Republican party and though that might have some very minor merit, this article points to the fact that they keep their collective right wing eyes on the ball and fly in close formation.
That playbook should teach something but I have not seen it either being taught, learned from, or converted to action. Democratic Party discipline would not be so important if the electorate were not swayed by commercials, voting against instead of voting for as well as voting for good looks. The Republicans seem to punish their strays, while the Dems allow their strays to blackmail them.
And, I think our President is a gentleman and maybe needs a Lyndon Johnson transfusion.
The Golden Rule Rides Again
'All of this suggests that the “widely anticipated civil war within the Republican Party” – that is, the Tea Partyers vs. the GOP Establishment -- will fizzle.'
This is inevitable. As organized as the Tea Partyers were, they did little to nothing that wasn't subsidized by some corporate entity or PAC. Without that support, no one would be hearing a word about them. They are just useful tools to be directed in the struggle for corporate domination of government. This regimentation of the people by definition goes against democratic (small d) principles, and endangers popular freedom. Regimentation forms a top-down directed organization, which means that only the few have any real input into what the group does. The rest only follow orders. How corporate!
This situation applies to Republican candidates right now. There have been many reports that the GOP has had fundraising difficulties, so candidates need support to run a winning campaign. Enter the national organization, which understands the psychology of momentum much better than their rivals across the aisle. But with such support comes a commitment to obey Party ideals and observe approved behaviors. The candidate is no longer his/her own person. End of any potential "rebellion" leading to the “widely anticipated civil war within the Republican Party”.
Once again, the Golden Rule - "he who has the gold makes the rules" - comes into play. And as the democratic republic that was once the United States gets globalized into colonial captivity to corporate interests, this fact will have to be taken into account for all activities political or not.