Last week, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) raised eyebrows in her home state by voting against the repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy regarding gays in military service, a measure she championed and voted for in committee. On the Senate floor, Collins said repealing the policy was “the right thing to do” and a “vital issue,” but apparently it wasn’t as vital as presenting a united Republican front against a procedural matter: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s restriction of the number of amendments that could be attached to the bill.Read the rest here.
Her pretzel-like position demonstrated the tightrope she and fellow Maine Republican Olympia Snowe are forced to walk in the current political environment. Northeastern moderate Republicans—fiscally frugal but socially progressive—have been an increasingly endangered species since the Sunbelt conservative takeover of the party began in the 1960s. With Tea Party sympathizers swamping Republican primaries this year, there’s a question of whether moderates will soon become extinct because they lose a primary (like Delaware’s Mike Castle), switch parties because they see a loss coming (like Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter), or lurch well to the right to survive a challenge (like the now unmavericky John McCain.)
“I think it’s virtually impossible anymore to be a moderate in the Republican Party and survive politically,” says Tom Jensen, of Raleigh, N.C.–based Public Policy Polling, which conducted a poll last month finding that Maine Republicans would favor an unnamed conservative challenger to Snowe by a 63–29 margin. “If Snowe and Collins are committed to being elected as Republicans, it is in their interests to move to the right.”
Friday, October 01, 2010
Moderate Republicans: The GOP continues its purge
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Hmmm... something doesn't quite add up here.
Yes, the religious right has had more influence on the Republican party since 1980 with the allignment of the Moral Majority of Falwell with Reagan. Prior to that time, the Republican Party was pro-choice, fiscally conservative and agnostic on many other social issues.
It is easy to just assume all social trends have their origin in the 60's, but in this case it's the 80's.
Interesting to note that in the GW Bush era, the Republicans had made a complete reversal from the pre 1980 party allignment. It was socially conservative, but fiscally liberal. That could not long endure politically or fiscally anyway, but the economic downturn and Obamanomics forced a spontaneous rejection of the GW Bush alignment.
Now the latest trend, the Tea Party Movement, is a fiscally conservative movement which is drawing the attention of many who are socially libertarian rather than only the conservatives. This means that potentially, the Republican party could reverse not only the GW Bush alignment, but also the 1980 alignment and return the Republican Party to a more or less pre-1980 philosophy of fiscal conservatism mixed with social libertarianism. This remains to be seen.
What is telling is that the Republicans have lost their stomach for broad campaigns to reverse the social liberal trends. This is visible in the Republican position against lifting DADT which is not fixed as a moral standard, but asserted only as a practical matter. Their demand is only that the policy change should wait for sufficient study of any the change's effects on military readiness.
Compared to a morally vigorous argument, this is a very low standard.
In short, I dont see anyone getting purged from the Republican party over DADT. The only ones who risk a purge are those who will not support a rigorous small government, low taxes, deregulation platform.
Notice that not one single Talk Radio host nor anyone at FNC is focussing on things like abortion, but rather financial issues.
The GOP has long been plagued with RINOs, Republicans in Name Only. They constitute roughly 10% in the Senate. By contrast, the only "DINO" I can think of is Joe Lieberman, who in fact is listed as an Independent who caucuses with the Democrats. As a result, it is usually difficult to pass needed corrective legislation since the RINOs will fold or even stab you in the back. The Dems don't have this problem. What we are seeing is not a purge, but a reminder that a brand name means something. If you can't support the brand, fine, but don't claim it as your own.
Gosh, speaking as a political liberal, I would like to respond to two points made above.
Interesting to note that in the GW Bush era, the Republicans had made a complete reversal from the pre 1980 party allignment. It was socially conservative, but fiscally liberal.
I do not think that it is fair to describe GW Bush as "fiscally liberal." "Profligate," perhaps, but not "liberal."
It seems to me that the "liberal" fiscal position consists of three elements: we want (1) high taxes to support (2) extensive government spending intended to (3) help the lower strata of society. By contrast, Pres. Bush wanted (1) low taxes incongruously matched with (2) high spending intended to (3) project American imperial power to the farther edges of the globe. In other words, while Pres. Bush had element #2 in common with fiscal liberals, we diverged completely on the other two elements.
This is not a trivial difference. Pres. Bush quite definitely did not want the spending to help the poor of this country, as evidenced by the enormous effort that he was willing invest in dismantling Social Security and S-ChIP. Meanwhile, fiscal liberals quite definitely did not want the spending that Pres. Bush was advancing (wars and the creation of an American "secret police" apparatus).
Moreover, conventional fiscal liberals can make at least a plausible claim to being financially responsible. Extensive spending is financially supportable so long as it is balanced by extensive taxes (see, e.g. Sweden or Denmark). There is simply no plausible claim, however, that the Bush model of high spending and low taxes is supportable (as evidenced by our present crisis).
By contrast, the only "DINO" I can think of is Joe Lieberman...
Really? I wish it were so. Just off the top of my head, I can think of:
1) Sen. Nelson of Nebraska
2) Sen. Lincoln of Arkansas
3) Sen. Landrieu of Louisiana
4) More congressmen than one cares to list.
It is always tempting to imagine that the other side is much more disciplined than one's own. I know that I used to think exactly the same thing about Speaker Hastert when the Republicans were in charge of Congress as you evidently think about the Democrats now. Suffice it to say, the numbers just do not bear out that belief.
Post a Comment