PLANK DECEMBER 3, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size

0
0
1
1462
8335
TNR
69
19
9778
14.0
Normal
0
false
false
false
EN-US
JA
X-NONE
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
Are Republicans already ignoring the lessons of the presidential election? Last Monday, Republican Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito announced plans to run in 2014 for the West Virginia Senate seat held by Jay Rockefeller. In response, former Rep. Chris Chocola, the president of the Club for Growth, declared the Club’s opposition to Moore’s candidacy. “Congresswoman Capito has a long record of support of bailouts, pork, and bigger government,” he said.
Chocola’s statement was overshadowed by the debate over what to do about the “fiscal cliff.” But it probably says more about the future direction of the Republican Party than House Speaker John Boehner’s daily animadversions on taxes and spending; and what it says is not very good--at least for those Republicans to want to revive their party’s fortunes after this November’s election. It also has some bearing on the fiscal-cliff negotiations.
There is no clear center of power in Republican Party (or, for that matter, the Democratic Party). Primaries are determined by a fairly narrow field of voters – only 15 percent of registered voters, for example, participated this year in Indiana’s hotly contested Republican Senate primary. Candidates depend not only on their personal and political appeal, but also on grassroots support and, of course, money.
That’s where organizations like the Club for Growth come in. Unlike the Republican National Committee or the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the Club’s objective is not simply to elect Republicans, but to elect what Chocola calls “true champions of economic freedom.” To do that, the Club is willing to intervene in Republican primaries, even against incumbents. And in the wake of Citizens United, it is able to raise and spend unlimited funds to do so.
A politician’s worse fear is being “primaried.” The Club’s early support can inspire a primary challenger. Its opposition – or merely the possibility of its opposition -- can frighten an incumbent or challenger into taking a more conservative stance. When the Club announces that it is putting a vote on its annual “scorecard” of who is truly conservative, Republicans have been known to change their position overnight, as happened last year with a China currency bill that the Club opposed. Last August, all seven Senators that the Club had backed in 2010 followed the Club’s lead and opposed the much-needed debt ceiling agreement.
In the early 2000s, the Club largely acted alone in primaries, but recently, it has become part of an informal network of hyper-conservative PACs, political groups, talk show hosts and bloggers that have sought to oust Republicans who they believe are not true conservatives. This network includes Senator Jim DeMint’s Senate Conservatives Fund, FreedomWorks, Americans for Prosperity, the Madison Project, various local and national Tea Party organizations, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Erick Erickson’s RedState.
In the beginning, this network targeted liberal Republicans like New Jersey congresswoman Marge Roukema, but it now extends to politicians like Lugar, Capito, Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss and even House Speaker Boehner, who by any ordinary definition would be considered conservative. The Club and its allies see themselves as “insurgents” against a Republican “establishment” that falsely claims to be conservative. “What really matters,” Chocola says, “is finding [candidates] who are not part of the establishment.”
In reaction to the November results, the Republican intelligentsia in Washington and New York has called for the party to move to the center on immigration, social issues, and economics in order to broaden its base. Republicans, Ramesh Ponnuru wrote in National Review, have to make themselves “the party of middle-class economic interests.” “It won’t kill the country if we raise taxes on millionaires a little bit,” Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol opined.
But the Club and its network blame the Republicans’ and Romney’s defeat on their not being conservative enough. “The first lesson” of Romney’s defeat, Judson Phillips of Tea Party Nation wrote, “is no more moderate Republican candidates.” The reason Romney lost, RedState’s Erickson wrote, is that he “tried to blur the lines with Barack Obama.” While ignoring Richard Mourdock’s defeat in Indiana, Chocola cites the Senate victories of Ted Cruz in Texas and Jeff Flake in Arizona as evidence that when Republicans take Club positions rather than “electable” moderates, they will win.
The Club and its network have yet to unveil their overall strategy for 2014, but some of its members groups have already threatened to back primary challenges to Chambliss and South Carolinian Lindsay Graham. And the threats have had some effect. Chambliss incurred the network’s wrath last summer for attempting to work out a bipartisan compromise on the debt ceiling. After the election, he annoyed them by downplaying his commitment to the pledge, circulated by Grover Norquist, not to raise taxes. “I care more about my country than I do about a 20-year-old pledge.” But by this week, he had tweeted that he is “not in favor of tax increases.” Chambliss’s decision was not the result of pressure from Norquist, but of the looming threat of a primary challenge from the right.
If the Club and its network remain active for 2014 and 2016 elections, they will almost certainly make it more difficult for the Republicans to retake the Senate and to win back the Presidency. That has been true in the past. The Club and Tea Party groups successfully backed far-rightist Sharron Angle in the 2010 Republican Senate primary against an “establishment” conservative who might have beaten Harry Reid. This year, they put their money on Mourdock in Indiana. And if the Club and DeMint’s opposition to Capito is any indication, they will do similar damage to the Republican cause in 2014.
West Virginia is not Arizona. It has gone Republican in the last four presidential elections, because, as my colleague Nate Cohn has noted, voters there see the national Democrats as hostile to coal and guns. But pro-gun, pro-coal Democratic politicians in West Virginia continue to hold most of the state offices and both Senate seats. That’s because West Virginia’s white working class voters, like those in neighboring Pennsylvania and Ohio, still see the Democrats as the party of the New Deal safety net and spending on roads and bridges and schools.
Capito, who won her seat in 2000, and is the daughter of former Governor and moderate Republican Arch Moore, understands the state’s electorate. She backed the expansion of Children’s Health Insurance Program, the extension of unemployment benefits, and infrastructure spending --votes that Chocola cites as reasons to oppose her. She is also an excellent campaigner. She could conceivably defeat Rockefeller and, if he were to retire, another Democratic opponent. But a Republican who espoused the kind of anti-government policies favored by the Club and its network and was able to defeat Capito in a sparsely attended Republican primary – 7 percent of the state’s registered voters went to the polls in the last contested Republican senate primary -- would be likely to lose to almost any competent Democrat.
Republicans who worry most about winning a Senate majority are happy with Moore’s candidacy. Kansas Sen. Jerry Moran, the new chairman of the NRSC, leapt to her defense after the Club and DeMint attacked her. But the Club and DeMint are oblivious to the peculiar mix of liberalism and conservatism that characterizes many voters in states like West Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. At the bottom, Chocola, DeMint, and the Tea Party activists don’t believe that Republican candidates have to move to the center on economic and social issues. They see America neatly divided between a “socialist” far left and a “conservative” far right between which the twain shall never meet. “I think the whole concept of compromise and bipartisanship is silly,” Chocola says.
Their view echoes that of leftwing Democrats of the 1980s that “there is nothing in the center of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos.” That piece of wisdom led to repeated Democratic defeats; and it will do likewise for the Republicans. The network’s view also makes continuing Congressional gridlock over taxes and spending likely. And that could affect more than the Republican Party. If Congress can’t avert the fiscal cliff, or continues to battle over the debt limit, that will endanger America’s fragile recovery from the Great Recession.
26 comments
"Are Republicans Already Blowing the Next Election?" You betcha. The average American is not an extremist. That's one of the secrets of our political and economic success. GOP wingnuts are digging the grave of their own party. Someday a moderate conservative party will emerge to take away votes from the GOP and eventually it will be the Gone Old Party. That'll be a great day for America. Long live compromise and bipartisanship! It's the American way. Well, it used to be. Most of the time.
- magboy47.
December 3, 2012 at 12:56am
Problem is, Republicans don't know how to do anything else. They are zombies. They are only blowing the next election if Democrats don't keep up their vote margins. Republicans at the federal level long ago gave up any pretense of caring about governing. They know only know how to showboat and preen, concoct zingers around their dogma, rage and fundraise, etc. Conceptualizing and implementing honest, accountable policy takes too much thought and creates a need for nuance, hard work - bleck. Best to spend all of that effort on feelings: gut instincts, rage, self righteousness, so much easier than working for a living ala Sarah Palin, Allen West and their useless. lazy ilk. Why not huff around in front of Fox news cameras and make zillions on the moronic right wing insta-hate-book circuit? Why should such a prestigious people bother with building roads, rethinking (and implementing) health care and responsibly re-regulating Wall Street, etc? They don't know how to do any of that stuff anyway.
- WandreyCer
December 3, 2012 at 5:35am
I rest my case. These people are bone stupid I'm afraid. http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/rep-cole-republicans-dont-need-to-put-forward?ref=pa
- WandreyCer
December 3, 2012 at 5:38am
"Club for Growth" in wealth disparity and Conserve(wealth disparity)ative philosophies can win general elections only if the data which contradicts their vision for the country is ignored and the electorate can be fooled again.
- Nusholtz
December 3, 2012 at 6:44am
As the economy continues to shift away from long-term, secure employment and more toward short-term, insecure employment (i.e., essentially self-employment with few if any benefits), the potential for Republican gains will be great, not the next cycle and maybe not the one after, but eventually, as those forced to become entrepreneuers at an early age begin to experience some success and, more importantly, security. Today those young voters are insecure and attracted to the Democratic Party and its promises of health and retirement benefits, but over time they will be much more inclined to be attracted to a message of self-sufficiency. It's the party that can appeal to those voters, the next generation voters, which will dominate over the long-term.
- rayward
December 3, 2012 at 6:49am
Good try, rayward. No cigar. The notion that a mass economy is ever going to contain vast numbers of self-employed and entrepreneurs is, shall we say, counter-factual. The over-whelming majority of working people will continue into the far future to be employees of someone, or unemployed.
- roidubouloi
December 3, 2012 at 8:03am
funny post Ray, yeah, like to see those young entrepreneurs in their garages coming up with new meds based on genetic coding...or running their own nursing home out of their houses...honestly, where do you come up with such a fantasy, if anything large faceless transnationals will dominate the world as trade barriers continue to fall and currency exchange becomes more and more seamless.
- blackton
December 3, 2012 at 8:57am
(for my money, Judis' last paragraph, Wandrey's, and Roi's comments (above), and maybe pending analyses, are spot on.)
- cdmcl3
December 3, 2012 at 9:00am
From the polls I've read, young people were much more motivated by social issues in this cycle than the promise of gifts. I haven't seen that analyzed enough. As far as self-employment (a broad term), most of those jobs feed off of large companies and government except for the helping fields (therapy, trainers, etc) anyway and even they die without the insurance reimbursements typically associated with large companies. (That said, all age groups were motivated by the hopes that the current health care mess eating them alive would continue to be addressed. Only one party is doing that. I read a clarifying figure in the Atlantic: African Americans make up 10% of the population, the uninsured make up 23%). Maybe someone on the right is reading the data correctly and will lay off of the homophobia and abortion stuff, its killing them. Again, I don't think they know *how* to stop doing what their doing. They are the Dawn of the Dead.
- WandreyCer
December 3, 2012 at 9:10am
yep, blackton, if the "GOP" continues with that siren song about becoming a start-up "winner," and that is all they have to offer (aside from even worse!), then, indeed, they can't really prevail. (better odds for some generous petty lottery schemes, it seems!) meanwhile, some say that gerrymandering has locked up the House for a full ten years. maybe so--if that is an early concession--even a lazy concession. but people are really beginning to open their eyes to their own true interests, gerrymandering notwithstanding, tho gerrymandering (and voter suppression, etc.) is of course rather a traditional impediment.
- cdmcl3
December 3, 2012 at 9:13am
There's a lot of time between now and the 2014 elections. Plus, the only reason Obama and the Democrats did as well as they did, was because it was a Presidential election with a huge "get out the vote" effort. I'll note in 2008, Obama won, then in 2010 without the huge 'get out the vote' effort, and with the brand-new Koch-Brothers sponsored Tea-Party effort, the Republicans came roaring back in. I see nothing in the current scenario that prevents the Republicans from pushing us off the fiscal cliff, then blaming the Democrats for a "huge tax increase", and roaring back in 2014. The MSM is just a clueless now as it was then, avoiding blaming the Republicans for the fiscal cliff. Fox-News and the Koch-Brothers are still here. Obama won by only a few percentage points in the swing states. It's not surprising that Republicans are STILL wedded to the Tea-Party -- that's what worked in 2010, why not 2014?
- AllanL5
December 3, 2012 at 9:49am
Generations X and Y can react to the absence of secure, lifetime employment in one of two distinct ways: one, as insecure little cogs in a large, impersonal, multi-national scheme designed to benefit only a few, or, two, as self-sufficient islands for which "success" is entirely dependent on one's own motivation, skills, and efforts. I can't predict the future, but I can't see business ever returning to the lifetime employment model that once dominated industry especially American industry. While I also see a future where one's security (for health care and retirement) is more dependent on government and less on business, a lifetime spent as a "free agent" could make those in generation X and Y feel and act much less like team players.
- rayward
December 3, 2012 at 9:53am
You can't "get out the vote' without a candidate and issues that resonate. Obama won because he's an inspirational, skillful politician with the issues thoroughly on his side. One thing to watch for in 2014/2016 is Republican candidates that *aren't* totally offensive assholes like Romney and Ryan - another unanalyzed fact from 2012 are those 3 million Republicans who stayed home. I'd hazard that most of them were not lulled in to false submission by the Fox bubble, they just couldn't be bothered with voting for these guys. You'd be hard pressed to find someone less likable than Mitt Romney to both parties - they won't do that again.
- WandreyCer
December 3, 2012 at 9:58am
In my opinion, the Tea Party's strategy in these states is a strategy intended to provoke revolution. Revolutionaries always fear that moderates will undermine their mission. The revolutionary's goal is to create an emergency which they will then propose to meet. This is the general strategy that Lenin employed. He did not join any coalitions. He filled a vacuum.
- donaldclea
December 3, 2012 at 10:06am
Republican policies during the Bush years led to greater wealth disparity that could not be addressed because of large debt also created by such policies. This was followed by a Republican complaint that too many people at the bottom are "takers." Meanwhile, the accumulation of wealth at the top end is used to fund policial campaigns to further greater wealth disparity. The Republican position now is that re-election of a majority of Republicans in the House means that only by cutting expenditures that benefit the bottom half can we solve our problem and I am wondering what problem it is that they are solving?
- Nusholtz
December 3, 2012 at 11:34am
I have to say I'm puzzled by your argument , ray. What evidence is there that people voted for Obama because they are against entrepreneurship and self-reliance? Admittedly it's my subjective impression, but there are plenty of people out there who grasp that regulation and capitalist enterprise are not mutually exclusive and that self-reliance and individual effort need a robust social framework in which they can flourish. Indeed, I think 2012 might come to be regarded as the election that proved that most Americans understand that symbiosis and see Obama as the guy who can best guarantee its future.
- ironyroad
December 3, 2012 at 12:39pm
ironyroad, i happen to agree...with the old saw that on main street what people want is some measure of stability so that real planning (etc.) can take place. but nowadaze, and for an unknowable interim of whatever duration, and given the stresses of the last several years, even for the most liberal (including some very wealthy), uncertainty due to volatile politics makes the astute tend to hang back rather than make economic commitments (etc.). in turn, this compounds a vicious political storm. and too, the bogus mantras being touted by "conservatives" in terms of immediate remedies and long-term "substantial economic policies" are truly anathema/anodyne among experts--including historians, et alia.
- cdmcl3
December 3, 2012 at 1:37pm
I agree with AllanL5- people, we've only been less than MONTH out from the election. The mastication of prognostication must be taken with a grain of salt, there is a lot of time between now and 2014. That said, I also agree with WandreyCer that republicans seem to have lost all interest and ability in real governing, but with the caveat that they have often excelled at getting elected to govern. It is the one thing they seem to be very, very, good at- they must be considering how obviously wrong-headed they often are. So the question becomes how to blunt that one skill. The question within the question is should we all be pumping funds and support into tea party movements and Club for Growth so they will exhaust their funds and energy on infighting with the best result being they field far-right unelectibles? Finally, a couple of quick words to Rayward. As for generations X and Y working to be "self-sufficient islands for which "success" is entirely dependent on one's own motivation, skills, and efforts-" Two words: You first. Further, the entrepreneuership is an expensive game to play. A hobby, one could say, of the top 5%. Everyone else needs that $80,000 too much to gamble it. Not charging out and taming the raging seas of the market is not, as I believe you imply, a failure of character, but the presence of some simple common-sense.
- Tobbar
December 3, 2012 at 2:11pm
yep--some would settle for lots of volatile politics--dithering--from now until 2014. if Dems concede too much in terms of guaranteed gridlock for a decade's worth of gerrymandering, rather than "new politics," then they will disappoint themselves needlessly. meantime, the "GOP" seems likely to continue with follies. as yet, tho, their grandstanding has not made a difference. they *seem* to believe Dems will cave soon, and be blamed for "GOP" mistakes. meanwhile, some are "content" to "wait and see," and this compounds everyone's problems, even tho very much could be decided not later than 2014, if operatives are astute between now and then.
- cdmcl3
December 3, 2012 at 2:23pm
* ...rather than continue to develop "new politics"...
- cdmcl3
December 3, 2012 at 2:27pm
There's a very simple solution to all of this: get rid of plurality voting and replace it with pairwise-ranked voting. Do those two things, and Republican pols could ignore Club for "Growth" and its allies and go directly to the general election. There, if Club for "Growth" manages to convince a majority of all voters to prefer its choices over "wayward" Republicans, rather than just a majority of the 7% of Republican voters who show up on primary day, and a majority to prefer its choice over all Democratic candidates, then Club for "Growth" will get its into office. In such an environment, Republican pols would have no reason to kowtow to Club for "Growth" and those who were previously inclined towards cooperation with the Democrats could resume doing so.
- sighthnd
December 3, 2012 at 3:56pm
I would say that the real solution is for the non-loopy constituency in the Republican Party to get itself organized to (a) deflect destructive primary challenges, and (b) mount primary challenges of their own where the incumbent is too rightwing and is alienating people. If aforementioned non-loopy constituency is too small or too intimidated to do that, then things will continue on their present path (protected somewhat by gerrymandering).
- ironyroad
December 3, 2012 at 4:22pm
Rare chance to name drop. Last night we saw Whidbey premiere of Shift Change, excellent documentary made by 2 friends on the employee-owned co-operative movement. I appear in credits for my microscopic crowd-funding contribution. Star of film is Mondragon corporation and federation of worker cooperatives in Basque Spain, providing a viable alternative to ineffective socialistic social-welfare and Romney Bain Cap monopolies. Largest company in region.Wikip: At the end of 2011 it was providing employment for 83,869 people working in 256 companies in four areas of activity: Finance, Industry, Retail and Knowledge.. Worker co-ops can provide a democratic, productive, entrepreneurial alternative. Either the Democrats seize this opportunity to promote jobs, productivity, and social fairness, or some in touch Republican such as Huntsman or Johnson has an opportunity to rescue GOP from tying itself to the railroad tracks.
- skahn
December 3, 2012 at 9:50pm
wandrey: another unanalyzed fact from 2012 are those 3 million Republicans who stayed home. But I don't think that is true, if anything the 3 million would likely have been Obama voters as Obama always did better in the registered versus likely voter polls. As to 2014 Republicans are not going to get many, if any, seats because Democrats won their districts by much larger margins. As has been mentioned in NC the highest Republican margin was lower than the lowest Democratic margin in races won. The Republicans only shot is in the Senate and a 6 seat pick up is a tall order. The electorate is getting around 1% bluer each year, by the end of the decade if those trends continue then it will be lights out for the Republicans as they are now. Of course I find it likely by then they will have wised up. (or pray that they do)
- blackton
December 3, 2012 at 11:11pm
irony: The problem is the makeup of the primary electorate. The only way to fix it is to get rid of the primary process entirely. That can be done if we just get rid of plurality voting.
- sighthnd
December 4, 2012 at 12:05pm
Hey Black - if you're still reading, check this out: "Was the Romney High Command Really and Truly Shocked on Election Night? Neil Newhouse, Romney pollster: “Here’s what we saw in the data: you have to give credit to the Obama campaign for undercutting it. We saw in the last two weeks, an intensity advantage, a campaign interest advantage, an enthusiasm advantage for Republicans and Mitt Romney. … Just the same as we saw four years ago on behalf of Barack Obama. We thought it would tilt the partisan make-up of the electorate a couple points in our direction. “We weren’t surprised by racial composition; we were surprised by the partisan composition. … The real hidden story here on our side, the number of white men who didn’t vote in this election compared to four years ago was extraordinary. And these white men were replaced by white women. We were taking a group we won by 27 points and replacing them with a group we won by 12-14 points.”
- WandreyCer
December 4, 2012 at 3:50pm