|
|
June 19, 2013
|
|
GOP Civil War Flares in New YorkPosted on Oct 21, 2009Is there room in the Republican Party for genuine moderates? Truth to tell, the GOP can’t decide. More precisely, it’s deeply divided over whether it should allow any divisions in the party at all. That’s why the brawl in a single congressional district in far upstate New York is drawing the eyes of the nation. Conservatives are determined to use the race to prove that there is no place in the party for heretics, dissidents or independents. President Barack Obama set up the fight by nominating the district’s former representative, John McHugh, as his Army secretary. Maybe Obama is as fiendishly clever as his more paranoid opponents believe him to be. When local Republicans picked a moderate, Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava, as their candidate for the Nov. 3 contest, many on the right rebelled. They are backing a third-party conservative, Doug Hoffman, and he may well drive Scozzafava into third place. For the moment, at least, polls show that Bill Owens, the Democratic candidate, has jumped into first place on the split. Demonstrating just how far right some Republicans have moved is the fact that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is on the moderate side of this civil war against his old nemesis Dick Armey, who served under Gingrich as majority leader. Advertisement The GOP’s battle of Plattsburgh and Oswego underscores a little-noticed truism of American politics in 2009: While the Democrats are a coalition party uniting moderates and liberals, Republicans threaten to become a party of the right and only of the right. That means (as we are seeing with health care) that many of the big arguments take place inside the Democratic Party. Democrats won their majority in Congress by uniting and firing up their base (George W. Bush helped a lot) and by winning over moderates and independents, often by running moderate candidates in conservative districts. These candidates were typically to the left of the Republicans on economic issues, but to the right of, say, Berkeley and Cambridge. In the meantime, middle-of-the-road voters who had populated the moderate Republican heartland, notably in suburban areas of the Northeast and Midwest, shifted steadily Democratic, turned off by the increasing dominance of Southern conservatives in the party of Lincoln. Such voters threw solid Republican moderates out of office—among them Connie Morella in Maryland, Jim Leach in Iowa and Chris Shays in Connecticut. In the Maryland, Iowa and Connecticut cases, this did not occur because those three champions of the middle way were disliked but rather because they came to be seen as enablers of a right-wing congressional majority. If you take conservatives aside quietly, they will often acknowledge all this. For next year’s Senate races, party leaders have already welcomed the emergence of moderate candidates, notably in contests for the seats once held by the current president and vice president of the United States. Republicans have a decent shot in Delaware because Rep. Mike Castle, who leans toward the center, has decided to run for Joe Biden’s old seat. In Illinois, Rep. Mark Kirk, despite some opposition on the right, offers the Republicans their best chance of capturing the office Obama gave up to pursue other interests. But this strategy won’t work if staunch conservatives insist that in the crunch, there is no space in the party for anyone to Dick Armey’s left. “We win when we are us,” Armey told the right-wing blog Red State in explaining his support for Hoffman. It’s a revealing statement. The “us” Armey has in mind isn’t big enough to encompass people like Castle and Kirk, let alone the scores of moderate suburbanites who once felt comfortable in the Republican Party of George H.W. Bush. In fact, “us” is getting to be a small, comfy group. The Washington Post-ABC News poll this week found that only 20 percent of adults identify themselves as Republicans, the lowest single number in Post-ABC polls since 1983. Only 19 percent had confidence in congressional Republicans “to make the right decisions for the country’s future.” Even congressional Democrats got 34 percent on that question, and Obama scored 49 percent. With the moderate Scozzafava’s support in apparent collapse, Hoffman has a chance to win next month. Right-wingers would cheer, but such a result would be bad news for the GOP. A Hoffman victory would keep Republicans on a path that Newt Gingrich knows is unsustainable, even if Dick Armey doesn’t. E.J. Dionne’s e-mail address is ejdionne(at)washpost.com. © 2009, Washington Post Writers Group New and Improved CommentsIf you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy. |
By Dave Schwab, October 23, 2009 at 1:28 pm Link to this comment
From a strategical standpoint, this is a good move for conservatives. In fact, conservatives wielded such huge power in recent decades because they were willing to hurt their own party when it turned its back on them.
Their problem is that their ideas are terrible, and unlikely to win majority support.
If people with good ideas (progressives) showed such tactical resolve, we might actually get somewhere.
Report thisBy Inherit The Wind, October 22, 2009 at 7:41 pm Link to this comment
“ideological purity” is just a code word for racism. Southern radical reactionaries who call themselves “conservative” are nothing but old-line Dixiecrat whites-only bigots. That’s what it’s all about.
And the Democrats have a Black President, a female Speaker and a Black House Whip.
Angry stupid White men vote Re-thuglican.
Report thisBy de profundis clamavi, October 22, 2009 at 10:49 am Link to this comment
If the Republican Party is getting so small, how come Senate Democrats are still letting them exercise a veto power over legislation via the filibuster?
Report thisBy Mary Ann McNeely, October 22, 2009 at 10:04 am Link to this comment
The current Pope once said he didn’t care if the Catholic church was reduced to 10,000 members. He was only interested in the “true believers”. The same holds true for the Republican party. That they are a party of greedy, superstitious and homicidal lunatics is immaterial to the American people. They have shown in the last 40 years that they like greedy, superstitious and homicidal lunatics running their government and ruining their lives.
Report thisBy ChaoticGood, October 21, 2009 at 11:12 pm Link to this comment
The Republicans must fight to remain pure because that “purity” is all they have left to offer. The “base” of the Republican party are No Tax, No Gun control, No Homos, No Abortion. They are the party of “No”. They are the party that hates government and sees it as the “problem”. The “purity” of the message is the only thing that binds the Republicans together. Without that purity, they are just lunatics and Armey knows it.
Report thisArmey is right to demand that the party remain true to its base because if it does not, it will fracture into a religious party, a KluKluxKlan component and a corporatist, fascist portion.