The GOP's Identity Struggle –What happens when the right splits in two?

The GOP's Identity Struggle –What happens when the right splits in two?

www.nbcchicago.com

Republicans are hoping to make major inroads in the midterm elections, and an obscure House race may offer an enlightening preview.
There's usually a greater focus on elections following a presidential contest, as the party out of power seeks to make them a referendum on the new man in the White House. Who can forget the elections that followed Bill Clinton's 1992 victory, when Republicans in quick succession won a late-November '92 run-off in the Georgia Senate race, followed in '93 by wins in governor's races in New Jersey and Virginia and topped off the streak in the mayoral election in New York City (first GOPer in three decades).
These wins sent a signal that there seemed to be a new political mood arising in the country.  That was borne out when Republicans swept the 1994 midterms -- House, Senate, governor's races, etc. 

(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 19-10-2009 by grover]

The story goes on to say that:

This year, the New Jersey and Virginia state houses are once again up for grabs (the GOP candidate looks good in the latter, while New Jersey is too close to call).  However, there is remarkably much attention being devoted to one special House election in upstate New York.  The 23rd district race opened up when President Obama appointed Rep. John McHugh (R-NY) secretary of the Army. 
McHugh's district is traditionally strongly Republican, so the GOP's insistence that a Republican be elected to McHugh's seat seems a little strange. Then again, in this very blue state of New York, Obama did carry the 23rd district by 5 percentage points.  Still, that a Democrat would be leading in one poll barely a fortnight before Election Day is even weirder.  But that's exactly what is happening here.  
The reason the race is so close, however, is that the right has split in two. National Republicans organizations -- and most of the local establishment -- rallied around the official nominee of the party, Assemblywoman Dierdre ("Dede") Scozzafava.  She, however, comes with certain baggage that is unacceptable to a core block of conservative voters:
In the state Assembly, Scozzafava...has broken with the Republican conference only 5 percent of the time, but on high-profile issues such as same-sex marriage, greenhouse gas emissions, sex education in schools and gender identity discrimination. In the past she's won the Working Families Line — a liberal minority party closely associated with the Democratic Party. It endorsed Owens this time.
Scozzafava's alliance with the Working Families Party is one of the major issues that the conservative base has against her. The WFP is an offshoot of the controversial ACORN community organizing group.  As a result, the right is running a more traditionally-minded candidate on the Conservative Party line, businessman Doug Hoffman; this appears to be giving Democrat Bill Owens a more than puncher's shot at winning the seat:

This is interesting for a variety of reasons but more specifically because we are possibly going to see the GOP fracture into two parties by 2012 if it cannot get its act together before then.

We already see this fracture here on ATS with those who insist that the GOP be further purged of its remaining moderate (lets be honest all the liberal Republicans in the party are gone) members and to hew to a more strident right wing conservative ideology and those who think that would keep the party in the minority for the foreseeable future.

If the GOP splits, which I think is increasingly likely there are two possible outcomes...one we see the emergence of a new political party...or two the the hard right branch falls flat on its face like the Dixiecrats did in 1948 and grudgingly returns to the fold.

Personally I doubt seriously if a hard right party has any serious chance since they are already a minority within the GOP and their more extreme views are more likely to scare away moderate and undecided voters.

www.nbcchicago.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I have always believed that a parliamentary set up would be better than what we have now...being held prisoner to a two party system in their struggle for permanent power.

I think that more parties the better...that coalitions and votes of no confidence would serve or large and varied electorate than two parties does.

I personally believe however as I said in the OP that a hard right party is pretty much a dead end here in the United States politics aside, if only because it speaks to far to narrow a base.

reply to post by grover


The way I see it, being one of those that feel the need to have the GOP return to a more conservative approach, is that most Americans ARE conservative at heart.

They don't want a bigger government.
They are tired of earmarks.
They are tired of the spending practices of the government.
They do want more control over their lives.

Currently, the GOP faces some tough choices. Become democrat-lite and keep spending and growing and lying.

Or

Put real limits on government. Limit; their pay, term-lengths, taxes, mandates that interfere with business, . . . . basically limit the invasive quality that has been D.C. for way too long.

Until they do make these changes, I'm not voting for them. I plan to vote out as many incumbents on the GOP side as I can. They have been nothing more than liars and hypocrites. And until we get some people in THAT ACTUALLY REPRESENT the values and concerns of conservatives, they have no place in American politics.

They can get a job at Denny's. I hear they're hiring.

I can agree with all of that in principle...it is the rest of the baggage that comes with the hard right that will limit their progress...

plus I think that while most people like the idea of a smaller government; they understand that with a nation of 300+ million, it is hardly possible.

[edit on 19-10-2009 by grover]

Mind you I am not trying to smear either the hard right or the GOP with this thread...it is relevant simply because this potential fracturing of the party is playing out nationally as seen in the campaign the article is about.

Originally posted by grover
Mind you I am not trying to smear either the hard right or the GOP with this thread...it is relevant simply because this potential fracturing of the party is playing out nationally as seen in the campaign the article is about.

Please, as a conservative and a former republican, I'll do the smearing. The party has upset me to no end!!!

I do agree that the party needs/is going to; separate. The dichotomy that is the republican party is causing it to erode from within. It's like a political "auto-immune" disease that is eating it away.


That's why Bobby Jindal, from Louisianna, and . . . . yup, I'm going to say it. . . . Sarah Palin are such exciting newcommers and the possible futures of what used to be my party.

Sorry but I don't see either as serious contenders any time soon.

Palin has worse poll numbers than bush minor and has done nothing to help her case especially her resignation.

As for Jindal...he is going to have a hard time shaking that idiotic speech he gave in Feb.

reply to post by grover


Neither are great orators. They can't give a speech like Obama. Neither have proven themselves as being hyper-geniuses.

They are as close to being like us "regular folk" as anyone else on the national scene.

That's why they'd get my vote.

Maybe their participation will encourage others who want to do the right thing. Instead of the "press-packages" we get now.

Well, it is just one district in a highly liberal state and they did vote for Obama in '08. Myself, I consider the two governor's races to be a more valuable test of the mood of the country as well as the state of the GOP. Virginia, in particular, will be an excellent indicator, since no one really had an advantage going into it.

No, I doubt the GOP truly fractures. There may well be some retrenchment, but as we've seen with the Democratic party since 2000, that usually pushes a party further from the political center. My guess is that the Washington beltway types, the liberal Republicans, get the boot and that these are compensated for by defections of conservative Democrats to the independent ranks or even to the GOP over the next few years. We'll see, I suppose.

reply to post by mikerussellus


I like Palin and Jindal as well. Palin is my favorite of the possible contenders often mentioned, though I do have some reservations considering her lack of experience as a presidential candidate that I did not have with her as VP. That said, I'm tired of the Ivy League idiots that typically win elections and have never lived a day in the real world in their lives. That's one of the biggest pluses in Sarah Palin's column, I agree.

reply to post by vor78


Irony in that her lack of experience discounts her in so many eyes, while Obama's lack of experience was lauded. Not going to go down a slam Obama on this thread, just pointing out that her naivete on beltway issues may raise her in the eyes of many.

reply to post by mikerussellus


Agreed. That difference between how Obama's supporters viewed the experience issue with regard to the two was...interesting...to say the least. Oh well. It doesn't really matter anymore.

reply to post by grover



The GOP will split. But I think it will split 3 ways. East Coast corporate money, Rush devotees, Religious Right. There may be some mixing especially with the RR and Rush followers.

Somehow though I see Rush going on Tilt and not being the force he currently is. I can hear it in his voice.

But with the right candidate the GOP could coalesce and still be a party to be reckoned with if they can avoid some traumatic event like a sex scandal or graft that will allow the libs to paint them with a broad brush.

I see the GOP doing quite well in the mid term elections. But they are going to need a very charismatic, young, articulate, candidate with an actual platform in 2012. Negative campaigns are obsolete with the new demographic.

Obama won't seek a second term.

I would love to see a Palin/??? ticket spearheading the GOP. Diversity is the name of the game.


[edit on 19-10-2009 by whaaa]

You know I do see the GOP split into two factions at the moment, and if they want to ever have a chance at being the ruling party again, they better fix that quick. And though they have had some success in co-opting the anger of the Tea Party movement, neither the Dems or GOP understand the depth of the anger that spawned it. I know that Dems like to think that it's a far right movement, but I've heard several people involved in it express admiration for certain Dems like Nancy Kaptur.

As an Independent in an open primary state, I've voted both ways in primaries in my lifetime. I've leaned a little more GOP since I've been in the private workforce though. I live in the South though and our Democrats (with the exception of Representatives in places like Atlanta) are by no means the same Democrats that piss me of from places like Cali, Mass, and NY. I really don't have a huge problem with Blue Dogs and most Southern Dems. Pelosi, Rangel, Kennedy, and Boxer are in my view to the Democrats what the hard right are to the GOP.

In my opinion the Blue Dogs, Southern Dems, and moderate Republicans could, if they had the balls and the financing, could form the nucleus of a third centrist/populist/moderate party. Let the Dems have Pelosi, Boxer, Rangel and others as a Hard Left party and let the GOP have Limbaugh and the other loonies on the Hard Right.

Originally posted by jefwane


In my opinion the Blue Dogs, Southern Dems, and moderate Republicans could, if they had the balls and the financing, could form the nucleus of a third centrist/populist/moderate party. Let the Dems have Pelosi, Boxer, Rangel and others as a Hard Left party and let the GOP have Limbaugh and the other loonies on the Hard Right.

I too favor this alternative. But without financing as you mentioned this is just a "grassroots" pipedream. Do you think the Money Boys are going to contribute to what amounts to their enemies? With the state of the economy, can grassrooters pony up enough dough to even matter? I don't think so.

www.opensecrets.org...#

We live in a corporatacracy and nothing short of a "second coming" is going to change that.

Politics has become mostly entertainment like Nascar, NFL, WWF and only slightly more sophisticated. Actually, maybe less but it's the sex scandals and corruption that keep my interest.

Personally, I think it has been a long time coming, and is long overdue for the GOP to break off into two separate groups.

There are a lot of different types of Republicans. Most are Moderate, but the fringe Republicans, especially the "Moral Majority"/Christian Right who are the most loud-spoken, get all the (negative) attention.

With the negative behavior of FOX Hysteria, ahem, I mean FOX News, it has been even more detrimental to the GOP as a whole.

It is time for a divorce, family values be harshly darned in the world of politics. The Moderate Republicans need to walk away from the extremist Christian Right.

For the long-term political landscape, this has the potential for being one of the better things that could happen to American politics in the last 100 years. In the short-term it will cripple both, but now would be the best time to do it, as historically speaking, there most likely won't be a Republican controlled Congress or President for at least another 11-15 years. To take advantage of that down time to gain steam as separate and independent parties, there couldn't be a better time for the GOP to consider breaking into two.

Granted, the GOP already tried to reinvent itself, but lacking the foresight and leadership, such an attempt was contrived and too artificial to really redefine themselves. Republicans need two parties to better clarify themselves and give themselves the direction that they need, rather than being pulled in two directions, but mainly to shed a lot of the negativity that has plagued them and regain the trust of the people, especially the voting members of their own party.

reply to post by vor78

Virginia (where I am) is an interesting case and really shouldn't be touted as an indicator of what is to come.

Why? Partly because of our incredibly messed up system and partly because it has only recently tacked Democratic.

What happens in Va. is that governors here are only allowed 1 term and whomever is governor is besides governing also busy grooming his heir apparent. It is all really very incestuous and the end result is you have 8 years of one party followed by 8 years of the other party...so we have had George Allen and Jim Gilmore followed Mark Warner and Tim Kaine...but unless he pulls off a magic trick Creigh Deeds will not replace Kaine, Bob McDonnell (R) will so at least here in Virginia the GOP win will not mean all that much...of course that won't stop them from claiming it did.

The other thing is despite going Democratic for Obama the first time in 40 years...it is still a very conservative state...I think that going for Obama was less a vote for him as it was a vote of no confidence in McCain.

If you really want to glimpse the future Virginia is not the place.

[edit on 19-10-2009 by grover]

The problem the Republicans have is that they are an unfriendly alliance of Religious Conservatives, Economic Conservatives, and Social Conservatives.

All of these things are not like the other (I hear this in my head sung to Seasame Street tunes.)

Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by grover

 

The way I see it, being one of those that feel the need to have the GOP return to a more conservative approach, is that most Americans ARE conservative at heart.

They don't want a bigger government.
They are tired of earmarks.
They are tired of the spending practices of the government.
They do want more control over their lives.

Currently, the GOP faces some tough choices. Become democrat-lite and keep spending and growing and lying.

Or

Put real limits on government. Limit; their pay, term-lengths, taxes, mandates that interfere with business, . . . . basically limit the invasive quality that has been D.C. for way too long.

Until they do make these changes, I'm not voting for them. I plan to vote out as many incumbents on the GOP side as I can. They have been nothing more than liars and hypocrites. And until we get some people in THAT ACTUALLY REPRESENT the values and concerns of conservatives, they have no place in American politics.

They can get a job at Denny's. I hear they're hiring.

reply to post by grover


You're right, state level politics can certainly play a major role and I would stop short of saying that the two governors' races are definitive, but they're probably the best indicators we have at the present time. In spite of the state's history, I think Virginia certainly has to make the national Democratic party a bit nervous, given the results last time around. It may well be that it was a vote of no-confidence in McCain, but its still has to be a serious concern if they do lose it because it still means that Virginia and some of the other states might well jump back to the GOP column in 2012 if they field a candidate more acceptable to those voters.