The tent is well past "frayed" now

[jducoeur]

I have to say, I'm downright surprised that I've seen so little commentary about what looks to me to be the most important ramification of the current primaries: the rending of the Republican "big tent". Yes, there have always been major wings of the party in tension with each other, and yes, those tensions have always been most evident during the primaries. But they're just plain more vivid this time.

Specifically, each of the major candidates is essentially playing to a specific aspect of the party. Huckabee laid claim to the evangelical side (almost by default, since everyone else was too scared to be quite so overtly theocratic). McCain is claiming the neo-cons. Ron Paul's preposterously high showing indicates how disgusted the libertarian wing is with the rest, and how desperate they are for a symbol to root for. Giuliani seems to be going after the culture-of-fear fascist side, and Romney, while trying to seduce *everybody* rather clumsily, is mostly looking like the big business candidate.

I'll be very curious to see how this plays out in the real campaign. Of course everyone will kiss and make up after the primaries (well, unless the candidate is Romney, who seems to inspire loathing in everybody else), but the fissures are *so* transparent this time that I have to expect it's going to be harder than usual. Which doesn't mean vast numbers of Republicans are going to suddenly cross the aisle and vote Democrat -- but I do expect an awful lot of them to sit on their hands.

It's quite an interesting turn, to see the Democrats looking like the party of unity for a change. Yes, they've got a bunch of candidates, and yes, they're fighting hard. But the number of Democratic voters who are adequately content to see any of their candidates win looks high this time -- and that doesn't appear nearly as true for the Republicans. Quite the reverse of the pattern I'd gotten used to...

Comments

[tpau]

iam sort of hopignthat maybe the ywill actually make several viable parties out of themselves. it can happen. bacon can fly too...

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

Quibbling, although I mostly agree.

Romney would try harder for the "mantle of the annointed", if it were not for Huckabee. Of the many Republican candidates, only Huckabee and Romney "live the word". But Romney's religious choice is at best troubling for your average Evangelical, so Huckabee is the best bet.

I like what one columnist said about Romney. He's the candidate of the past. He has retooled himself to look, act, and almost sound like George W. Bush. With even prettier hair. :-)

Makes one wonder if Karl Rove really does deserve more credit than he has already gotten for the Bush II victories. He was able to keep the party in line, the candidate on message, and despite the various fears and qualms of the many constituencies, he made Bush appear to be their best hope for their special interest.

All these guys are, basically, one special interest apiece.

[jducoeur]

Oh, yes: I think Rove was quite important, at least in his "Lord of Darkness" aspect. He (and others like him, probably including Cheney) had both the party and the media so *cowed* that he managed to hold together a situation that was inherently unstable.

But now that that particular fear of mysteriously unstated but massive reprisals has passed, that's a much tougher thing to do...

[tashabear.livejournal.com]

I got Ron Paul spam today. It was disappointing.

[doubleplus.livejournal.com]

Disappointing to get it, or disappointing quality? ;-)

FWIW, the Ron Paul spam has been tracked back, (http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,140300-c,spam/article.html) and apparently the campaign is not responsible for it. One of the hazards of having an extremely decentralized campaign where people take a lot of matters into their own hands.

Hm. Does this mean that in the libertarian paradise, we'd get even more spam? ;-)

[tashabear.livejournal.com]

Disappointing to get it, or disappointing quality? ;-)

Yes.

[jducoeur]

One of the hazards of having an extremely decentralized campaign where people take a lot of matters into their own hands.

Yaas. From everything I've been hearing, it sounds like the official campaign is only responsible for a fairly modest fraction of the momentum that Paul has gotten. He may not have a ton of serious supporters, but *boy* are they enthusiastic...

[doubleplus.livejournal.com]

While I agree it doesn't get much coverage in the news media, there's quite a lot of talk about it on the political blogs I frequent, such as Firedoglake (http://www.firedoglake.com) and Talking Points Memo (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com). And some rubbing hands together and cackling with glee. ;-)

One quibble -- I think it overstates the size and strength of the libertarian faction to attribute Ron Paul's support entirely to that. A big chunk of his support (and arguably the only reason he got any significant traction in the first place) is because he's the only Republican candidate who's against the war (heck, he's the only one who isn't a full-throated supporter.)

Another point is that the culture-of-fear fascist wing is really the same as the neocon wing, as evidenced by the fact that McCain's resurgence came when Giuliani tanked.

[hungrytiger]

...the fact that McCain's resurgence came when Giuliani tanked.

I caught a really interesting analysis about that yesterday which took the argument that Giuliani had basically been selling himself since the beginning as the candidate with the best shot of beating Clinton. Once Clinton was no longer the front-runner, the basis of Giuliani's campaign fell apart.

Of course, both of those premises (Clinton's no longer the front-runner and Giuliani's campaign has fallen apart) are based on very little hard data. There's a lot of evidence to imply that Clinton can make a very strong comeback in Florida on the 29th and Giuliani could also pick up a lot there if people aren't too tired of him losing in states that he chose not to compete in.

Giuliani's choice not to run in the early, low-delegate states and instead focus on Florida is an interesting one, but one which I think may doom his chances. The front-runners out of Iowa and NH get too much free attention from the media, while he sits there tied 6th place giving off the aura of one of the fringe candidates.

What really amazes me is the buzz I'm hearing today that Clinton might consider dropping out if she doesn't do well in NH. It astounds me that that would be conceivable and really makes me want to push for a reform of the primary system to rotate which states go first.

[jducoeur]

The front-runners out of Iowa and NH get too much free attention from the media, while he sits there tied 6th place giving off the aura of one of the fringe candidates.

Yeah, that's what I've been thinking. Everyone talks about "electability": it's a meme that has been deeply planted in the collective subconscious. Losing your first few primaries spectacularly is *not* a way to look "electable". Moreover, it comes across as spectacularly *arrogant* to believe that you can simply sweep in late and run the table, and everything I'm seeing says that that's not going to go down well with the current mood of the electorate.

What really amazes me is the buzz I'm hearing today that Clinton might consider dropping out if she doesn't do well in NH.

I suspect this is either propaganda on someone else's part, or simply unfounded media speculation. With that much money in the bank, I think the odds of her dropping out before Super Tuesday are essentially nil.

[doubleplus.livejournal.com]

Despite the rhetoric from the Giuliani camp, I don't think it was really a choice, or at least not a positive one. I suspect they looked at their polling and decided it was better to not competing in the early states and losing than competing and losing. (The "I meant to do that" strategy.) There's also the appearance that, in NH at least, based on when he did his advertising, the better people get to know Giuliani, the less they like him.

Anyway, considering that the general reaction to the late-big-states strategy has been "it's never worked before, but that doesn't mean it can't work," I'm doubtful that it's more than making the best of a bad situation.

[hungrytiger]

It's possibly true that he didn't campaign there since he knew he would lose badly regardless, so the organization chose to cut-and-run and save their money for other states.

However, I think that Justin is right that...

A) Losing your first few primaries spectacularly is *not* a way to look "electable" (current polls also show him in 3rd place at best in next week's Michigan primary)
and
B) It comes across as spectacularly *arrogant* to believe that you can simply sweep in late and run the table

I'm betting that those two will cripple him Equals a K.O. for Giuliani's campaign

OTOH, he is currently leading in the polls in Nevada and Florida. I'm going to be really interested to see what happens to those numbers after a 4th or 5th place showing in NH.

[doubleplus.livejournal.com]

One of the best possible results from this campaign would be putting a stake in the Iowa/NH business, and considering how many entrenched party interests on both sides are getting their oxen gored, it just might happen. It's hard to be optimistic, though; everyone agreeing it's insane never seems to be enough to make something happen.

[hungrytiger]

Well, the eternal problem with any revamp of the election system is that too much of it hinges on the person who was just elected by it saying that it was broken. Once a candidate has beaten other people through the gauntlet, why should they want to change the gauntlet.

The primary system and the electoral college just piss me off.

[doubleplus.livejournal.com]

Are you familiar with the National Popular Vote (http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/) Compact for making the Electoral College irrelevant? It's a pretty neat idea that doesn't require a constitutional amendment or anyone "going first," and it seems to be gaining steam.

National Popular Vote Compact

[hudebnik.livejournal.com]

I keep asking/telling people about it (including elected officials), and nobody seems interested. I would think New York State (where I live) would be a prime candidate: it's a non-swing state, so it currently gets no attention from Presidential candidates, and it's a large-population state, so its electoral vote per human citizen is disproportionately low; on either count, it should be all in favor of dismantling the electoral college.

What is the evidence that it "seems to be gaining steam"?

Re: National Popular Vote Compact

[hudebnik.livejournal.com]

Correction: I just followed that link, and here's the progress report: it's been signed into law in Maryland, has passed both houses of the legislature in Illinois and New Jersey, and is making its way through the legislatures of most of the remaining states.

It worries me that all three states that have gone the farthest tend to go Democratic in Presidential elections; the perception could develop that it's a pro-Democratic (rather than pro-democratic) tactic.

[jducoeur]

Another point is that the culture-of-fear fascist wing is really the same as the neocon wing

They're closely related, to be sure, but I don't think they're actually the same. I suspect the culture-of-fear group is larger, encompassing a lot of people who have let themselves be brainwashed by the War on Terror, and think that safety is simply more important than amorphous civil liberties. The neo-cons, by contrast, are much more aggressive: they're also fear-motivated, but their instincts are offensive rather than defensive.

So while there's a lot of overlap here, I don't see them as quite the same constituency. I'd bet that there are a lot of people who have bought the fascist argument who are still pretty unhappy about Iraq. (And probably *some* who are gung-ho about Iraq but don't like the civil-liberties mess at home.)

[doubleplus.livejournal.com]

I think they originate in the same place, but you may be right and they may have separated somewhat since then. However, Giuliani's foreign-policy advisors are almost exclusively (perhaps entirely) prominent neocons, so I don't think it's correct to separate him from them, either.

I'd probably put McCain as primarily with the paleocon faction (which includes Romney's big-business Republicans.) He's something of a warmonger (he was in favor of invading Iraq before Bush was), but other than that, I don't think he really lines up with the neocons (though I could be forgetting something.)

[hungrytiger]

I agree with your assessment on the brainwashed War-on-Terror wing of the party. They're the group in favor of giving back civil liberties in favor of a "strong" government that can ensure our protection.

The difference I see between them and the neo-cons, are that neo-cons believe in the idea that war is good for business (not that anyone today would admit that).

[tpau]

was IS good for business. it is jsut bad for EVERYTHING else.

[osewalrus.livejournal.com]

I have been following it for some time, particularly since the 2006 election killed the greatest reason for cooperation -- we must work with each other to keep control.

The Rs in DC and the R political leadership are much more unified, and therefore increasingly out of touch with their base. It may produce some surprises in '08.

[serakit.livejournal.com]

I remember you telling me that the only reason the Republicans were unified was because they were terrified of what would happen if they weren't. They're actually three separate parties plus Big Business/Oil, I think, united by the fact that they're more pragmatic than Democrats, and they're finally getting fed up with being three separate parties under one roof. This could be the beginning of the Electoral System Revolution!

Judging by the ads I've seen, Romney seems to be the "I should be elected because I'm not them" candidate. At least on the TV networks commonly shown in the dorm... there are all these ads about how McCain should not be elected and Romney is put forward as the obvious choice instead.

And it doesn't surprise me that the libertarian wing is at odds with the rest. The libertarian philosophy is very much at odds with the other ones, because the rest of the Republicans advocate more legislation of morality, not less.

Do the Democrats really have a number of candidates? Lately it's been looking like either Clinton or Obama and no one else has a shot.

[jducoeur]

united by the fact that they're more pragmatic than Democrats

Yes and no. *Traditionally*, the Republicans have been the party of pragmatism, but that's eroded badly in recent years -- that's a large part of why I'm so annoyed by them. Between the anti-immigration thing, and the rise of the party's theocratic wing, they've been increasingly losing touch with reality.

Indeed, I think the past two Presidents have pretty much turned the stereotype upside-down. Bill Clinton was ruthlessly pragmatic. That suited his nature: the man's a born panderer, and if people are telling him he's screwing up, he generally listens. Dubya, by contrast, is an ideologue, not just out of touch with reality but *proud* of it. (I am especially disgusted with their tendency to put ideological political appointees in charge of nominally objective governmental departments like NASA.) I find it deliciously ironic that the only issues that Bush completely failed to get traction on were the ones where he *was* being right and pragmatic, like free trade and immigration. Far as I can tell, he doesn't know how to *sell* pragmatism to his own party, even when he believes in it.

One of my main objectives is the return of a Republican party I can vote for. Before that can happen, though, the party needs to return to reality. And none of the candidates, even the ones who are probably moderately pragmatic people, are really pushing pragmatic viewpoints -- I'd say that McCain is closest, but even he's not great in that regard...

Romney seems to be the "I should be elected because I'm not them" candidate.

That's his usual style. He always goes ruthlessly but smarmily negative pretty early. The passive-aggressive campaign he waged against McCain in NH ("McCain's a nice guy, and he's done great work, but you do know that he's WRONG WRONG WRONG on every issue, and BTW too old, right?") was very typical of him. He always smiles widest while he's slipping in the knife.

Do the Democrats really have a number of candidates? Lately it's been looking like either Clinton or Obama and no one else has a shot.

The Edwards wing has been pretty passionate, and I doubt they're going to give up yet. But realistically, yes -- it's probably down to those two. (Which is normal at this point in a campaign: the unusual part is seeing the Republicans so fragmented, so late.)