Ryan Lizza is right that Bush’s crappy presidency contributed to the weak field of candidates that we see today:
“A successful Presidency can produce a new crop of future Presidential candidates for the party that controls the White House. The vice president and cabinet officials, as well as governors and senators elected over the course of the administration, are historically major sources for a party’s next round of candidates. The Bush years had the opposite effect. It was unthinkable that his vice president would run for higher office and much of his cabinet left Washington tainted by the President’s unpopularity. Moreover, Bush helped sink his party in the 2006 and 2008 elections, thus depleting the ranks of potential Republican candidates for 2012.”
But, the problem is a bit deeper. It’s hard to come up with a Republican who would make a plausible president and who, at the same time, could actually win the nomination. People talk about some of the less insane governors, like Bobby Jindal, Mitch Daniels, and Chris Christie. Maybe someone telegenic and non-threatening like Sen. John Thune could make a run, although he wouldn’t necessarily win the love of the Republican base. If you’re honest, the cupboard is pretty bare. The biggest problem is that the candidates have so little room to maneuver on the issues. It’s like they all have to learn the Rush Limbaugh catechism and they can’t deviate from it. In other words, it’s just packaging. All the candidates are going to make the same argument and do largely the same things in office. Maybe this is increasing Ron Paul’s appeal. At root, this is still the party of Tom DeLay. It is built to plunder. It rejects empathy. And it is giant reservoir for hate.
It’s not capable of providing us with a hopeful, optimistic, inclusive vision of the future. Ronald Reagan would be a RINO in today’s party, treated no better than Jon Huntsman. A lot of this is the legacy of Bush, but it has been building for much longer than that.
There is a deep pathological evil in the Republican party at this time. They cheered when someone discussed dying due to lack of insurance. They booed a gay soldier. There is a powerful lack of compassion, a contempt for weakness, and a joy, a celebration of someone at the bottom being stepped on.
It’s repulsive, but it is the Republican Party at this time. It is not simply that the leaders are assholes. The members are assholes as well.
Also: they reflexively side with anyone accused of racism.
Their most fervent belief, after low taxes, is that it is good when harm comes to people that liberals seek to help.
It’s become a party of people who leave their truck running all day on Earth Day..
The fundamental question in American politics right now is “What will happen to the Republican party?” Not only in the 2012 election, as important as it is, but in 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, and so on. Demographics indicate that the GOP cannot continue on its current path for much longer, yet it’s also kind of impossible to imagine any change in its trajectory. That trajectory is totally at odds with the post-New Deal compact which the vast majority of Americans internalized two or three generations ago. Therefore BooMan is correct to say the Republican party is “broken,” because it is stuck in the past, in fantasy, and the rest of America left behind its platform long ago.
But we live under a two-party system of government. That means that when one party is broken, the whole government is broken. Even if the Dems keep winning the White House, and maintain majorities in Congress, the government will be broken. Thus, we will all be forced limp along in this paralyzed state until the GOP “fixes” itself by somehow, finally, PERMANENTLY accepting the post-New Deal compact and embracing the future.
But how will that come to pass? And in what form? And when? What will happen to the Republican party?
I don’t know.
When enough defeats pile up, the Republicans will change to become more in tune with mainstream opinion. It’s the nature of the two-party system, no different than what we saw happen to the Democrats between Walter Mondale and Bill Clinton.
You are probably right. But can’t you just see them continually spinning every election loss as being due to the fact that the Republican candidate was insufficiently conservative? Insufficiently insane? Isn’t that what they do now? How or why would they change? Republicans live in total denial and it’s hard to see them accepting reason, even electoral reason, any time in the near future.
I think there is always a range of opinion in a major party in a two-party system. There are Republicans whose response to every loss is “More Cowbell!” and others whose response is to tack to the center. Note that Mitt Romney is currently leading the Republican field, so they’re not all More Cowbell Republicans.
When enough defeats pile up, the more mainstream, less confrontational Republicans will start winning the argument.
Well, I can’t argue with your extraordinary analogy there. More Cowbell indeed.
I, too, bow in awe at the mighty Cowbell analogy.
I’ll also add the “demography is destiny” angle:
*Each year for the coming decade, roughly 4 million Americans will reach voting age.
*American voters under 30 lean Democratic by (roughly) a 2-1 margin.
*That means Democrats have a net gain of roughly 1 million votes nationally every 2-3 years for the coming decade.
The Presidential part of the Republican Party is broken. But does that translate to the Congressional part of the Republican Party being broken as well?
This fixation on the Presidential race being the be-all and end-all of American politics is irritating. What we need to take a look at is the situation in Congress. Where are Democrats folding before the campaign starts, for example? Where are incumbents who are not being challenged in primaries (remember that lost tool) and who have not been terribly helpful over the past Congresses (cough, Shuler, McIntyre, Cooper, to name three).
And then there are the governor and legislative races, such as in North Carolina, that are required to reverse two years of major damage to schools, infrastructure, and finances.
The sickness in the Republican Party is the use of crazy to get attention and the assertion of commitment to “values”. The competition for crazy means that it is clear that no Republican candidate has fundamental values anchored in anything. The candidacy is everything, and it is all about getting the attention of the eyeballs with whatever schtick seems to work.
It is indeed the party of Dick Armey, Tom Delay, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, and Jim DeMint. And they are suckering everyone with money they can find from the Kochs on down to the nitwit who first funded Swiftboat Veterans for Truth. Just fleecing the rubes.
At the Presidential, Congressional, governor, legislative, and local level–just fleecing the rubes.
Where are incumbents who are not being challenged in primaries (remember that lost tool) and who have not been terribly helpful over the past Congresses (cough, Shuler, McIntyre, Cooper, to name three).
You can find your answer in the “Progressives” who cheer in people like DWS. People don’t realize that she’s no better than Steve Israel, Rahmbo or any other corporate stooge. Look at who they’ve recruited for candidates to run for seats in the House. They are always trying to force progressive candidates out for rich self-funders, former GOPers and other assorted bad news.
“This fixation on the Presidential race being the be-all and end-all of American politics is irritating.”
This fixation for me is also inherently undemocratic and antithetical to progressive values as well.
Perhaps the problem is that too many Americans these days want and need the “imperial presidency” in order to understand and relate to their own government.
Ryan Lizza is right that Bush’s crappy presidency contributed to the weak field of candidates that we see today:
Can anyone tell me the up-and-comers in the Democratic party? If Montana’s Governor(Schweitzer) doesn’t run in ’16, can anyone tell me who will excite Democrats at that time?
Excitement is relative. How about focusing on people that would be up to the job.
Joe Biden
Hillary Clinton
Mark Warner
Andrew Cuomo
Whatever you think about them and their place within the party, compare that list to:
Mitt Romney
Rick Perry
Newt Gingrich
Rick Santorum
Ron Paul
From a progressive point of view, Gov. Shumlin of Vermont and Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon could be nice selections in future.
There’s also O’Malley from Maryland and Malloy from Connecticut to consider.
sure. why not? They’re not clowns.
Deval Patrick.
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (You asked about Democrats, not Glenn Greenwald fanbois).
Kristen Gillibrand.
Sherrod Brown.
Sheldon Whitehouse (although he might need a little more time to build a national profile).
Michelle Obama.
Beau Biden (again, 2016 might be too soon, but he’s on the bench).
I could go on. It’s really not that hard if you think about exciting actual Democrats as a whole, as opposed to whatever segment of a wing of a faction of a segment of the party you like best.
Except for Patrick, are any of them going to run for Governor of their state first?