The following is an excerpt from page 267 of my 2005 edition of Doris Kearns Goodwin’s Team of Rivals, a book which formed the basis for the movie Lincoln. The setting is the 1860 presidential campaign, shortly after Lincoln secured the Republican Party nomination.
[Lincoln] recognized that anything he said would be scanned scrupulously for partisan purposes. The slightest departure from the printed record would be distorted by friends as well as enemies. Even his simple reiteration of a previous position might, in the midst of a campaign, give it new emphasis. He preferred to point simply to the party platform that he had endorsed. His few lapses justified his fears. A facetious comment to a Democratic reporter that “he would like to go to Kentucky to discuss issues but was afraid of being lynched” was made into a campaign issue.
Underlying this policy of self-restraint was another important but unvoiced political reality: Lincoln had to maintain the cohesion of the new Republican Party, a coalition of old Democrats, former Whigs, and members of the nativist American Party. Informing a Jewish friend that he never entered a Know Nothing lodge, as accused by Democrats, he cautioned that “our adversaries think they can gain a point, if they could force me to openly deny this charge.” Although Lincoln himself had disavowed any sympathy with nativists, and had actually invested in a German paper, many Republicans remained hostile to immigrants, and their support was essential.
What lessons should we take from this little slice of history? We could focus on Lincoln’s shrewdness. He understood very well what it would take to win the White House, and he was willing to get in bed with one devil (anti-Catholic xenophobes) in order to deal with another one (slavery). That’s interesting, but I’d rather focus on the persistence of this alliance in the Republican Party.
The Know Nothings were angry about cheap labor from Germany, Italy, and Ireland. Those immigrants happened to be Catholic, for the most part, and that was also a source of concern. The preponderant Catholicism of the 11 million undocumented Latino workers in this country seems to actually be one of the few things the modern GOP holds in their favor. Christian sectarian differences are less important than they used to be, but race is still a big deal.
In its formative stage, the Republican Party enjoyed a fairly healthy (although inherently corrupting) relationship between Wall Street industrialists who had money to invest and western states that were thirsty for infrastructure. But that wasn’t enough to get them over the top. They needed the nativists to get them there. Even as the Republican Party slowly rotated from a northern party into a southern party, the nativists never really left. All that happened is that their numbers were bolstered by the remnants of the Confederacy.
Other things have changed. It’s appropriate that Obama’s first-term Secretary of Transportation was an Illinois Republican. The modern GOP doesn’t believe in investing in infrastructure anymore. That healthy link between Wall Street investors and the GOP is broken. Perhaps it is the square peg of nativism that broke it. Rather than being an unfortunate, yet necessary, coalition partner, the appendage became the feature. I don’t know if the nostalgia of the Know Nothings was quite as ahistorical as the nostalgia of the Tea Party, but everything else seems the same. The ahistorical feature of the modern GOP perhaps comes from the heavy dollop of Christian fundamentalism that was introduced in the 1970s and then combined with the anti-science interests of certain energy industrialists. Whatever the case, the result is a truly toxic brew.
I didn’t think I’d be saying this two or four years ago, but I don’t think the modern Republican Party is redeemable. The signs that it is in retreat come every day, but yesterday was a particularly bad day for them.
Sen. Jefferson Sessions of Alabama spent hours on the floor yesterday, railing against the confirmation of Jack Lew as Treasury Secretary, but in the end he could only get 24 Republican colleagues to join with him. Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina was humiliated by a Milwaukee police chief during a hearing on gun violence held by the Judiciary Committee. The previously feared and revered journalist Bob Woodward was busy trashing his own reputation as he transformed himself into a Donald Trump caricature. Sean Hannity had his ass handed to him by a black Muslim congressman from Minneapolis. Justice Antonin Scalia made one of the most racist and inappropriate comments from the bench of the Supreme Court that we’ve seen in modern history. Meanwhile, the whole world is aligned in stupefaction that the GOP would rather trash the economy than make modest compromises with the president on the budget.
There is no party left for the center-right. I think that that one will be created.
The sheer humiliation leadership has brought to its membership. The inaction and obstruction it has laid at the feet of Wall Street. The only question is how, not when, will the GOP see it’s larger business base move out? Will Wall Street see their way to negotiate with the Dem platform to find a place at the table?
All the “Big’s” have been in box seats to observe poor govt from the ranks of the GOP and they seem to have little effect in re routing these Fiscal cliffs. So, in the name of business that has lined the pockets of a failed party, how will they extricate themselves?
Wall Street already owns the Democrats as well. In fact Wall Street and big business types love social liberalism and the civil rights movement. Simple reasons as well, less xenophobia = more free trade, and more people competing for jobs = lower wages.
The GOP is useful for keeping taxes down, but don’t delude yourself into thinking that Wall Street isn’t both parties to their very core. Hell, Wall Street is represented by NYC Democrats. Most rich people are in major cities and represented by Democrats.
The plutocrats don’t need the GOP, they can just make the Democrats do what they want.
Yes, that explains why the plutocrats donated far more to the Republicans than to the Democrats in the last election.
Look,it’s no secret — except to the right wing — that the Democratic Party is NOT the Socialist Party by another name. But you go too far. Essentially you are just reciting the familiar mantra of the Naderites and others that “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference” between the two parties. I think it is that conviction that prevents a lot of people on the left from understanding present-day American politics. There is a huge difference in priorities and overall philosophies.
Must you confine your thinking to black and white terms? It’s not a good way to think.
There is a difference, like that between a skirmish and a war.
That’s pretty much my experience as a local politician. It’s technically a non-partisan county board, but we have a solid majority of Democrats. The majority of us who are Democrats are significantly more liberal than the measures we pass because we have a number of moderate to conservative Democrats. Which is no surprise in a rural county government. Would the majority of the Democratic members like to pass more liberal measures? I don’t think there’s any doubt, but such measures mostly doesn’t get proposed for the simple reason that they will lose and eat up time that could be better spent on thing we can pass. For that reason actual proposed and voted on measures tend to be exactly as liberal as the most conservative vote we need for a given majority. This might well lead someone who is only paying attention to the end results to assume that the individual Democratic members of the board are more conservative than they are. Such an assumption would be both wrong and simplistic.
Sigh.
No worries Kelly. It happens.
I’ve read your Fallen Blade series (Fantasy is my ‘thing’). Great job!
.
Thanks! Glad you’ve enjoyed them. Next one is out in June.
And here I thought you really cared. Sigh. đŸ˜‰
Well, I think it’s a little more complex than that, but what you’re saying is broadly true. In a two-party system, certain conditions are created that don’t manifest themselves in multi-party systems. One of those conditions is that powerful people with lots of money can basically exert sufficient control on either party that their interests are never severely threatened. You’re not going to see one of the major parties adopt an unreservedly populist anti-Wall Street platform.
And, actually, is that not all a bad thing. Extremism is bad no matter who is being extreme. The other thing is, as you point out, that our money center are socially liberal. The Republicans that I grew up with in Princeton, New Jersey (mainly NYC commuters) were of the Rockefeller variety. Their financial interests haven’t changed, but the GOP has.
The GOP is now actively hostile to their interests because, while they are supportive of low regulation and taxation, they are opposed to investment and sound economic policy.
Finally, despite all their abuses and greed, Wall Street isn’t monolithically evil. They serve a purpose. Properly managed, they can create much more good than bad. The problem is that they enjoy disproportionate power, not that they have some legitimate representation in the Democratic Party. I’d be happy with more regionalism, where Democrats in the collar of NYC are pretty friendly to the interests of Wall Street, but people from both parties elsewhere are not.
You’ve just explained why I saw teabags dancing before my eyes upon reading “There is no party left for the center-right.” Of course there is: it’s called the Democratic Party. I don’t know what kind of “extremism” you’re talking about that’s always bad. The Emancipation Proclamation and the American Revolution are just two of myriad examples of good extremism. (Well, not so sure about the Revolution anymore.)
And under the present system, Wall Street creates nothing. It takes other peoples’ money, creates a lot of boilerplate that lets it skim off the cream, and then whines for more government money and “deregulation” when its pure evil finally threatens to turn on itself.
Did you see Moyers’ interview with Richard Wolff the other day? He thinks capitalism American-style is finished. In a way he agrees with you, I guess. He doesn’t want more regulation or punishment for the Wall Street crooks and fools because that would only kick the can down the road when it comes to replacing the system before it exhales its last foul gasp. Personally I don’t see why we can’t do both, but it was invigorating to hear somebody with a platform finally, finally point out the elephant in the room. But as you point out, no major party is going to even hint at something so “extremist”, so what’s left?
Reading Woodward’s response shines an instant light on what his problem is: the Republicans rewrote history when he talked with them, and he is such a creature of the Beltway that he simply cannot fathom that they’d so brazenly rewrite history – even to the point where he can’t believe (or can’t be bothered to look up) contemporaneous accounts that also contradict Today’s Truth.
Of course, extreme credulousness has been the defining characteristic of Woodward – especially in his book-length stenographies – for decades now. It’s why he has, up until now, gotten such great access to the very powerful; for pols the combination of Woodward’s Watergate cred and his (actual) complete disinterest in doubting anyone’s bullshit has made him an irresistible “confidante.” The real question is why, given irreconcilable accounts of the same event, Woodward is this time choosing to believe the less powerful people who are insisting the sun came up in the west this morning.
Somewhere in that explanation, I’m sure the phrase “unprincipled, cretinous hack” has pride of place.
Another issue is that it is a simple fact that the Obama administration has granted Woodward less access than any previous administration. He’s angry about it.
Yep. Which puts Our Bob right up there with Sally Quinn in the legions of the aggrieved.
Woodward lost credibility with those who were paying attention when he published that fawning book on W. I’ve never understood why he willingly squandered his formerly monumental reputation (though, in truth, it was never deserved). He was played by Robert Redford in the Hollywood flick on WG for crying out loud. If a film were made about Washington circa 2005, he’d be lucky to be played by Mike Myers.
Woodward’s basically an establishment Republican. His father was president of the DuPage County Bar Association and later, a federal judge. Woodward himself went to Yale, joined Phi Gamma Delta and served five years in the Navy before becoming a journalist.
There’s nothing necessarily wrong with being an establishment Republican; but Woodward’s politics were never anything like Robert Redford’s.
“The preponderant Catholicism of the 11 million undocumented Latino workers in this country seems to actually be one of the few things the modern GOP holds in their favor. Christian sectarian differences are less important than they used to be…”
This historical change is due to the strategic choice of Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority to make abortion the most important theological issue. In forming the alliance with conservative Catholics, Mormons, and orthodox Jews, they also politicized MOST of them in such a way that, in return for a seat at the Republican table, they have gradually conformed to the social and political norms of fundamentalist Protestants on most other issues as well, particularly economic and racial. In the late 1970s-early 1980s,
‘[Paul] Weyrich urged on Falwell a policy he called “reverse ecumenism,” suggesting that Falwell organize Moral Majority as an ecumenical movement for conservative Catholics, Mormons and Orthodox Jews, as well as Protestants. If blue-collar Catholics were mobilized around abortion and other issues, said Weyrich, they could be “the Achilles heel of the liberal Democrats.”‘
http://www.crisismagazine.com/1982/catholics-and-the-moral-majority
“I didn’t think I’d be saying this two or four years ago, but I don’t think the modern Republican Party is redeemable. The signs that it is in retreat come every day … “
I agree. What we’re seeing from the GOP these days looks pretty fierce, but it’s sheer desperation.
You might enjoy pollchecker’s “Witnessing the Death of the Republican Party” —
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/06/1167642/-Witnessing-the-death-of-the-Republican-Party#
It is increasingly a regional party.
The problem is that a regional party is fighting tooth and nail to hold its position in the national government against a national party.
They have just enough power to be dangerous.
Plus the state level havoc they’ve been wreaking wherever they have a safe majority is appalling.
We’re going to get a center-right party? You mean one that pushes for traditional center-right solutions like insurance mandates for healthcare, Cap-and-Trade for CO2 emissions, closing loopholes for raising revenue, and insisting the budget be in long-term balance even to the point of moderate cuts in SS and Medicare?
I think we already have one.
That’s less a feature of the party than the political landscape. If you want to expand coverage for health care, you choose something that can pass. If you want to limit carbon emissions, you craft a plan that you hope can pass. If only Democrats voted, they’d give us single-payer and a very ambitious energy plan.
That’s highly questionable. There are few examples of Dems bucking the oligarchs, aside from FDR, who was in fact protecting the future of American capitalism, and maybe LBJ. We live in an oligarchy now. No “mainstream” party is going to risk its survival by trying to overthrow the monarchy.
The Dems are a power party. They are designed to govern and wield power. They have in fact done so, for almost their entire history, to one degree or another. Modern Wall Street developed under almost completely uninterrupted Democratic power in Congress and most of the time power in the White House as well. The party tried letting anti-establishmentarians dominate their message for a while and it cost them Congress and a string of brutal losses in presidential elections.
Why do you think I keep telling progressives that the object is power. Power will be had by someone. Why not us? But the people will not give power to a party that is anti-establishment. Reformist? Yes. Actively hostile? No.
When that does happen, it will be a very dangerous development regardless of whether it comes from the right (more likely) or the left.
The party tried letting anti-establishmentarians dominate their message for a while and it cost them Congress and a string of brutal losses in presidential elections.
Proof?
They give power to Republicans and they are all ABOUT destroying institutions.
I think our President and Congress will be exactly as left on any particular issue as the 60th vote in the Senate.
That’s pretty much my experience as a local politician. It’s technically a non-partisan county board, but we have a solid majority of Democrats. The majority of us who are Democrats are significantly more liberal than the measures we pass because we have a number of moderate to conservative Democrats. Which is no surprise in a rural county government. Would the majority of the Democratic members like to pass more liberal measures? I don’t think there’s any doubt, but such measures mostly doesn’t get proposed for the simple reason that they will lose and eat up time that could be better spent on thing we can pass. For that reason actual proposed and voted on measures tend to be exactly as liberal as the most conservative vote we need for a given majority. This might well lead someone who is only paying attention to the end results to assume that the individual Democratic members of the board are more conservative than they are. Such an assumption would be both wrong and simplistic. – See more at: http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2013/2/28/9532/08913#33
Great comment!
While most of your observations are correct, I am not certain that the party is doomed. If 2010 is an indication of what to expect in 2014, then the story going forward from there will change. Lame duck Obama will no longer stoke the fires of the GOP faithful, and we may see an environment where a more reasonable presidential candidate could steer the party back from the ledge. Christie has that potential. Jeb Bush also. Who knows what the big issues of the day will be a couple years from now – certainly the GOP holds a losing hand right now. But I would caution against reading too much into today’s bitterness and sour grapes.
They’re only doomed if some rich people get organized for a strong third-party effort for the 2016 campaign. Chris Christie would be a logical choice to run on that ticket, as Bloomberg would pull too equally from both sides. Christie isn’t even welcome at CPAC and Red State is disowning Gov. McDonnell as a squish. Rep. Tom Latham was trailing Rep. Steve King so badly in the polls, that he basically ceded the nomination to him for a chance at Tom Harkin’s seat.
There may be a thrashing in 2016 in a two-way that serves as a prerequisite here, but it is becoming increasingly untenable to be a reasonable Republican in much of the country. They have to do something about it because just joining the Democrats is not a permanent solution to our problems.
My sense is the only thing they can do is take a pounding in a few election cycles. That will undermine the crazy. But first, they’re going to have to give it free reign. I don’t think Rove can put this genie back in the bottle. No way Christie gets the nod in 2016. I see the apotheosis of the TP as Ted Cruz. I’m not saying he’ll be the nominee, though it wouldn’t shock me. Someone that extreme is going to have to get trounced before we see real moderation (as opposed to window dressing). Even then, Republicans will continue to have regional success, gerrymandered districts will remain tilted in their favor for some time, and the Supreme Court tilts their way until one of the loons croaks.
2016 is way over the horizon, and the narative will almost certainly change by then. If the economy is still floundering, if Obamacare rolls out with big problems, if Dems fail to come up with a compelling candidate – maybe the GOP can nominate a problem solver instead of a fire breather. Steve Kornacki doesn’t think Christie’s out of the running, and I agree.
http://www.salon.com/2013/02/28/chris_christies_premature_obituary/
A lot of the issues the current GOP takes positions that are just reflexively anti Obama. I just think, and of course I could be wrong, but after 2014, the dynamics will change.
It’s moments like this one h/t Crooks & Liars when Steven Brill lays on the table a way to lower health care costs that, in a perfect world, George Will would have expanded on with a light bulb moment but instead his default response of ‘it’s the consumers’ fault’ destroyed an opportunity.
Of course, for a party that wants to delete all Medicare discussion from our consciousness much less out future, Brill’s suggestion is heresy but it’s that turning off the spiget of ideas that steps on any way of regaining a voteable platform.
More evidence.
This, if it pans out, is real trouble for the GOTP.
http://politicker.com/2013/02/pete-king-cant-believe-rubio-has-the-balls-to-fundraise-in-new-york/
The NE and Midwest R’s (CFG already targeting Kinzinger & Schock of IL) are being goaded by the Cons into choosing political suicide or open rebellion.
I guess a lot depends on how you define “center right.”
Many people say Andrew Sullivan is a moderate, but so far as I know he’s a true-blue class warrior of a socially liberal sort.
And that’s not my idea of moderate.
Or center right.
Trace the nativists in the Republican Party between 1860 and 1965 when Strom Thurmond joined the Republican Party. Who are you talking about?
Yes, yesterday was judgement day for a lot of pompous asses. Too bad none of them will lose their jobs because of it.
The current Democratic Party is the party of the center-right. From top to bottom, it reflects establishment interests. When the Democratic Party finally consolidates its hold on and is clearly accepted as the center-right party, there might be room for the emergence of a center-left party. That center-left party-in-waiting would be one of full-throated Keynesianism, civil liberties, and reformulation of US foreign policy to eliminate the structural bias toward more and more military spending.
And there would also be space for an actual left party to act as a critical check on the newly-aligned bipartisan establishment parties. And to be the balance to the rump Republican-TEA Party diehards on the right.
OT: It seems that the very sold-out Lanny Davis is trying to regain relevance by taking a turn on the fainting couch just warmed by Bob Woodward.