home
about
archives
|
TALE OF TWO PARTIES
01/19/2008
In just a few short weeks we may know who the Republican and Democratic presidential nominees are – or not.
This is a strange election year. There is no clear front runner in either party, as the voters in each party are divided.
However, what divides the voters in the Democratic Party is very different from what divides the voters in the Republican Party.
In the Democratic Party, there are three excellent candidates any one of which most Democrats will eventually unite in supporting. The candidates have very similar policy ideas, with slight differences in degree of stated progressivism or populism. So voters are having to choose based on personal issues.
Hillary Clinton appeals to many women who would love to be part of history in helping to elect the first woman president, and to those who think she can provide pay-back to the Republicans. The idea of a Clinton comeback, after eight disastrous years of Bush, is too delicious to those who think she and her husband were treated so abominably during Bill's presidency. She is liked by those who want to return to the prosperity of the nineties, and as the economy moves front and center, her campaign could easily repeat her husband's "it's the economy, stupid" slogan.
Barack Obama appeals to young voters, and to those who have lost hope in politics. He is a fresh face, with the offer of a fresh start, and that message always resonates in America. He also appeals to African Americans, and those of all races who think it is time to elect a black president. Finally, his message of unity is one that appeals to independents and more moderate Democrats.
John Edwards appeals to the most progressive and populist wing of the party. His message offers hope to the middle and working classes and terrifies the corporate powers in the country, which only makes him more beloved to those who have long opposed the corporate takeover of the country. It will, however, probably doom his chances of getting the nomination.
Ultimately, in spite of the recent mostly media driven dust-up over race, the Democratic Party is more united than ever. George W. Bush and the domination of government by the Republicans over the past decade is the most immediate reason for that, though not the only one. Ideologically, the Democratic Party is more homogeneous on the issues. With the exception of a few Blue Dog Dems in Congress, the Party has become much more opposed to war, much more in favor of helping the middle class, and much more dedicated to populist ideas.
The picture is very different in the Republican Party, whose odd alliance of neocons, theocons and corporate cons is unraveling, with no candidate emerging to appeal to all three elements. Someday we may look back and see the George W. Bush administration as both the high point of this coalition and the cause of its break-up.
Bush was the perfect embodiment of all three of these disparate groups. He was the darling of the corporate world, the "first MBA president," and despite his universal personal business failings, someone who would put the demands and desires of corporate America first. He was also a theocon, or at least he hired good speechwriters who could speak their coded language. He claimed to be "born again," to have found Jesus, and to be a good social conservative. While not a neocon at his inauguration, standing right behind him that day was his neocon vice president. Soon, 9/11 would do what The Project for the New American Century could not: turn him into a neocon. His march to Iraq inducted him into the neocon fraternity and completed the unification of all three elements of the contemporary Republican Party in one man.
After the unification, however, things didn't go so well for two reasons, the first being that George W. Bush was basically incompetent in fulfilling the goals of the three groups. The theocons have largely been disappointed with Bush's performance in ending abortion and outlawing gay marriage, and they had a conniption when he first nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. The corporate cons have been fairly happy with Bush and his tax cuts and free trade, but they don't like this recession so Bush's reputation as a competent steward of the economy has been tarnished. (There is a small group of traditional fiscal conservatives who are also disappointed with the huge increase in government spending and the exploding deficit that has characterized the Bush administration.) Finally, the neocons cheered for their commander in chief when he went charging into the Middle East, but as that hasn't gone so well they have abandoned him.
The second reason the Republican coalition is fracturing is because the three groups were an impossible alliance to begin with, each having to rationalize their support and make compromises they are dissatisfied with now. The neocons and corporate cons are the most easily united as they have the most to gain from Republican economic policies. War is generally good for corporations and when you have a war you don't have to pay for and can have tax cuts, too, so much the better.
The theocons signed on with the other two factions for a couple of reasons. They were promised social reforms and more God in government. The neocons and corporate cons, many of whom were actually repelled by the radical theocons, nevertheless thought their requests were harmless and they could continue to promise indefinitely and blame those commie pinko liberals (and gays, and abortionists, and the ACLU) for their inability to get social reforms passed. Some evangelicals aren't buying it anymore. Many of them had to distort their own theology in order to support war and tax cuts that contributed to poverty in the country. Sure, some radical theocons have always supported war and overlooked the message of the Gospels to care for the poor, but others began to feel quite uncomfortable with this. It is one thing to join with others to stop abortion, it is another to watch as those others rob the poor to give to the rich, pollute the planet, and kill people in foreign lands – and still don't stop abortion.
So each of these groups began searching for an ideal candidate in this primary season. With no logical or thoroughly vetted heir to George W. Bush, each group focused on their own interests. The neocons originally supported Mr. 9/11 – Rudy Giuliani – but his personal life was such a mess that he ultimately was not viable. Most of them switched their allegiance to John McCain, who always supported the war and criticized Bush for his terrible handling of it. Since this is the neocon position, McCain is their man. McCain's other positions don't appeal as much to the other two factions. The theocons don't really trust him on social issues, and the corporate cons will never forgive him for opposing Bush's tax cuts and speaking up for both election reform and environmental issues.
The corporate cons much prefer Mitt Romney, the successful businessman. They don't much mind that Romney has changed his mind on almost every issue. They simply want the assurance that he will not raise taxes and will keep the economy going strong. Abortion? They couldn't care less that he has flip-flopped. Health care? The more he can help businesses with a system of health care that removes some of the burden from them, the more they like him. War? He wants to make Guantanamo larger and hunt down terrorists forever. Being a Mormon? They find those evangelicals troublesome anyway, and the unpopularity of Mormonism in this country will force Romney to keep religion in the background. But the theocons will never vote for a Mormon, no matter what he promises.
The theocon choice is, of course, the preacher Mike Huckabee. Bush didn't prove trustworthy in fulfilling their goals with respect to social issues, but a Baptist preacher could. He thinks homosexuality is one step away from bestiality. He wants to amend the Constitution to keep it in line with God's law. He talks about vertical government, which is some kind of code for hierarchy, with God on top. And he appeals to those evangelicals who had a guilty conscience over the past seven years because their party did nothing to help the poor or fight global warming. Huckabee has expressed a willingness to do something about both problems, which is obviously why the corporate cons hate him.
The Republican Party did think, for a time, they might have found an heir to Bush, someone who would be a more traditional economic conservative but who would also promote social programs and support the wars of the neocons. That person was Fred Thompson. Alas, Uncle Fred turned out to be nothing more than that: an avuncular personality with no fire in the belly, a sort of lukewarm candidate who could only garner lukewarm support in the rank and file.
So now about one third of Republicans support each of the top candidates. And ultimately, the problem for the Republicans is even worse because once a nominee is chosen, even if it may take a convention fight to do it, it is likely that at least one of the other factions will not support the candidate, or will be unenthusiastic and thus not turn out to vote.
Standing in the wings is the ultimate flip-flopper, the once Democrat, once Republican, now Independent billionaire Michael Bloomberg, who thinks he can buy the presidency. I think he's wrong. Pundits think a Bloomberg candidacy will hurt Democrats, but I'm not so sure. He certainly wouldn't get the vote of theocons, as Bloomberg is divorced and living with a girlfriend, but he would probably get the votes of the corporate cons, especially if Huckabee is the nominee. I don't think he'd get the vote of core Democrats, however, as they've been burned before when Ralph Nader ran in 2000 and cost Gore the presidency.
With the Democratic Party more united than ever, with the biggest advantage in party registration in a long time, and with the party likely nominating either the first woman or the first African American, things are looking pretty good for Democrats – even if Bloomberg runs. For the Republicans, this looks to be a long fight, and one that might splinter the party.
All of this only means that the 2008 election is going to be one of the most interesting we have ever seen.
All content © 2005 outragedcitizen.com
|
