In my last post I set up an explanation for the chaos I see in the Republican party today. I think the two front runners (Trump and Cruz) represent very different unforeseen outcomes from that decision 40 years ago to “reset” the Republican party to make it more appealing to fundamental, mostly blue-collar Christians.
First and most frightening (to those of us who have no interest in a religious state, even a titular Christian one) is Ted Cruz. When Newt Gingrich got elected in the so-called “Republican Revolution” of 1994 with his “Contract for America,” it represented a dramatic change in our politics. It seemed as if Reagan’s policies of small federal government, tax reduction and the reduction of the national debt were at last going to get traction. (At least his stated policies; much of it today appears to have been smokescreen, as the size of government, the national debt and taxes all went up during his administration!) Reagan’s “trickle-down” economics (also called “supply-side”) claimed that by giving tax breaks to businesses they would hire more people and everyone would benefit. (I’m working on another post that addresses the fallacy of supply-side economics.) Newt and Robert Dole spearheaded this electoral sweep of both houses of Congress, giving Republicans the apparent mandate to implement Reagan’s legacy policies.
Fast forward to today. Ted Cruz is today’s poster child for Getting Government Out of Our Lives (reduce taxes, pay down the national debt, don’t you dare touch my guns, and let us mandate creationism be taught in public schools under the guise of “equal time”!), unless of course we’re talking about abortion, and then it’s more like “If God had wanted women to have rights over their own bodies He’d have given them a penis!!” On the surface it would appear he’s the embodiment of everything the Republican wonks of 1964 could have asked for. But I made the case in my last post that back then, they just wanted to be in power and not become marginalized, so they positioned themselves to appeal to the fundamental Christian voter. Their real agenda had nothing to do with religion or “Christian Values;” that was a façade. But now that this significant voting block is stirred up, they want delivery on what was promised and you get Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee and a few others of similar ilk as flag bearers. These guys represent those who were promised by the Republican party in 1964 that they would bring God back to America through prayer in schools, abortion prevention, and return to the values of past generations, and they still believe it’s going to happen. While that was never the intention of the party leaders (in my opinion), along comes Cruz who shows every intention of playing out the charade.
So why is that a problem for the party leaders? As long as they stay in power, what’s the harm in pandering to the fringes of the party? As I see it, the problem with Ted is that he is an unbending, scorched-earth ideologue who doesn’t play nice with anybody, and in particular his own party leadership. That makes him both uncontrollable and bad for the party. For good or ill, we have a two-party system. That means to get anything done, compromise is absolutely required. But by all accounts, Ol’ Ted seems incapable of compromise. Take, for example the shutdown of the government. Not a good thing; it’s widely viewed by virtually every person outside of the Washington Beltway (and many inside) that shutting down the government (and thereby holding up literally billions of dollars of payments to government contractors and employees) is a great example of what’s wrong with Washington today. So when Cruz and a few of his equally-ideological cronies in Congress caused the government shutdown a few years ago over a budget impasse, Republican Congressional and Party leaders got egg on their face. Having no interest in making themselves look ever more stupid by doing it again, more reasonable Republicans were unhappy when Intransigent Ted was not only proud of his accomplishment; he showed every sign of being willing to do it again. So the Republican Party leadership, confronted with the harvest of what they sowed 40 years ago, is trying to stop the Frankenstein’s monster they created.
It seems that Trump’s comment that “everybody hates Ted Cruz” is pretty close to accurate. Everybody, that is, except for those who still believe the promise of the Party Leadership of 40-odd years ago.
That brings us to The Donald. He’s been labeled a misogynist, racist, bigot, liar and tone-deaf idiot (and that’s just from his own party leaders!), yet he’s far and away the front-runner for the Republican nomination. I think Trump represents the grass-level voters who were sold on the belief that the Republican party would actually do what they promised, and now, realizing they were hollow promises all along, are rebelling against the party leadership. Of course there’s a Coalition of the Like-Minded: the bigots, racists and misogynists who truly agree with the hate and fear he’s been spewing, but I think this is only a portion of his followers. The rest “forgive” what he says, believing he’s just a refreshing departure from politically correct campaign-speech and maintain is “telling it like it is.” It’s pretty universally understood that there’s about as much chance of the Mexican government agreeing to pay for a wall along the US-Mexico border as there is of building a sidewalk to the moon (leaving aside its probably impossibility even from a simple engineering perspective, the cost of maintaining it, policing it, and on and on), but none of that makes even a dent. And the more the party wonks try to chip away at his popularity by trotting out Mitt Romney, holding their noses and endorsing Cruz and so forth, the more his supporters love him. Again, I think these reactions represent the feelings of disenfranchisement of the party regulars who, after getting excited that “finally, there’s a party pledging to support my beliefs,” realized they’d been sold a bill of goods.
And they’ve turned on the party leadership.
Interestingly, I also think Bernie Sanders represents the same thing on the Democrat side. Most staunch liberals are fed up with their cherished programs being eroded by compromise, and appreciate that Bernie “tells it like it is.”
The thing is, most American’s are not out on the fringes (of either party). Most people describe themselves as social liberals and fiscal conservatives. Few Americans “like” the concept of abortions, or of handouts to the “undeserving” lazy people, yet they also feel that no politician should dictate what goes on in anyone’s bedroom or whether or not a pregnancy should be terminated. And most Americans are fair-minded; we realize that, while hard work and talent should be rewarded, we also should pay our fair share for infrastructure support, police and fire protection, and that it’s unconscionable that 20% of the population of the richest country the world has ever seen has no access to basic health care, or that the richest people in the country pay a tiny fraction of their income in taxes (comparatively), as we watch the middle class shrink. The vast majority of the wealth generated in the economic recovery following our Great Recession a few years ago has gone to the wealthiest 2% of the populace.
That leaves the Centrists, which as I contest, make up the majority of us and ultimately decide the elections. And while a lot of people don’t like Hillary all that much, they hate Cruz, Donald and Bernie even more (but for very different reasons).
We’ll see this coming November, but right now, I don’t see a path to the White House for anybody but Clinton. And frankly, until the Republican leadership regains control of their party and steers it back toward the center, I see them becoming more and more marginalized and unelectable.
Party implosion (part 2)
First and most frightening (to those of us who have no interest in a religious state, even a titular Christian one) is Ted Cruz. When Newt Gingrich got elected in the so-called “Republican Revolution” of 1994 with his “Contract for America,” it represented a dramatic change in our politics. It seemed as if Reagan’s policies of small federal government, tax reduction and the reduction of the national debt were at last going to get traction. (At least his stated policies; much of it today appears to have been smokescreen, as the size of government, the national debt and taxes all went up during his administration!) Reagan’s “trickle-down” economics (also called “supply-side”) claimed that by giving tax breaks to businesses they would hire more people and everyone would benefit. (I’m working on another post that addresses the fallacy of supply-side economics.) Newt and Robert Dole spearheaded this electoral sweep of both houses of Congress, giving Republicans the apparent mandate to implement Reagan’s legacy policies.
Fast forward to today. Ted Cruz is today’s poster child for Getting Government Out of Our Lives (reduce taxes, pay down the national debt, don’t you dare touch my guns, and let us mandate creationism be taught in public schools under the guise of “equal time”!), unless of course we’re talking about abortion, and then it’s more like “If God had wanted women to have rights over their own bodies He’d have given them a penis!!” On the surface it would appear he’s the embodiment of everything the Republican wonks of 1964 could have asked for. But I made the case in my last post that back then, they just wanted to be in power and not become marginalized, so they positioned themselves to appeal to the fundamental Christian voter. Their real agenda had nothing to do with religion or “Christian Values;” that was a façade. But now that this significant voting block is stirred up, they want delivery on what was promised and you get Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee and a few others of similar ilk as flag bearers. These guys represent those who were promised by the Republican party in 1964 that they would bring God back to America through prayer in schools, abortion prevention, and return to the values of past generations, and they still believe it’s going to happen. While that was never the intention of the party leaders (in my opinion), along comes Cruz who shows every intention of playing out the charade.
So why is that a problem for the party leaders? As long as they stay in power, what’s the harm in pandering to the fringes of the party? As I see it, the problem with Ted is that he is an unbending, scorched-earth ideologue who doesn’t play nice with anybody, and in particular his own party leadership. That makes him both uncontrollable and bad for the party. For good or ill, we have a two-party system. That means to get anything done, compromise is absolutely required. But by all accounts, Ol’ Ted seems incapable of compromise. Take, for example the shutdown of the government. Not a good thing; it’s widely viewed by virtually every person outside of the Washington Beltway (and many inside) that shutting down the government (and thereby holding up literally billions of dollars of payments to government contractors and employees) is a great example of what’s wrong with Washington today. So when Cruz and a few of his equally-ideological cronies in Congress caused the government shutdown a few years ago over a budget impasse, Republican Congressional and Party leaders got egg on their face. Having no interest in making themselves look ever more stupid by doing it again, more reasonable Republicans were unhappy when Intransigent Ted was not only proud of his accomplishment; he showed every sign of being willing to do it again. So the Republican Party leadership, confronted with the harvest of what they sowed 40 years ago, is trying to stop the Frankenstein’s monster they created.
It seems that Trump’s comment that “everybody hates Ted Cruz” is pretty close to accurate. Everybody, that is, except for those who still believe the promise of the Party Leadership of 40-odd years ago.
That brings us to The Donald. He’s been labeled a misogynist, racist, bigot, liar and tone-deaf idiot (and that’s just from his own party leaders!), yet he’s far and away the front-runner for the Republican nomination. I think Trump represents the grass-level voters who were sold on the belief that the Republican party would actually do what they promised, and now, realizing they were hollow promises all along, are rebelling against the party leadership. Of course there’s a Coalition of the Like-Minded: the bigots, racists and misogynists who truly agree with the hate and fear he’s been spewing, but I think this is only a portion of his followers. The rest “forgive” what he says, believing he’s just a refreshing departure from politically correct campaign-speech and maintain is “telling it like it is.” It’s pretty universally understood that there’s about as much chance of the Mexican government agreeing to pay for a wall along the US-Mexico border as there is of building a sidewalk to the moon (leaving aside its probably impossibility even from a simple engineering perspective, the cost of maintaining it, policing it, and on and on), but none of that makes even a dent. And the more the party wonks try to chip away at his popularity by trotting out Mitt Romney, holding their noses and endorsing Cruz and so forth, the more his supporters love him. Again, I think these reactions represent the feelings of disenfranchisement of the party regulars who, after getting excited that “finally, there’s a party pledging to support my beliefs,” realized they’d been sold a bill of goods.
And they’ve turned on the party leadership.
Interestingly, I also think Bernie Sanders represents the same thing on the Democrat side. Most staunch liberals are fed up with their cherished programs being eroded by compromise, and appreciate that Bernie “tells it like it is.”
The thing is, most American’s are not out on the fringes (of either party). Most people describe themselves as social liberals and fiscal conservatives. Few Americans “like” the concept of abortions, or of handouts to the “undeserving” lazy people, yet they also feel that no politician should dictate what goes on in anyone’s bedroom or whether or not a pregnancy should be terminated. And most Americans are fair-minded; we realize that, while hard work and talent should be rewarded, we also should pay our fair share for infrastructure support, police and fire protection, and that it’s unconscionable that 20% of the population of the richest country the world has ever seen has no access to basic health care, or that the richest people in the country pay a tiny fraction of their income in taxes (comparatively), as we watch the middle class shrink. The vast majority of the wealth generated in the economic recovery following our Great Recession a few years ago has gone to the wealthiest 2% of the populace.
That leaves the Centrists, which as I contest, make up the majority of us and ultimately decide the elections. And while a lot of people don’t like Hillary all that much, they hate Cruz, Donald and Bernie even more (but for very different reasons).
We’ll see this coming November, but right now, I don’t see a path to the White House for anybody but Clinton. And frankly, until the Republican leadership regains control of their party and steers it back toward the center, I see them becoming more and more marginalized and unelectable.
About BigBill
Stats: Married male boomer. Hobbies: Hiking, woodworking, reading, philosophy, good conversation.