GOP on the brink, but of what?
Dr. James Joyner, writing at Outside the Beltway, tackles a question which is currently raging in media battles pitting Limbaugh vs. Haley, Coulter vs. Hannity, and brother against brother in Republican households across the nation. The soul of the GOP seems to currently be up for grabs, at least if you listen to the 24 hour gab festivals on cable news networks. Is the party surging toward ever more solid, principled, hard core conservative warriors or melting down into a lukewarm puddle of sticky sweet RINOey goodness? Joyner is responding to a piece by Andrew Sullivan, for reasons never fully explained. First, Sully:
This now is the party of Palin and Gingrich, animated primarily by hatred of elites, angry at the new shape and color of America, befuddled by a suddenly more complicated world, and dedicated primarily to emotion rather than reason. That party is simply not one that can rally behind a Mitt Romney.
Joyner responds:
If Newt Gingrich wins the Republican nomination–a notion that seemed absurd to anyone not named Newt Gingrich two weeks ago–the trend will have reached its logical conclusion. And the GOP will be where the Democratic Party was during the period from 1968 to 1988, a niche party out of touch with America and unable to win the presidency in anything but the most exceptional circumstances. Obama-Gingrich would likely be a landslide akin to 1984 and 1988.
On the other hand, the odds are still at least 50-50 that Romney rallies to win the nomination. While he’s bland, unexciting, too bashful about his wealth, and plagued a history of inconsistent stances of key political issues, he’s not a self-destructive egomaniac with a history of melting when he gets too close to the sun.
What then? Would it prove that the Republican base is something other than the party of Limbaugh and Levin? That it’s actually interested in nominating sane candidates who can govern? Or would it simply be written off as Romney’s good fortune in having particularly weak opponents?
There are some awfully big assumptions being made here on both sides, none of which I’m entirely comfortable with. But that doesn’t mean that there isn’t an underlying question which could give many of us pause. The major problem we encounter in tackling it is that the debate hinges on two separate pairs of possibilities as well as the dead end one always reaches when arguing hypothetical queries which can only be answered in alternate universes.
First there is the question not of who the GOP should nominate for president, but what? We are asked to accept the media driven premise that we face a choice between two devils we know… the Mitt and the Not-Mitt. The default assumption is that Romney is the squishy, wavering, and much more to the point, centrist cum moderate, northeastern Republican. Facing off with him in the arena is the red meat, fire breathing, budget cutting, gun toting, war mongering, unborn baby defending, tax slashing, Alinsky slaying, never apologizing for America, dyed in the wool conservative. In today’s freeze frame of the 2012 primary battle we are reliably assured that this is Newt Gingrich.
After only a moment’s examination of those descriptions, you are not to be blamed if an uncomfortable scratching sensation is noted under your eyelids. At least one of these names doesn’t seem to entirely fill the bill. Personally I could take issue with both, but for the purposes of addressing Dr. Joyner’s question, let us strap on our blinders and accept the definitions given.
The second half of the equation requires a time machine, since we need to know what happens in this November’s election when the eventual nominee faces off with Barack Obama at the ballot box. And more to the point – depending on the outcome – where does the GOP go from there?
In the first scenario, let’s assume that the Republican candidate succeeds in ousting Obama from office. If that person happens to be Mitt Romney, it might be nice to conclude that Americans – at least the Conservative and right leaning independent segment – are satisfied with a centrist course and the concept of “working together in peace” to get things done. But if it’s Newt, we might draw the conclusion that what Real Americans want is an uncompromising warrior promoting God, guns and greasy, deep fried foods who will step away from the inaugural ball to dispatch John Bolton off to Tehran to punch Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the nose just because he doesn’t like that look on his face.
And if Obama wins? Then the opposite scenario could be inferred, indicating the need to swing either further right or more toward the center, depending upon which name winds up on the ballot. But this is where the “what happens next” question falls apart. Even if you get what you want there will always be others who will exclaim, “Yes, but it could have been even BETTER if…” And if you lose, the naysayers will claim, “We told you so. If you’d done what we said we could have…”
It’s the same as the never ending argument over the stimulus. Democrats claim that things may be bad, but had we not done it things would have been worse. Republicans counter that had we not done it, the markets would have found their own bottom and we’d be well on our way to full recovery. But lacking a laboratory with a nifty jalopy crafted by H.G. Wells, we can’t test the premise to see who is right.
The same applies to the upcoming questions over the scenarios outlined above as to the selection of the Republican nominee. But are either of these the most likely outcome in terms of the future of the heart and soul of the GOP?
Doubtful, at least from where I stand. If Romney wins, a suitable amount of calm will likely fall across the base at large, mostly in relief from the fear of a second Obama term. But I imagine there would still be a sense that we simply “got lucky” and the carping will begin as soon as Mitt does something which doesn’t strike the faithful as being suitably confrontational with the remaining Democrats in Congress. He’ll be supported for a second term, but the temperature in the pool will be tepid at best.
And if it’s Newt? Well… the purge prior to 2006 will look like a picnic and the RINOs and moderates will once again be pushed the brink of extinction. (That, you may recall, was when the New York Republican delegation dropped to precisely two out of 31 seats.) But it will be dramatic and emotional and the sounding of the Horns of Ragnarok will echo gloriously across the land. Unfortunately, the GOP share of seats in Congress will tail off the way they did six years ago. This isn’t gloom and doom prognostication… it’s just history.
But what if Obama wins? Just take the two previous scenarios and reverse them. Either way, nothing is settled in the battle for ideological control of the party. Why? Because the real fight actually has very little to do with who wins the contest against the Democrats, and everything to do with who wins the ongoing civil war in the Republican Party. But much like a debate, this isn’t a game where you actually get to cut out the still beating heart of your enemy and pin their scalp to your wall. The enemy keeps coming back, again and again. It simply doesn’t end, and the results of the 2012 elections aren’t going to change that, no matter who gets sworn in next January.
I could actually see Gingrinch winning, but it entirely depends upon the man. If he goes cautious because he cannot trust himself, he will lose. On the other hand, he also has the power to lose it all by himself, like Jellico, in a single day, because that is who he is.
He is simply going to have to see if he has the power of greatness within him, or if he is just merely a smart lad who thinks he has the power of greatness in him when he doesn’t. If he gets the nod, it depends upon him and no one else. He must figure out how to be bold and disciplined at the same time.
Romney’s issue is the exact opposite. He must let go and trust himself. For him, the spirit of attack, borne in a brave heart, leads on to victory.
A captain on the bridge of a ship does not have time for poll testing, and if he did–and if he belonged on that bridge–such things should only backup his judgment, not substitute for it.
You are right on target. With that much wisdom you should run for president..cudos
Jazz Shaw? PJMedia?
Go back to Hot Air.
Tip to Jazz,
Don’t set up a hypothetical scenario as if it were actual then posit questions and expect us to treat it seriously. Republican unity is all fine and well, ‘Big Tent’ and all that. However, I would prefer a more reality based evaluation of the situation rather than a pep-talk disguised as analysis.
If Newt wins, the establishment is then seen to have lost. That’s the critical point which proves the relevance of the GOP in addressing the country’s problems. The GOP “elites” not less than the dims built the road to a precipice which Obama is roaring down.
Tho GOP proves it’s good faith and intentions by being seen to have taken it’s establishment to the woodshed.
What the Dems are not able to the do.
That holds as far as it goes even if the base is not the slavering troglodytic beast you caricaturize it to be, and even though it is a more grotesque mischaraterisation of Gingrich.
Additionally, there will be no purge if Newt is selected, and also no net drop in R seats in 2012 if he is.
To think that, you have to believe the bulk of the electorate really wants business as usual to continue.
Its a center-right nation, most people know if business as usual got us into this mess.
They want a 180 change in direction, they did not want a what Obama actually intended.
This article epitomizes the word “machinations.”
We The Elite People of culture of corruption in Washington DC vs. We The People. Simple. Washington DC’s Elite have so lost touch with We The People it borders on the ridiculous.
Examples abound suffice it to say. Washington Elites have one, but ONE single objective…circle the wagons, protect their turf. Period!
Washington Elites want, will and shall continue to do what they have always done…expand their “spheres of influences” across America’s fruited plains. That’s Washington DC’s downfall…the culture of corruption.
Who are these Washington DC Elites? DNC, RNC, MSM and WALL STREET. This is the Elite Washington DC team…they’re losing and are in full PANIC mode. Yes! Even DNC. So much so, DNC has so gerrymandered this 2012 election with fraud,American’s will talk about it for the next five years.
MSM continually gets smacked in the face, and strangely, stupid as stupid does, keeps repeating the same, time worn mantras that will keep on getting it beaten up, time and time again.
Wall Street, the source of everything culture of corruption lives for, from and by. America’s Housing market, Derivatives, Hedgefunds, Equities, Swaps, Puts, calls, ad infinitum. Goobly-gook designed to have any sane American scratch their head and ask…”say what?”
America is in Phase III of a three phase decline to oblivion. This last phase is characterized by the “nothing for something” economic model. Decimation of America’s middle-class, expansion of an underclass with yearly earnings of $14,000/yr. This began in 1958 and continues to the present…a spiraling downward to Soviet style everything government a la Cuba, N.Korea and others.
Save what’s left of this “grand experiment” otherwise it will surely die. God Bless America. Amen!
I dunno, this would be a decisive battle if the candidates actually represented their constituencies but as it stands this is more of a proxy fight for the real battle within the GOP.
Newt may be the tea party standard bearer, but I don’t think anyone in the movement really believes he’s one of them, he’s just considered marginally more preferable than the alternative. As for Romney, a guy who one a single statewide campaign (after losing the first and declining to run for re-election due to lousy poll numbers) and for whom the words stiff and aloof would have to be invented if they didn’t exist before him, is a poor standard bearer for the electability argument, although he is probably marginally preferable on this point than the alternative. My guess is 70% of Mitt and Newt’s supporters are reluctantly supporting their man to some extent. Hard to imagine the GOP being split in two because the candidate you disliked a little less than the alternative lost.
Bottom line whoever the GOP nominates will have near unanimous support from the party, all the way and up to November 2012. After that, all bets are off.