Redistricting obviously won't affect the much closer Senate situation. The GOP runs a real risk of alienating a large portion of its own Silent Majority, which in both the Democratic and Republican parties seem to consist of this mythic moderate base. I would posit that Bush is in the White House solely because he successfully positioned himself as a bi-partisan moderate pragmatist. If this administration doesn't hew quickly back to center, not only will the voters remember this in 2004 (and possibly 2002) but even members of their own party will begin to ask the question that Jeffords and now McCain are asking: Are the leaders of the Republican party becoming too extremist fringe to represent myself and my constituency?
Related note: Interesting op-ed article here at Salon.com from Arianna Huffington (who's been interesting to watch migrate from knee-jerk conservatism to left-moderate views these past few years). She discusses the late Lee Atwater, and how at the end of his life he regretted his dirty tricks, win-at-all-costs political viewpoint- a lessen Rove et al would do well to learn.
posted by hincandenza at 9:33 PM on June 1, 2001
Okay, now I'm diverging from the original topic to address mikewas' last post... The Washington post is fairly conservative, yes. Have you checked out their op-ed, for example? What, people like Michael Kelly, George Will, you think of these people as liberals or even moderates? Even David Broder is moderate- conservative; he shares the tendency of the James Restons or even Walter Lippmann's to general accept as gospel truth the party line of official spin, to foolishly assume that the powerful never lie to him.
As I noted in a different thread a few days ago, "objectivity" doesn't mean mindless parroting of official statements and press releases. It is also the job of the press to critique political sentiments, to set them in historical and factual context. While it may hurt the tender feelings of those who supported Bush's original and/or the modified tax cut, a "tax break for the rich", is, after all, a pretty straightforward concept: tax breaks, for the rich, "the rich" defined as the wealthiest citizens of this country. Trying to couch that in phrases that are more pleasant and palatable would, after all, be biased, wouldn't it?
posted by hincandenza at 11:15 PM on June 1, 2001
« Older A very pretty digital film... | Idaho Standoff Continues... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
"For movement Republicans, the drive begun by [National Review founder] William F. Buckley Jr., and [1964 GOP nominee] Barry Goldwater, to create an ideological Republican Party was a remarkable success," said Seymour Martin Lipset, a George Mason University political scientist. The conversion of the GOP into a more ideological movement has, however, created a climate in which dissenters are viewed as "traitors," Lipset said.
And if you hie thee over to F.R., one finds frequent use of the pejorative RINO (Republican In Name Only, its euphony with detested Janet Reno surely no mistake), applied to anyone who fails to dig in and fight to the balls for hard-right principles.
A provocative quote illustrating this was posted on Slate:
All throughout the week we've seen Jeffords described as a moderate republican, sometimes even as a liberal republican. All this does is point up how absurdly stacked the definition of "conservative" is in America these days. To qualify as a conservative in the U.S. you have to actively advocate a set of policies so extreme that they'd get you written-off as a lunatic in most normal industrial democracies out there.... If the U.S. political system was anywhere near normal, if sanity was considered a necessary pre-requisite for holding political office, then Jim Jeffords would hit the definition of conservative pretty much on the nose. Jeffords cares about the environment, but wishes it to be protected in a way that doesn't impose unreasonable costs on business. He's worried about education and health, but wants to address those problems without making people's tax bills become too oppressive. He's worried about the public interest, but mistrusts big government. Through most of the democratic world this is a standard conservative agenda. It's only in the U.S. that you're not considered man enough to count as a conservative unless you actively advocate environmental degradation, widening inequality, underinvestment in public services and pigheaded chauvinistic nationalism.
Indeed. (Spot-on quotes snagged via NowThis.) The Bush White House was more than happy to snub Jeffords, a snub that I feel is more illustrative than causative, because they don't have anyplace in the party for New England moderates -- Rockefeller Republicans -- anymore. Sure, brush 'em on out the door, then, even if it means losing your Senate majority! They remain confident that they can snag enough moderate Dems to pass most of their legislation, but Bush may have severely misjudged his field of play here. Texas Democrats are pretty moderate and sympathetic to conservative legislative approaches, but Washington Democrats sure as hell aren't. Without control of the Senate agenda, Bush is going to have a much harder time of things, and bicameral bill-massaging is going to be much more difficult and protracted.
Republicans also seem overly confident that redistricting is going to reap them rewards in the 2002 mid-terms. Perhaps, in some cases (though redistricting here in Illinois has apparently proven to be at the expense of downstate moderate Dems, more than anyone, as power has shifted toward Chicago). They forget that even as their suburban power base seems to grow, the issues that matter to those entrenched suburbanites grow more centrist. In other words, while growth may seem broadly in favor of Republicans, it is also going to tilt the Republicans elected more toward the center in the long run.
In other words (bringing this all back on topic), they're probably going to be electing more Jeffordses and McCains. This could be seen as a good thing. Instead, the Jeffordses and McCains -- and their voters -- won't necessarily be comfortable in an ideologically pure GOP.
posted by dhartung at 9:07 PM on June 1, 2001