Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools
I think that may be blaming the messenger. The coalition of the centrist right with the nut job right could only pay dividends as long as the nut job right was content with crumbs here and there. But the nut job right has gone rogue -- the Tea Party experience taught them they are more numerous than anybody, including they, thought.
Problem is, the nut job right is correct on democratic principles that it should have a bigger voice within the GOP, since it is nearly half the party. The problem is the distance between the nut job right and the American political center is so great that a Republican party that gives influence and positions equal to the numerical strength of their radical wing cannot win a national election, and may even have trouble holding purple state Senate seats during on-cycle elections.
But the nut jobs don't seem to know or care anymore: they're still doing well enough on off-cycle elections to win Senate seats and their energy and poll discipline lets them win state houses which in turn leads to gerrymandering and holding House majorities even when they lose the national sum of House votes. Meanwhile, losing nut job presidential aspirants have a lucrative money train waiting for them. It's a tragedy of the commons: the individual actors are incentified not to cooperate with the RNC leadership -- in fact, they're in a lot of trouble if they do compromise, and the RNC can't save them from the inevitable attack from their right flank.
It's a genuinely tough situation and I'm not sure whether there's a gradualist path out. A clean break would be great for the party in 2030, but it's sure as heck not going to do them any favors for the next 15 years and nobody in politics is willing to take that kind of up front damage for long term gain. When the Democrats finally kicked the Dixiecrats out it was that sort of damage and handed the White House to the GOP for 5 of 6 elections, but it was also easier because the Dixiecrats were always conservatives at heart -- they weren't an extreme version of the central Democratic mission, they were in many ways opposed to it. There is no real analogy to the GOP dilemma except the case of the paleo-Tea Partiers who were against the banks and the corporatists, but those guys (who the GOP has in fact already turned its back on) were just a sliver of the nut job right.
If I were a national GOP strategist I would say, "OK, we go to the well one more time and crank the nativism and racism up to 11, and get power. Once in office, we immediately back off of it -- lose all the trappings and neutralize the social conservative wing. We have so much momentum with them they'll vote for us for the next few cycles purely out of habit. In the meantime we double down on the fiscal conservatism but in every other way just co-opt the Democratic message. We're for blacks too, give them school vouchers! We're for Hispanics too, create immigrant entrepreneurial zones where normal regulations are suspended so first and second-gen immigrant owned businesses can launch! We're for women too, free child care for working parents! We're for science too, triple STEM investment siphoned through the private sector (and our donors)!" And to fuel it all, the usual litany of tax cuts, deregulation, and minarchist argle bargle. The billionaires will love it, the supplysiders will wet themselves, the militarists will have a field day. Only the nativists will lose, and they have no purchase with the Dems anyway.
But that takes leadership, and I don't see a single competent leader on the right.
I think that may be blaming the messenger. The coalition of the centrist right with the nut job right could only pay dividends as long as the nut job right was content with crumbs here and there. But the nut job right has gone rogue -- the Tea Party experience taught them they are more numerous than anybody, including they, thought.
Problem is, the nut job right is correct on democratic principles that it should have a bigger voice within the GOP, since it is nearly half the party. The problem is the distance between the nut job right and the American political center is so great that a Republican party that gives influence and positions equal to the numerical strength of their radical wing cannot win a national election, and may even have trouble holding purple state Senate seats during on-cycle elections.
But the nut jobs don't seem to know or care anymore: they're still doing well enough on off-cycle elections to win Senate seats and their energy and poll discipline lets them win state houses which in turn leads to gerrymandering and holding House majorities even when they lose the national sum of House votes. Meanwhile, losing nut job presidential aspirants have a lucrative money train waiting for them. It's a tragedy of the commons: the individual actors are incentified not to cooperate with the RNC leadership -- in fact, they're in a lot of trouble if they do compromise, and the RNC can't save them from the inevitable attack from their right flank.
It's a genuinely tough situation and I'm not sure whether there's a gradualist path out. A clean break would be great for the party in 2030, but it's sure as heck not going to do them any favors for the next 15 years and nobody in politics is willing to take that kind of up front damage for long term gain. When the Democrats finally kicked the Dixiecrats out it was that sort of damage and handed the White House to the GOP for 5 of 6 elections, but it was also easier because the Dixiecrats were always conservatives at heart -- they weren't an extreme version of the central Democratic mission, they were in many ways opposed to it. There is no real analogy to the GOP dilemma except the case of the paleo-Tea Partiers who were against the banks and the corporatists, but those guys (who the GOP has in fact already turned its back on) were just a sliver of the nut job right.
If I were a national GOP strategist I would say, "OK, we go to the well one more time and crank the nativism and racism up to 11, and get power. Once in office, we immediately back off of it -- lose all the trappings and neutralize the social conservative wing. We have so much momentum with them they'll vote for us for the next few cycles purely out of habit. In the meantime we double down on the fiscal conservatism but in every other way just co-opt the Democratic message. We're for blacks too, give them school vouchers! We're for Hispanics too, create immigrant entrepreneurial zones where normal regulations are suspended so first and second-gen immigrant owned businesses can launch! We're for women too, free child care for working parents! We're for science too, triple STEM investment siphoned through the private sector (and our donors)!" And to fuel it all, the usual litany of tax cuts, deregulation, and minarchist argle bargle. The billionaires will love it, the supplysiders will wet themselves, the militarists will have a field day. Only the nativists will lose, and they have no purchase with the Dems anyway.
But that takes leadership, and I don't see a single competent leader on the right.
Last edited:
