Palin, Thompson, Armey, Santorum, Bachman Abandon Republican Party
Related subjects: Eva Scherson, The Vote, U.S. Elections, U.S. Politics, Vote 2009 Comments (4)
A coalition of nationally visible Republicans have chosen to abandon their own party and back a Conservative party candidate in a special election in upstate New York. The split reveals a growing tension between Republicans concerned about regaining power and those whose mission is to impose a hardline conservative agenda on the nation. These two groups are now engaged in an increasingly hostile struggle for the soul of the Republican party.
The band of conservative Republican “rogues” —which includes Sarah Palin, Fred Thompson, Dick Armey, Rick Santorum, and Michelle Bachman— has put its weight behind 3rd party challenger Doug Hoffman, citing his more conservative stance on certain issues. They reject the Republican party’s nominee Dierdre Scozzafava, saying her pro-choice position on abortion and her support for gay marriage rights make her indistinguishable from her Democratic opponent.
This is, of course, not strictly true: Scozzafava is a New York Republican, and Palin, Thompson, and Santorum —each of whom would be far from a presidential primary favorite in their own state— want to impose a radical form of what they call “conservative values” on the voters of New York. Michelle Bachman is simply notorious for her inability to deal in facts —she claimed on the floor of the House of Representatives, for instance, that Pres. Obama was planning to confine American children to concentration camps for socialist “reeducation”.
Scozzafava, however, has the backing of the Republican party, is running only four percentage points behind her Democratic rival, and is being endorsed by the likes of Newt Gingrich, hardly a dyed in the wool liberal or appeaser of Democrats. Steve Forbes, also uniquely talented at losing presidential primaries, has also come out in favor of Hoffman, citing his “small government, tax-cutting” policy preferences.
We know Forbes has a radical next-to-zero government agenda and wants to sharply reduce the tax burden in the wealthy, something really not of mainstream appeal in these times of radical financial malfeasance and economic hardship. And Dick Armey, well, he could be blamed for thinking Texas and New York are or should ever be similar electoral ground. Are New Yorkers supposed to take their cues from a Texan hardliner?
The Democratic candidate, Bill Owens, is a lawyer in Plattsburgh and a retired Air Force captain. A recent poll showed him garnering 33% of voters’ support, while Scozzafava is at 29% and Conservative party candidate Hoffman trails at 23%. John McHugh, the Congressman whose seat was left vacant when he became secretary of the Army, is a Republican, which explains why the combined support for Scozzafava and Hoffman outstrips that enjoyed by Owens, but the result of the party split might be that a Democrat takes the seat.
This appears to be of little concern to the coalition of hardline self-described “conservatives”, who claim their support for Hoffman is a matter of principle and of core “Republican values”. The Republican party, apparently, is not fit to assess or to support its own core values, and the Palin-Bachman-Santorum wing of the party is apparently convinced the party cannot be trusted anymore to represent their brand of conservatism.
This heralds the most visible electoral split to date in the Republican party, hampered by years of failing fortunes, the perception of widespread corruption among the leadership, indifference to the plight of average Americans, and confusion over whether to be more moderate to recapture the political center held by Obama and the Democrats or more conservative, in an effort to show they can be more conservative.
Political watchers have for years speculated that a split between more conservative and more moderate Republicans was in the offing, and raised questions about whether such a split could hasten the demise of a party whose ideas are out of step with the problems of this historical moment. For instance: could the conservative “values-based” wing of the party splinter off to form an expanded Conservative party or a “Christian Republican” bloc?
Could the moderates co-opt some Democratic issues in an effort to be the new Republicans, as Clinton led the new Democrats and Tony Blair new Labour in the UK? More importantly, will the splintering of one of the two major parties open the terrain for the rise of a third party? Obviously, the Palin-Bachman-Santorum gang wants to see a strengthened Conservative party, possibly a new home for their own questionable political futures, but what about a third party with broader appeal on economic issues?
This publication recently surveyed the problem in a lengthy piece analyzing both the Republican party’s problem with increasingly intolerant rhetoric, in some cases bordering on language of incitement to violence, and a split in priorities and principles which could lead to the rise of a third party, perhaps a Green-Libertarian coalition.
The Green-Lib coalition, writes J.E. Robertson, would emerge to fill the center-left gap left open if the Democratic party really establishes itself as the party of the center, because the Democratic party is the party defending the system it has built, in essence a kind of conservative option among mainstream parties. The Republican party appears headed for the far right fringe, as moderates find it increasingly difficult to win national support or local primaries.
With Owens leading in the upstate New York polling, the Republican split could mean the Democrats pick up yet another seat, expanding their massive majority in the House by one more vote. While the rogues are treating the New York special election as if it were the moment to make a stand on “core values”, they are also treating it like a throw-away election, assuming a loss will not hurt the party.
But if the loss comes because Hoffman spoils the race for Scozzafava, and the establishment Republicans see the rogues’ interference as an affront to the party and an assault on their political agenda, there will be a backlash. Campaign aides to Sen. John McCain’s presidential bid have already said a Palin presidential bid would be “catastrophic” and an electoral “disaster” for the party, a sign of long-term decline.
This aggressive attack on the party’s electoral chances in a district it would be expected to retake will give fodder to critics inside and outside the Republican party who say extreme conservatives cannot be trusted to represent the party nationally or to help in the practical work of winning elections and/or governing. Conservatism as painted by Palin, Bachman and Santorum will be seen as just another ideological hard-core, unfit for the demands of effective public service, and the party will see its moderate/hardliner rift widened.
CafeSentido Partner Sites:
Defining conservatism as hard core is an opinion. The problem are the parties themselves. Palin’s support of Doug Hoffman was not based on party or ideology unless you believe being American is a ideology. Palin is backing an American. Republicans are the same as Democrats these days and nether party is interested in representing the American people. Considering we had to deal with eight years of open borders and globalism to putting a socialist in the White House, that ideology is clear.
a republican who looks like, smells like, and votes like a liberal democrat is a democrat.
palin announced the day she resigned that she would be doing exactly what she’s done here. scozzafaza is too much like specter to ignore.
dennisintn
Yet even more in the fascinating story of the Republican party’s delayed evolution. When I was a youngster, the Democratic party was invaded by an intemperate emotional ideological impractical (is my bias showing here?) constituency which has ever since made it difficult to impossible for the Democratic party to maintain any semblance of unity or discipline, much less make its entire coalition of constituents happy.
Years later we see their counterparty going through the same growing pains. A similar invasion. A similar struggle for either extreme idealogical purity by a strident minority, or the big tent which encompasses the traditional constituency or… we shall see. Prediction is futile.
Remember when the Republicans were the hard-nosed clear-eyed pragmatic businessmen who said things like “you can’t legislate morality”? The ones who could be counted on to cut through starry-eyed idealism and make deals based on what could work at the street level? Well the shoe is on both feet now, isn’t it?
Personally I believe that the Dems need a better opposition party because either of these parties will overreach given half a chance – just witness the Democrats of the 70’s, the recent administration and long-running Republican majority in Congress (and the ill-conceived and poorly executed striving for a permanent Republican majority) and most likely our current majority.
The Republicans, with their heretofore legendary discipline and unity, have been able to deliver a lot of results for their size, for better or worse. But now comes the time for them to move into the 21st century as one party unified as before (unlikely), one party as diverse and unruly and undisciplined as the democrats, or two parties.
I wish everyone the best of luck because I believe intentions are good on all sides, and in the meantime I hope for civility because we are all neighbors. And, if this somehow leads to the death of the two party system and the rise of coalition government, I think it’s long overdue.
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by Palin360: Palin, Thompson, Armey, Santorum, Bachman Abandon Republican Party – CafeSentido.com http://bit.ly/IwXSD...