The Conservative Political Map
There's a heated debate that is about to emerge and which needs to take place between the religious, far-right wing of the Republican party and the moderate center. The most recent elections suggest that much has changed in the political landscape, and it's part of a larger trend. According to the Weekly Standard:
Republicans have now been all but wiped out in the Northeast. Beginning with the 1996 election, the GOP tide, as it receded, did so unevenly. The South stayed strong, still recording GOP takeaways from Democrats until this year, but the two coasts and the upper Midwest were becoming much more difficult territory for the GOP. By now, the de-Republicanization of these regions is about complete, and the problem has spread to the high plains, the Midwest, and the noncoastal West, such as [New Mexico's Heather Wilson's] district in and around Albuquerque.It's depressing for me personally to think that the days of New England conservatism may be over, and that one of the last examples of this once-great tradition was an unimpressive character like Lincoln Chaffee. Fiscal responsibility, national defense, and traditional, mind-your business values were the stock and trade of many rock solid Republicans in states like New Hampshire and Maine - places where I'm rooted in terms of politics and culture.
But honestly, by the time Ohio and the rest of the Midwest starts turning blue on the political spectrum - and with the next congressional elections putting 28 GOP seats in danger (many more than the Democrats) - it just seems crazier and crazier to imagine that a southern-focused strategy that caters exclusively on religious conservatives is going to work. I'm not arguing that we should throw them under the bus - but I am claiming that they cannot claim exclusive right to the GOP party and policy.
(The article in the 'Standard concludes that the only place to enlarge the party is the center - and that it can be done by a mix of issues with broad appeal - none of which is at odds with the old-fashioned vein of conservatism. Read the whole thing.)
This blog has many readers from the Left because of the frequent satire and the fact that I don't write exclusively about politics. But I think there's a need here - and I may write more posts in the next two years that takes on this debate between the far, religious right and centrist conservatism.
posted by Superfly @ 8:06 AM
3 Comments
3 Comments:
Frankly, I reject the premise of the post. The Republican party needs to have national appeal. To do that, it must be strong on social conservatism, strong on economic conservatism, and strong on national defense. Strong on all three. We can't cherry pick one or two. We need all three.
And I just don't see any evidence that social conservatism turns off voters in New England, or any where else. Heck, anti-gay marriage amendments were approved in 7 of the 8 states where it was on the ballot--in many cases out-polling the Republican candidates. My conclusion from that is that we expand the party by being more socially conservative, not less. We also need to be stronger economic conservatives, and stronger on national defense. That is how we expand the party.
To win at the ballot box, we need intelligent, articulate candidates who can explain WHY they are social, economic and national defense conservatives. If Republicans embrace those values, they will receive strong support from the voters. And the country will be better off--which of course, is the whole point.
Oh and I forgot to add:
Does Mitt Romney count as a New England Republican? He's one of the most conservative Republican elected officials in the country.
And he was elected in Massachusetts! That kind of disproves the notion that social conservatives can't win in New England.
Well, no argument from me on the need for strong, articulate candidates.
But there are a few things going on here - but the premise of the post is simply a look at the electoral map, to see where Republicans have been winning (or not) in the past 10-15 years, and looking for trends. Now it may be a false dichotomy to say that the GOP can either embrace a social conservative agenda or not (I really shouldn't set it up that way) - but nevertheless, certain issues get more heft and importance by the party and it's candidates at different points in history. An agenda is always, in the end, cherry picked when it comes to getting everyone on the bus (cf. Contract With America). And if the results don't match the expectations of the voters, they'll let you know next time around.
Also: I've heard certain folks cite the fact that gay marriage has been rejected as evidence that the public at large really embraces a conservative social agenda. But that's an easy issue to claim - huge segments of Democratic constituents have always rejected gay marriage in recent years. In terms of demographics it's still a radical notion that's at odds with what most people understand to be marriage.
And this much is true - based on the Democrats that were elected (not the leadership) the public does not embrace a hardcore, ideological liberal social agenda. But what concerns me is that the GOP is still trying to tell itself that it can and should be the moral equivalent of the Lamont Democrats - convinced that what the public really wanted was more of the hard-line ideology – but the people who wanted it stayed home or were confused because they didn't frame the issue in stark enough terms. This seems like the path to ongoing minority status, even while some Democrats are moving to the center.
Post a Comment
<< Home