« Classic Max: The Shortcomings of GDP | Main | Here Comes Petraeus »
September 04, 2007
Republican Party: Now With Fewer Republicans!
I'm always fascinated by the Republican narrative of the heightened partisanship of the last few years, in which Bush is a gentle lamb set upon by salivating socialist predators. Here, for instance, is Ramesh Ponnuru:
Was Bush too partisan? Bill Clinton associated his political opponents with the Oklahoma City bombers, and suffered no ill will for it. Bush took office with some of his opponents convinced that he had won illegitimately, and all of them confident that the future was theirs. His gestures at conciliation — working with Ted Kennedy on an education bill, naming the Justice Department building after Robert F. Kennedy, renominating one of Clinton’s judicial nominees — never bought him any good will from the opposition. During the time the Democrats held the Senate in 2001 and 2002, Bush routinely complained about “the Senate” and almost never about “Senate Democrats”: Did anyone even notice this gesture?
I think they may have been distracted by the events Ponnuru identifies in the paragraph before, wherein Bush and the Republicans ruthlessly used Iraq as a cudgel with which to brain Democrats, achieving a breathtaking crescendo of political cynicism when they centered their 2002 campaign around the Homeland Security bill, which was a Democratic idea that Republicans first opposed, then appropriated, slipped a unionbusting poison pill into, and mauled the Democrats for opposing. Wondering why, amidst all that, Bush didn't get credit for naming the Justice Department building after RFK is like wondering why John Wilkes Booth doesn't get more credit for supporting the arts.
That said, Ponnuru's alternative history of the GOP's fall is interesting. He identifies the Party's main mistakes as (deep breath here) the occupation of Iraq, the "stay the course" strategy after the war was clearly failing, the opposition to the minimum wage increase, mishandling the Social Security fight, waiting till after the 2006 elections to try and address health care, the heaps of corporate welfare, the illegal misdeeds of various Republican Congressmen, ignoring ethics reform, "muzzling Cheney" (what's with the conservative belief that this guy is popular?), naming a special prosecutor in the Plame case, making immigration an issue, and relying on the Republican majority rather than bipartisan bill making.
Look: I'm all for the GOP's self-flagellation, but this is ridiculous. This is everything the Republican Party did over the past few years. I agree that it all ranged from criminally unjust to politically stupid to substantively bankrupt, but that's why I'm not a Republican, and don't write for The National Review. Ponnuru ends his piece saying, "If the Republican party and conservatism make a comeback, let’s hope that next time they make fewer unforced errors." But it appears that what forced all the errors were that the Republican Party is...full of Republicans, and it's really not clear what Ponnuru proposes to do about that.
September 4, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
As, I think, Atrios has said quite frequently, the failings of conservatism are never the fault of the basic tents of conservatism. They are the failings of frail humans who cannot toe the ideological line close enough. The beauty of this strategy is that your principles are never in question, just the actors.
And yes, the pathetic truth is that American, by the millions, buy into this.
Posted by: ice weasel | Sep 4, 2007 10:28:35 AM
Ramesh may well be right that Clinton, in his own way, was just as partisan as Bush. But the thing is, you can get away with a lot when you deliver peace and prosperity.
Posted by: Jasper | Sep 4, 2007 10:42:32 AM
I believe it was Rick Perlstein's formulation originally, or at least it was Perlstein who popularised it via Digby and Atrios and others. As he put it: Convervatism never fails; it is only failed.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | Sep 4, 2007 10:48:59 AM
Wondering why, amidst all that, Bush didn't get credit for naming the Justice Department building after RFK is like wondering why John Wilkes Booth doesn't get more credit for supporting the arts.
Heh... between this & your John Lennon title below, I would advise writing down every offhand comment you make today, because you really are in fine form.
"muzzling Cheney" (what's with the conservative belief that this guy is popular?)
Dunno if its popularity per se, but it's pretty clear that conservatives think he can dominate all challengers just with his authoritative manner. Guess it makes sense for an entire political party with daddy issues to think that everyone needs someone like him. Ick.
But in Ponnuru's defense, the decline of the GOP is really the right's problem to fix, and while I have about zero faith in their diagnoses & prescriptions, they can and should be fretting about this.
Posted by: latts | Sep 4, 2007 11:00:20 AM
Sigh, if only we could have the ultra-civil demeanor of David Broder combined with the raving loony right wing policies of Grover Norquist. Then, then Republicans could be redeemed.
Posted by: El Cid | Sep 4, 2007 11:45:53 AM
But it appears that what forced all the errors were that the Republican Party is...full of Republicans, and it's really not clear what Ponnuru proposes to do about that.
George W. Bush and his advisors were never typical Republicans or the best of the Republicans, and there are many, many Republicans who would have done much, much better.
Posted by: Sanpete | Sep 4, 2007 11:47:51 AM
George W. Bush and his advisors were never typical Republicans
That is precisely what Republicans are telling themselves. See Ginger Yellow, above.
This is a case where the Republican agenda went into full gear-- tax cuts, attemps to dismantle social security, and a belief that the government cannot do anything useful except hand out contracts to large defense firms and provide jobs for political allies who themselves hate government.
If by "many Republicans .. would have done much, much better," you mean (a) your Republican uncle who seems like a decent guy, or (b) any number of New England Republican senators who served over the past 40 years, assuming they could have brought their entire staffs and local Democrats to fulfill government appointments, then, yes, I suppose under the "magical pony Republican administration," they would have done a much better job. However, since any realistic prospect for Republican presidents retains an ideological focus similar to Bush and comes with an established base of Republican staffers and cabinet potentials that would have remained mostly the same, then, no, I don't think you can claim that anyone else would have done much better.
Posted by: Tyro | Sep 4, 2007 11:56:44 AM
George W. Bush and his advisors were never typical Republicans or the best of the Republicans, and there are many, many Republicans who would have done much, much better.
And there we have it--Bush is the most conservative President of my lifetime, is surrounded by the "grown-ups" (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Negroponte, etc.), but others would have done better. Perhaps you mean those Republicans who opposed the Iraq war, didn't want to privatize Social Security, were against torture as policy, and tried to preserve the Constitution. Let me know if you think of any.
Sanpete has just given us the perfect example of "convervatism cannot fail; it can only be failed."
Posted by: calling all toasters | Sep 4, 2007 12:03:48 PM
I guess this explains why Ramesh is the only Republican I like -- we agree on the issues!
Posted by: chris | Sep 4, 2007 12:04:34 PM
If Bush were to become popular again, for whatever reason, then he would again be considered representative of Republicans in general and all his policies would be touted as successes. Likewise, any of his policies that can be used in attacking Democrats will automatically be considered successful and representative. In the meantime, there will be no actual proposals for a change of policy in any direction except "more of the same with different PR".
Posted by: Bruce Baugh | Sep 4, 2007 12:16:52 PM
George W. Bush and his advisors were never typical Republicans or the best of the Republicans, and there are many, many Republicans who would have done much, much better.
Whether there were Repubs who would have done better is speculation, but probably true, though it is also probably true that there are Republicans who would have done much worse as well.
But the claim that Bush et al were not 'typical' Republicans is hard to make sense of given the party's fervent embrace of the administration circa 2004. The party itself certainly seemed to embrace Bush as the epitome of Republicanism.
Posted by: Jason G. | Sep 4, 2007 12:17:19 PM
If by "many Republicans .. would have done much, much better," you mean (a) your Republican uncle who seems like a decent guy, or (b) any number of New England Republican senators who served over the past 40 years, assuming they could have brought their entire staffs and local Democrats to fulfill government appointments, then, yes, I suppose under the "magical pony Republican administration," they would have done a much better job.
Tyro wins the internets!
Posted by: themann1086 | Sep 4, 2007 12:18:38 PM
I agree that it all ranged from criminally unjust to politically stupid to substantively bankrupt
Which of those categories does "muzzling Cheney" fit into? Of course, I'm a bit confused about when exactly Ponnuru thinks Cheney was muzzled.
Posted by: KCinDC | Sep 4, 2007 12:29:48 PM
Ponnuru lives in a fantasyland (remember he thinks calling a book "Party of Death" somehow won't be construed as defining Democrats), and nothing's more fantastical than his assertion that somehow when Bush got into office, he made lots of conciliatory, unifying gestures that were rebuffed at every turn. Karl Rove made it clear at the time, and made it clear ever since, that from the moment they got into the office, the Administration set out to govern at "50+1", focusing on consolidating conservative positions and rejecting calls for bipartisanship even when they would have had more success making compromises to win over moderate Democrats. No Child Left Behind is the exception that proves the rule, since almost every Dem thinks Kennedy caved and almost all Republicans think Bush sold them out to get a success on an issue he'd been nursing since Texas (and since when does naming a building qualify as some sort of bipartisan kindness?). There was no honeymoon, no real attempt at finding common ground, and because of that, the Bush administration has literally put themselves where they are now, where no possible rapproachment with Democrats could fix their numbers, because what's left of their conservative support is predicated on never trying. Ponnuru doesn't just wish Republicans were less Republican (though he does that, at times), he wishes that Democrats were just people who need to understand why they should be Republicans too. And that's not common ground - nor is the reverse, which is something I suspect Democrats have not entirely faced up to, either.
Posted by: weboy | Sep 4, 2007 12:46:17 PM
If only I had been permitted to control the levers of power, and therefore institute *real Communism*, it would have been wildly successful.
Posted by: Leon Trotsky | Sep 4, 2007 12:49:49 PM
Trotsky -- who is wise beyond the grave -- hits the essential point. This brand of "conservatism" has devolved into a faith based ideology. There are no true facts -- only situations that can be used for the good or ill of the party. Pragtmatism and empiricism are things to be scorned in and of themselves. They are for the weak willed who lack the requisite faith in our glorious tomorrow.
The GOP -- they're all Leninists now.
Posted by: Klein's Tiny Left Nut | Sep 4, 2007 1:16:44 PM
I'm glad I have something better to do with my life than you folks do, which is to name-call at strangers and deliberately misread arguments you are too lazy to intellectually attack or defend.
Posted by: Overly Cautious | Sep 4, 2007 2:06:02 PM
I'm glad I have something better to do with my life than you folks do
Apparently you don't!
Posted by: Jason G. | Sep 4, 2007 2:24:08 PM
Perhaps you mean those Republicans who opposed the Iraq war, didn't want to privatize Social Security, were against torture as policy, and tried to preserve the Constitution. Let me know if you think of any.
While I'm unable to think of any Republicans who meet all of your criteria, at least John McCain has distinguished himself from the other presidential aspirants in his party by being willing to come out against torture.
Posted by: Herschel | Sep 4, 2007 2:37:15 PM
Herschel,
Perhaps if opposition to torture must be touted as a virtue, we have defined virtue down beyond recognition, no?
Posted by: Klein's Tiny Left Nut | Sep 4, 2007 2:43:46 PM
Bill Clinton associated his political opponents with the Oklahoma City bombers, and suffered no ill will for it.
Um, what? Maybe he's referring to this article http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n10_v47/ai_16936563/pg_1
but just because your employer was pissed off that their chickens came home to roost, as it were, doesn't make it true that your enemies acted in the same way that you would have.
Posted by: jonathan | Sep 4, 2007 3:01:19 PM
Klein's TLN:
It seems obvious enough to me that opposition to torture is virtuous, although as you imply it should go without saying. The remarkable thing is that this view is shared by only one of the Republican presidential candidates.
Posted by: Herschel | Sep 4, 2007 3:07:24 PM
Herschel, it would also be nice if McCain's opposition to torture extended beyond making statements opposing it to actually voting for legislation that meaningfully restricts the practice. Even on torture, when it came down to voting, McCain took the standard spectering route of all "independent" Republicans in the Senate during the Bush years. Yes, criticize Bush, but don't actually vote to oppose him.
Posted by: KCinDC | Sep 4, 2007 3:42:19 PM
It's extremely hard to see the Bush family as unrepresentative of the Republican party - in fact, I would argue that the Bush family IS, effectively, the Republican party today.
Heck, Sam P. Bush was the Taft family's right-hand man in Republican politics back in the late nineteenth century, and a big wheel in the Hoover administration. GHW was the chair of the Republican party, and more importantly, was the key figure who made the Republicans viable in Texas. No Republican administration has been without a Bush after Eisenhower - in fact, Eisenhower was pretty much the only adminstration since the 1930s that didn't have a Bush (though Eisenhower and Prescott Bush were legislative allies).
Posted by: burritoboy | Sep 4, 2007 4:02:07 PM
I hope nothing I said above is taken as an expression of admiration for John McCain.
Posted by: Herschel | Sep 4, 2007 6:51:18 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
