So, after watching the beginnings of the Republican Convention, I can say I am most upset about the direction of the Republican Party. In short, I think that the party leadership has succeeded in creating two Republican parties, and I don't think that the non-leadership half of the party will be sticking around much longer. And I feel they will create a new party, or set of parties, that will weaken the Republican party out of existence.
The Whigs were a short-lived party in the 1830-1850s, that were in favor of modernization (roads and bridges using some Federal money gained through sale of public land, e.g., the Louisiana purchase), the supremacy of Congress over a strong Presidency, and economic protectionism, i.e. high import tariffs. They fell apart beginning in 1850 when Millard Fillmore replaced Zachary Taylor as the President, and signed the Compromise of 1850, allowing additional slave states. With their President going against what was generally agreed upon by the party, great cracks began to divide the party, especially between the Northern and Southern states. Over the next decade, most Northern Whigs joined the Republican Party, including Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican President.
The Republican Party was firmly anti-slavery, and as it gained popularity, was joined by Free Soil Democrats, who also opposed slavery. After Lincoln's election in 1860, Secession began in the South, then the Civil War. During the Civil War, President Lincoln was stronger than many previous Presidents (Andrew Jackson excepted), and his role has only been pushed out of proportion by succeeding generations looking back. Although Lincoln was definitely the figurehead for the Union, and a visible proponent of the States remaining United, he was very much beholden to Congress for continued funding of the war, to the Northern States for continuing to provide their own militias for the war, and to the Supreme Court, for upholding the indestructibility of the Union.
Parties in the US today are very different than they were 150 years ago. At that time, party affiliation was more fluid, parties had much smaller platforms that primarily addressed current issues, and therefore drew people from across other existing parties. Now, party affiliation is more related to family and long-term membership, even though the issues, including the platforms the parties espouse, have changed. For instance, the "Party of John F. Kennedy" is in favor of increased taxes, unrestricted abortion, and virtually unrestricted growth of the welfare state. That is a far cry from the "Ask not what your Country can do" speech of JFK, the Catholic ideals that he (sometimes) held, and the sharp reduction in taxes that he espoused. Similarly, the Republican Party has changed drastically over the past 50 years, with a brief round of strong conservatism (Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan), and the Neo-Conservatives (both Bushes, Romney) now running the party.
I have heard it said (I don't remember where) that Americans form their coalitions before the elections, and that Parliamentary Democracies (like Great Britain and Israel) form theirs afterwards. This has much to do with the Presidential election being a winner-take-all election, and what has become (moreso every year) candidates running "against" their opponent, rather than "for" their platform. Sidebar: I am of the opinion that because he ran at least some positive campaign material (Hope and Change), even with no substance behind that, Barack Obama was elected over a highly negative John McCain campaign, which was also strongly influenced by the negative reaction the media had to Sarah Palin (at least some of which was deserved, due to her relative naivete to national and international politics). End Sidebar. In a situation where one large party is challenged by multiple smaller parties (that draw little to no people from the large party), the larger party has only to concentrate on its strongest states and get a plurality of the vote to win the Presidency.
In today's America, this means that third parties have few options. You can either continue to be spoilers, like Ross Perot and the Reform Party (and to some extent in 2000, the Green Party), play bit parts in politics like the Libertarian, Green, Socialist, and many other small Parties, or quickly overtake one of the major parties so that you can have the requisite membership to attract more people and win national elections. Our state governments to a large extent perpetuate the duopoly. In Oklahoma there is a nominal filing fee, or getting signatures of 5% of the voters eligible to vote for you. To get a party recognized requires 5% of the voters in the last Gubernatorial election sign a petition in a one year time span, which, in general election years (even numbered years), excludes May 1 through November 15. And to stay a recognized political party, you need to get 10% of the votes in either the Gubernatorial or Presidential election, every election, for your candidate. Most other states have requirements that are also difficult for small parties.
So, back to the original topic, why the Republican Party is sputtering and floundering, prior to breathing its last.
The Republican Party is not a single entity, but is many, many related and inter-related entities. At the smallest level, a registered voter "joins" the "party" by registering with that party. However, the state and county parties are independent entities (generally) with a platform and few goals except electing more Republicans. The attendees at County conventions are elected at Precinct meetings generally held at the beginning of an even numbered year. Each County elects attendees to the State Convention, and the State Convention elects the delegates to the National Convention. The Republican National Committee (RNC hereafter) is the political group that is employed full time, year round to run the political apparatus at a national level. They are responsible for the mundane tasks of selecting a site for the national convention, keeping up correspondence with state parties, and, significantly, fundraising for national races, as well as putting money into important state races. The National Republican Senatorial Committee and National Republican Congressional Committee are subsidiaries of the RNC, and work to get candidates for the Senate and Congress, respectively, and to advertise next to the candidates own campaign, especially in tight races. Due to the close relationship that the national office holders have with the NRSC and NRCC, they generally fall in favor of the national party side, rather than the "grass-roots" side, i.e., the precinct, county, and state party levels.
The "Republican Leadership", in which I include the RNC, NRSC, NRCC, and national office-holders have long held that the way to win elections is to get a centrist figure that the base, i.e., the grass-roots membership, will campaign for, and that independents will prefer over the opponent. And independents are a major factor this election, with independent registrations at a 60 year high, and 40% of the voting public identifying themselves as independents. Of course, this is blindly ignoring two of the largest margins in the Electoral College in the last century, in 1980 and 1984, where a conversational person with a strong, pro-America, conservative tone won in landslide victories. The Presidential candidates that frequently come out of the Republican machine are, in a word, bland. Outside of service to our country, no one remembers what Bob Dole or John McCain offered. Mitt Romney is the Mormon, but has anyone looked beyond the slick packaging to see what he stands for? George W. Bush was the "outsider" candidate going into the primaries, and was able to get past the contingent of contenders based on name recognition, not "blessing" by the elites.
The grass-roots members are those that work hard at the local level, knock on doors, man phone banks, plant yard signs, and do the things that get candidates elected. Yet the national party has ignored them for far too long. Yes, state primaries do lead to a nominee for President. But money goes a long way in winning elections, and the political class get behind their own early in the process, both with endorsements and money, leading to more politicians in office. There was talk in 2008 of a brokered Democratic convention, because the political class were behind Hillary Clinton, while the majority of primaries were won by Barack Obama. The RNC and DNC have both set up a method where they get a significant number of delegates to the convention as political appointees, beholden to the party, although currently they do not outweigh the number of delegates from the state parties.
And today, the Republican party, with John Boehner at the gavel, and over the protest of a large portion of the grass-roots of the party, upset the apple cart. A new rule change was put in place so that in 2016, the national party can replace delegates at will. Meaning that state primaries will no longer serve the function of assigning a candidate for the delegates to vote for, but will be for show only. If the delegates this week were in favor of Ron Paul, and Mitt Romney was the RNC candidate, they could switch delegates at will, for no good reason other than political expediency.
This is no different than what has happened with the Federal government, with bureaucracies that do most of the ruling, the Executive branch stronger than ever, and Congress with little power but to continue the status quo. With half of the American people not paying any Federal income tax, and a great percentage taking money from the government (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the various programs that make up welfare including TANFF, WIC, Housing, etc.), no politician could get elected, much less re-elected, on a platform of reducing or eliminating these anchors on the American economy. George H.W. Bush was elected only because he promised "No New Taxes", and was defeated when he failed to keep that promise (plus other factors, including a well funded third party).
Now, no person will be a part of the national Republican Convention unless they are part of the political class. The grass-roots workers will no longer be able to take part, to have their voice heard, to make the party live up to their values. It is only a matter of time before the Republican party, in the interest of winning elections, will weaken the platform, and abandon the strong anti-Abortion language which has been a key tenet since the Reagan Coalition made it a cornerstone of the platform. Also will go are references to a strong national defense, policies to broaden the middle class, and to grow the US economy by removing the stranglehold of government regulation. And the Republican Party will then become, like the Whigs before them, the party of rich businessmen, lawyers, bankers, and others looking out only for themselves, and the power they can grab. Which is what we're accused of being by the opposition now.
To avoid this fate, the RNC needs to recognize that American government is "of the people, by the people, and for the people". And that similarly, the Republican Party is only as powerful as the grass-roots organization that stands behind it. If the Republican party wants to be the party of the Elite, so be it, but remember that to be Elite, you must be few in number. And it's hard to win elections that way.
No Health Insurance = Jail Time?
14 years ago
