Traditionally in politics, when a party suffers a huge electoral reversal there's an urge to purge the party of its impure elements, to lash out and find scapegoats and cast them to the wolves. That certainly seems like the right scenario for the Republican Party after the disastrous results earlier this month. Heads must roll and then be damned to an eternity babbling on resentfully on FOX News.
There are two reasons to purge. The first is to get revenge and to punish those who have failed you. The second is for renewal, or at least the creation of an appearance of renewal. Get rid of the bad elements and make the party look like it's offering a newer, cleaner, better option having learned from its mistakes. Repentance and redemption is the keynote, and it does resonate with the voters.
The question is, who do we purge? Whose necks should go on the chopping block? This isn't an easy question for the GOP, because it's been the party of the 'big tent', and as a result it's diverse and there are many power blocks, and none of them seem to be in an obvious position to claim the high ground and put forward a list of those who must be ostracized and cast out.
The party is basically composed of four main groups:
There are the traditional, moderate Republicans. The socially moderate, pro-business, pro-military types. They suffered a big reversal with the loss of Lincoln Chafee, but have some real clout because the two main contenders for the GOP nomination for the presidency in 2008 fall more or less in their camp - more in the case of Giuliani and less in the case of McCain, but both are perceived as moderate, traditional Republicans.
There are the theocons or religious right who are primarily driven by their conservative social agenda. They got hit hard this election when the Democrats decided to imitate them by running social conservatives and winning 16 or so seats in Congress that way. They've also lost a lot of credibility because they held the reins of Congress and failed to do the one thing Republicans are supposed to agree on - cut spending. They also lost one of their golden boys when Rick Santorum failed to get re-elected. The various moral corruption scandals don't help them either. Either in or out of office, when social conservatives turn out to be gay or pedophiles or degenerate gamblers, it undermines this whole wing of the party. But on the upside for them, they've had a lot of success in various state referendums against gay marriage. For them it's all about the culture war, which an awful lot of people in the country see as a trivial or marginally crazy agenda.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - lumpy
dead on about the divisions of the party and the neocons taking it in the ass, but I wonder if some of this is wishful thinking. wjy shouldn't the religious right tke this opportunity to basically take over the party?
2 - Dave Nalle
I agree, the threatened negative outcome, which I could have played up more in the article, is that it's certainly possible that the theocons form an alliance with catholic democrats and come out on top politically. They have no interest in real Republican values and the result would be disastrous, with a conservative social policy and profligate spending. The absolute worst of both worlds.
Dave
3 - The Fifth Dentist
This is pretty good Dave. Though when it comes to the foreign policy debate, I think there are actually three main camps: the neocons (and other foreign policy ideologues), isolationists and realists. You mention only the neocons and isolationists which I hope have both been discredited.
The failure of the neocons (though mainly due to the administration's incompetence in prosecuting the war) shoulc be seen as a repudiation of all ideology-based foreign policies regardless of persuasion. Bush's failure to understand diplomacy is reminicsent of Jimmy Carter's and a lot of their rhetoric regarding "freedom" is indistinguishable.
Aside from Pat Buchanan, I can't think of anyone of note actually espousing isolationism today. It's probably due to the concept's proven unworkability. When a great power ignores part of the world where it has vital interests, it inevitably leads to a war when it tries to reassert itself.
The realisists appear to be ascendant right now in both parties (see the Baker Commission). Realpolitik and the related "Balance of Power" theory mean that you deal with your friends and enemies as you find them not as you'd prefer them to be. It may mean allying oneself with dicatators and madmen if it's in your interest. It may mean letting innocents be slaughtered when when your vital interests are not at stake. It definitely means making other countries aware of your preceived national interests and your intentions. It also holds that if you create a power vacuum, somebody will fill it (Iran).
What's shocking to me is how this administration just abandoned a long and successful tradition of realism (see, Bush 41) to pursue an ideological agenda which was destined to fail. Even worse is how the party, led by it's organ Fox News, tried to claim that these policies were a logical extension of prior Republican administrations.
4 - Clavos
Dave, your analysis and description of the four ideological groups within the GOP is excellent.
As you point out, both the Liberty Republicans and the moderates are on the ascendancy within the party at this point. One aspect of the recent election that strengthens them both is the way the various state ballot proposition votes played out.
For example, here in Florida, the "anti eminent domain" (as I call it) amendment won handily (and in eight other states, as well), as did amendment 3, that requires future constitutional amendments to receive 60% approval to pass. Florida thus is the only initiative state with a supermajority requirement.
And, as has been pointed out elsewhere on BC, seven states approved amendments restricting gay marriage.
It's going to be an interesting couple of years!
5 - Peter J
Good article Dave, but it seems so simple a choice for the GOP as to where to purge. Just follow Rumsfeld's lead and take out "the buck stops here" Bush, Cheney and Rove.
It was their agenda and their policy that got the GOP the kick in the ass at the polls and their lack of planning that has us mired in Iraq with no way out.
It is Bush's failures on all levels that have lost the peoples support of the way the war is being fought and mostly on his ficticious state of the economy which is fast losing ground with Americans who are trying to live in his dream world.
Again, as he's said time and again, "the buck stops here". So let's stop it.
6 - handyguy
"There are the neocons, the pack of expansionistic, nationalistic, one-world-order folks, most of whom are former Stalinists."
Yikes! Dave rewrites history. What th'....
There probably hasn't been a Stalinist of active belief in the US since ... 1953? Earlier?
What are you talking about? Was Leo Strauss a Stalinist? He inspired some of these folks.
Some people think I'm a weirdo 'cause I tell everyone to watch the movie The Power of Nightmares. But I never called any living American a 'former Stalinist.'
As Donald Rumsfeld would say, "Oh, good heavens, no."
7 - Baronius
Gosh, Dave, these Liberty guys sound like the best people ever! I bet they even smell better than the rest of us.
I've got a few quibbles with your classification system, like I don't think the Neocons ever claimed to have more than eight people in their "wing". But my big objection (as always) is with the wall you want to put between social and fiscal conservatives. Evangelicals have been a solid voting bloc for tax cutters, and vice versa. But you're completely right that on a Night of the Long Knives such alliances will be forgotten.
I'd bet that the strategists will be the first ones out the door, or at least not re-hired next election cycle. They didn't necessarily do a bad job, considering Bush's unpopularity, but if it doesn't rain you've got to make a ritual sacrifice. Rove's importance has been inflated by the people who can't comprehend how Bush bet them twice (and by "them", I mean CBS). There isn't one great strategist the GOP can't live without, so a little bloodshed wouldn't be a bad thing.
8 - Dave Nalle
Good article Dave, but it seems so simple a choice for the GOP as to where to purge. Just follow Rumsfeld's lead and take out "the buck stops here" Bush, Cheney and Rove.
That's a popular assumption, but it's not realistic. The president enjoys a certain amount of immunity from purges and a bit of that transfers to the VP as well. They would have to commit a crime to really be vulnerable, and there's no criminality here, just a lot of dissatisfaction. Bush merely ends up as a lamer lame duck than otherwise.
It was their agenda and their policy that got the GOP the kick in the ass at the polls and their lack of planning that has us mired in Iraq with no way out.
Which they will likely pay for in a tainted historical legacy, but not in more immediate ways. No one is in a position to remove either of them from office.
It is Bush's failures on all levels that have lost the peoples support of the way the war is being fought and mostly on his ficticious state of the economy which is fast losing ground with Americans who are trying to live in his dream world.
I had an interesting chat with an Iraq war vet recently who offered the opinion that Bush hadn't failed in Iraq, but that America had failed Bush and the soldiers by expecting something unrealistic from the Iraq venture and not making any effort to understand what the purpose of the invasion was in the first place. He particularly blamed the media for building up false expectations, knowing that they would never be fulfilled.
Dave
9 - Dave Nalle
There probably hasn't been a Stalinist of active belief in the US since ... 1953? Earlier?
Did I use a capital S. Didn't mean to. While there certainly haven't been active followers of Joseph Stalin since the early 50s, there have been and still are plenty of people who share Stalin's vision of government and want to implement it in the US. I'd call them stalinists with a small s.
What are you talking about? Was Leo Strauss a Stalinist? He inspired some of these folks.
Yes he was, and he certainly did. He did more than inspire them, he taught them and in some cases their parents and laid the groundwork of the entire movement. And he borrowed the ideas directly from Stalin's policy of nationalistic expansion.
Dave
10 - Bliffle
"I had an interesting chat with an Iraq war vet recently who offered the opinion that Bush hadn't failed in Iraq, but that America had failed Bush and the soldiers by expecting something unrealistic from the Iraq venture and not making any effort to understand what the purpose of the invasion was in the first place. He particularly blamed the media for building up false expectations, knowing that they would never be fulfilled."
Hahahahaha! Here comes the pouted Vietnam excuse: "the citizens and the press failed our glorious leadership". Shades of 1976!
What a bunch of cowards. Can't even accept responsibility for their own excesses after they lied and browbeat any weak opposition that occurred into submission.
Cowards! Weaklings! Add that to your list of failures.
And what is their new plan going to be? Why, the much publicized "Baker Plan", which is to beg our Dreaded Enemies Syria and Iran to help us escape from Iraq! Just like Nixon: "Peace Through Dishonor"!
I'm disgusted. A pox on all those who supported that malign Bush Iraq Invasion adventure. And that includes the BC contributors who persistently made alibis and excuses for BushCo excesses, and freely defamed and scandalized anyone who protested.
11 - handyguy
I have a few other quibbles:
McCain's foreign policy stances and intense militarism are often indistinguishable from the neocons. He has taken great care in the last two years to kiss and make up with the theocons. So although I used to admire him as a straight-shooter, now I believe calling him a moderate may be falling for an illusion. He says scary things in soothing tones.
The theocons detest Hillary [apparently just on general principles rather than on any specific policy dispute], so an 'alliance' between theocons and moderate Dems seems highly unlikely if she is involved.
A possibility you don't mention is that some genuinely moderate Republicans [they used to be called 'Rockefeller Republicans'] may switch parties, especially in the Northeast. Lincoln Chaffee and several others lost because independent voters went 2/3 for the Dems in New England and elsewhere. [This is far less likely in the South, of course, but possible in the Midwest.] Some of these folks no longer feel welcome in the national R party.
I'd be interested to hear some names of people you consider 'Liberty Republicans.' Theocons are self-evident. Moderates may vary according to one's definition. But who is a Liberty R?
12 - handyguy
"I had an interesting chat with an Iraq war vet recently who offered the opinion that Bush hadn't failed in Iraq, but that America had failed Bush and the soldiers by expecting something unrealistic from the Iraq venture and not making any effort to understand what the purpose of the invasion was in the first place."
OK, I'll bite. I gather you agree at least in part with this vet's highly debatable opinion. Iraq has become a murderous, chaotic nightmare. The US public didn't cause that result. And that result surely wasn't intentional.
Bush misled us about "the purpose in the first place." How can anyone blame the US public and the media for a failed policy based on false assumptions [i.e. that Saddam was a military threat]? Even accepting the premise that the media built up false expectations (which I don't), what 'realistic' expectations could have been set that wouldn't have been disappointed? The country is in an intractable civil war, for God's sake.
13 - Dave Nalle
McCain's foreign policy stances and intense militarism are often indistinguishable from the neocons. He has taken great care in the last two years to kiss and make up with the theocons. So although I used to admire him as a straight-shooter, now I believe calling him a moderate may be falling for an illusion. He says scary things in soothing tones.
I think I tried to point this out about McCain at least a little in the article. I don't much like him either. He's more conservative in a lot of ways than many of those considered extreme in the GOP, and his sucking up to the religious right is of long standing, not some new campaign trick.
The theocons detest Hillary [apparently just on general principles rather than on any specific policy dispute], so an 'alliance' between theocons and moderate Dems seems highly unlikely if she is involved.
Everyone in the GOP hates Hillary for one reason or another, so no one is going to ally with the Dems behind her. But I was talking more about legislative alliances than supporting a Democrat for president and there she doesn't play as much of a role. But if it comes to the presidency, I could see non-party forces on the religious right joining up with the Dems if they picked the right person to run - someone religious and definitely not Hillary. The theocons have no actual fundamental principles which exclude them from supporting the right democrat.
A possibility you don't mention is that some genuinely moderate Republicans [they used to be called 'Rockefeller Republicans'] may switch parties, especially in the Northeast. Lincoln Chaffee and several others lost because independent voters went 2/3 for the Dems in New England and elsewhere. [This is far less likely in the South, of course, but possible in the Midwest.] Some of these folks no longer feel welcome in the national R party.
There's a lot of hostility towards them from certain extreme elements in the party, but I don't see why they would switch at this point when they have the opportunity to gain ascendance and actually weild some power to put the party back on the right track.
I'd be interested to hear some names of people you consider 'Liberty Republicans.' Theocons are self-evident. Moderates may vary according to one's definition. But who is a Liberty R?
There are some very obvious examples, and lots more who fall in the camp, but aren't as ideologically pure. Good examples to read up on would be Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina, Sen John Kyle of Arizona, Sen. John Ensign of Nevada, Sen Craig Thomas of Wyoming, Rep. Jeff Flake of Arizona, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher of California.
Dave
14 - Dave Nalle
OK, I'll bite. I gather you agree at least in part with this vet's highly debatable opinion.
I wouldn't call it highly debatable. I think it's a limited, but dead-on characterization of just one aspect of the problem.
Iraq has become a murderous, chaotic nightmare. The US public didn't cause that result. And that result surely wasn't intentional.
True. It also shouldn't have been unanticipated. The question is whether it's really a failed outcome for the US, and that's where the media is really failing to do its job, I think. They are taking what is a less than ideal outcome and making it out to be utter failure, and there I think they are wrong.
Bush misled us about "the purpose in the first place."
He did? He firmly convinced me that the goal in Iraq was part of the war on terror, and that certainly seems to have proven to be true in spades. How is that misleading?
And if you're talking about the ostensible 'cause' of the war, that is entirely a media fabrication. The AUMF doesn't cite the various bullshit 'reasons' for the war which the media played up, nor does it list making Iraq into a viable new state as one of the objectives.
How can anyone blame the US public and the media for a failed policy based on false assumptions [i.e. that Saddam was a military threat]?
Because that false assumption is self-generated. It originated with the media and was perpetuated by public delusion. It had very little to do with the actual reasons for or objective of the war.
Even accepting the premise that the media built up false expectations (which I don't), what 'realistic' expectations could have been set that wouldn't have been disappointed? The country is in an intractable civil war, for God's sake.
You seem to think that a civil war in a country thousands of miles away has some sort of impact on the US. In thinking that you're also a victim of the popular delusion that's perpetuated by the media. The realistic expectations were that we would remove Saddam from power and destroy Iraq's ability to finance and support international terrorism. That's done. Our actual mistake in Iraq isn't even being argued to the public by the administration, the media or the administration's opponents. The real mistake is staying there and trying to do the right thing by helping the Iraqis out once the war was over. For the best interests of the US we should have left the country in relative chaos or installed a dictator of our choosing and then gotten out.
Dave
15 - handyguy
Your answer is even worse than I would have thought. Amazingly amoral. We cause tens of thousands of deaths and that's just fine? Repulsive.
A new dictator in Iraq is one of the possible endgames that could still happen; if so, the consequences are unpredictable. Or Iraq could turn into another Afghanistan circa 1999-2001, a place for terrorists to gather. It is already a magnet for crazies. Whatever the outcome, it is very plausible that the Iraq war has made us less safe and secure, not more.
And claiming that the WMD basis for the war came from the media rather than straight from the mouths of the Bush administration is a strange and distorted assertion. The media played along, but the Bushies certainly encouraged this view, in many public statements, from the president down, including Colin Powell's now-infamous presentation at the UN.
In truth, the "war on terror" is also a construct of the Bush administration and the media. It is a false description of the state of the world, and it has allowed politicians to hold and extend their power through fear. Conflating the all-too-real Iraq war with this other, mythical 'war' is one of the many ways this government has deliberately misled us.
16 - Baronius
Handy, in what sense is the "War on Terror" false? It's got a lousy name, sure. But there has been a series of attacks against American, Spanish, Indian, Indonesian, and Russian targets (I decided to stop at 5 nations, but I could have kept going). They are coordinated and funded by specific groups with distinct loyalties. The same measures, including military measures, are required to combat these groups.
Are the groups nations? A few of them are arms of governments, a few aren't. Most operate with some governmental support. Either way, an organization with a private army constitutes a military threat.
17 - The Fifth Dentist
"I had an interesting chat with an Iraq war vet recently who offered the opinion that Bush hadn't failed in Iraq, but that America had failed Bush and the soldiers by expecting something unrealistic from the Iraq venture and not making any effort to understand what the purpose of the invasion was in the first place."
Why'd you have to do it, Dave. You finally write a halfway decent analysis of something and then you have to befoul it with a retarded comment like this. Weren't you the one writing columns with titles like "Nobody died in Iraq Today"? You must have massive balls not to apologize or even admit how incredibly wrong you were about the war. To write jiberish like this they'd have to be watermelon sized. I only wish Gonzo Marx and Shark were here to tear you a new anus like they used to every Monday through Friday.
18 - Dave Nalle
Your answer is even worse than I would have thought. Amazingly amoral. We cause tens of thousands of deaths and that's just fine? Repulsive.
Do point out EXACTLY where I said that the deaths were just fine? I never said anything of the sort. I wasn't writing about the humanitarian aspects of the war, but about the military/political aspects and morality and humanity aren't the first consideration in international policymaking.
A new dictator in Iraq is one of the possible endgames that could still happen; if so, the consequences are unpredictable.
They would have been a lot less unpredictable had we taken this route from the start.
Or Iraq could turn into another Afghanistan circa 1999-2001, a place for terrorists to gather. It is already a magnet for crazies. Whatever the outcome, it is very plausible that the Iraq war has made us less safe and secure, not more.
Except that the evidence doesn't support this. All the data suggests that the terrorists are expending resources faster than they generate them by fighting us in Iraq. The real risk to us will come once we pull out and they have a chance to regroup and take the fight to us on other fronts.
And claiming that the WMD basis for the war came from the media rather than straight from the mouths of the Bush administration is a strange and distorted assertion. The media played along, but the Bushies certainly encouraged this view, in many public statements, from the president down, including Colin Powell's now-infamous presentation at the UN.
Yes, the administration encouraged it. But I always thought the job of the media was to look for the truth, and they failed miserably. They didn't even make the minimal effort to point out that WMDs were only a tiny part of the official rationale for the invasion.
In truth, the "war on terror" is also a construct of the Bush administration and the media. It is a false description of the state of the world,
True, it substantially softpedals and renders far too reassuring the real situation.
and it has allowed politicians to hold and extend their power through fear.
Utter bullshit. They are pushing reassurance and complacency and downplaying terror at every step. They try to promote a false sense of security totally at odds with reality.
Conflating the all-too-real Iraq war with this other, mythical 'war' is one of the many ways this government has deliberately misled us.
Except that if you really understand the nature of the war that's actually being fought you realize that Iraq and what we do there is absolutely central to the outcome, because it's not a war on terror at all, but a 1500 year long war against Islam which we have ignored and failed to prosecute for far too long.
Dave
19 - troll
and that's what the American press was supposed to clarify and the people were supposed to understand in the run up to the war as the Administration declared that this is not a war on Islam - ?
Dave - what do you see as the principle strategic steps in this war...why is 'victory' in Iraq central - ?
20 - Dave Nalle
Troll, when have I ever used the term 'victory' in terms of Iraq. The idea that there can be a victory is exactly the problem. That's at the heart of the false expectations built up by the media.
And yes, of course it's a war on Islam. No one's willing to admit it on either political side or in the media, but the historical truth is unavoidable.
Dave
21 - Mohjho
"I had an interesting chat with an Iraq war vet recently..."
You got all this from just one vet? It all makes perfect sense now. Lets face it Dave, the administration used the media and concerned conservatives like you to get everything they wanted.
Unfortunately, the end result is that we will exchange a nut-ball secular dictator with a nut-ball fanatic Shiite religious dictatorship that will destabilize the region and threaten the oil supply. Thanks Dave, your doing a heckava job.
22 - Bliffle
"Except that if you really understand the nature of the war that's actually being fought you realize that Iraq and what we do there is absolutely central to the outcome, because it's not a war on terror at all, but a 1500 year long war against Islam which we have ignored and failed to prosecute for far too long."
1500 years? You're complaining that us citizen slackers have been ignoring this menace for 1500 years? I feel so guilty. So negligent. I should have taken up the cudgels against islam at least, say, 300 years ago.
23 - SFC SKI
As another IRaq war Vet, in Iraq for the second time, maybe I can offer some insight into these comments "...America had failed Bush and the soldiers by expecting something unrealistic from the Iraq venture and not making any effort to understand what the purpose of the invasion was in the first place." Americans public opinion is shaped from a sadly lacking education in its own history, let alone events outside it's borders. To hear the average commenter, or even many pundits opine on the Iraq war gives me the impression that the commentor did not really know anything about Iraq until March 2003. IMO, Americans can't really see the forst for the trees on the costs of success, or of retreat, in this war. Which leads to the next part of the quote "He (the veteran) particularly blamed the media for building up false expectations" I don't particularly blame the media for that, anyone with any sense would have realized any war is never that easy. I do hold the media accountable for not being even handed in dishing out the positive and negative developments in Iraq, and for adding to the alarmist atitude by emphasizing the negative. They will also cast doubt on any press release from US Forces, but will publish anything from insurgent propagandists without question. I won't even go into the CNN Sniper Glorification episode. Also, the press likes to be seen as the expert voice, but it fails to present expert opinion beyond the sound bite. It tries to present itself as the eye witness and the reporter on the scene, but for the most part it holes up in the IZ and uses local Iraqi sources reporting from all over the Iraq. These sources have questionable loyalty and veracity at the least, some are outright mouthpieces for insurgent forces. Ask yourself just how friendly a local stringer has to be with insurgent forces to be able to watch as they plan attacks, or to be tipped off in order to be in the right place at the right time for a Pulitzer Prize winning photo opportunity.
The Iraqi insurgents, as well as Al Qaeda and the rest, cannot beat us militarily, but they are kicking our butts in the propaganda war, and the Western press is being played for a patsy by them. This in turn influences American public opinion, and support.
Again, I don't place blame on the press for the situation in Iraq, I'd just wish they;d do a better job of presenting the true nature of the enemy we face, the enemy's actions, and the possible outcomes of loss of American public support resulting in a withdrawal from Iraq.
Vietnam did not end peacefully with the last American and the last helicopter out of Saigon, Iraq will not end peacefully if we withdraw now.
24 - Dave Nalle
Why'd you have to do it, Dave. You finally write a halfway decent analysis of something and then you have to befoul it with a retarded comment like this. Weren't you the one writing columns with titles like "Nobody died in Iraq Today"? You must have massive balls not to apologize or even admit how incredibly wrong you were about the war.
If you had read the article you reference you'd know that the title was for effect and that the content made a much more complex point. And why should I apologize for having a positive outlook on the situation in Iraq when it was going relatively well? Why do some people think it's a crime to expect and work for the best? Why don't you apologize for being part of the mindset which predetermined that the war in Iraq would end in failure, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy?
To write jiberish like this they'd have to be watermelon sized. I only wish Gonzo Marx and Shark were here to tear you a new anus like they used to every Monday through Friday.
They're around and they're welcome to provide their input, but I'm not going to apologize or feel guilty for trying to do the right thing and advocate plotting a rational course in dealing with Iraq.
Dave
25 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Dave,
You wrote a very interesting analysis. I'll await January 3rd or 4th (or whenver the new congress is supposed to be sworn in) to comment further. If a Democratic takeover of the US congress is not stymied by events designed to "change the subject" (see comment #1 at the Heathlander's latest screed on this neck of the woods), then your analysis will be worth very serious consideration.
It may seem like "old news" then, but the nice thing about comments sections here is that "old news" can be resurrected from the trash can.