As a number of previous posts indicate, I've been thinking a good deal about the Republican Party and its likely nominee in 2012. Most of the time, I focus on specific speeches or political developments. Lately, I've been trying to think through the big picture. In recent years, I believe, a bipolar order of power characterizes the Republican Party. What makes the upcoming election year less than predictable is that neither power center has thus far put forward its most logical candidate. It may be that they will or that one of the current candidates will unexpectedly fill one of these roles. But it hasn't happened yet and that's why the race has become so illogical and unpredictable.
The first major faction in the party traces its lineage to the immediate postwar period. For lack of a better term, let's call them Reagan Republicans. They believe. They've adopted the words of Richard Weaver as their slogan: "Ideas have Consequences." They believe the primary force influencing U.S. politics is the power of ideas. In their view, the Republicans have held a virtual monopoly on this power since the late 1950s. Historically, these Republicans have mobilized around politicians such as Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, and Jack Kemp. They generally dominate conservative print media, such as the Wall Street Journal editorial page, National Review and Human Events, as well as some think tanks, such as the Heritage Foundation and direct mail efforts. At times, they have developed a close alliance with those disaffected liberals known as neo-conservatives, represented by The Weekly Standard, but that alliance is an uneasy and intermittent one. They like a small government, a strong defense, traditional standards of morality, and, occasionally, innovative conservative ideas for addressing "liberal" problems--enterprise zones to fight poverty, for instance, or school vouchers, or market solutions to pollution.
The second major faction in the party traces its lineage to the Nixon campaigns for president. For lack of a better term, let's call them Bush Republicans. They believe in power, business, and the business of power. They believe the primary force influencing U.S. politics is money, often manifested by control of the news cycle and media agenda. Historically, these Republicans have mobilized around politicians such as Richard Nixon and the two Bushes (H.W. was chair of the RNC during Watergate). Perhaps more important, however, they live through a "family" of consultants and media personalities stretching back to Nixon's 1968 campaign: Roger Ailes, Lee Atwater, Mary Matalin, Karl Rove, and more. These operatives can generally raise a vast amount of cash. They dominate television, particularly Fox News, their factional organ. They are primarily interested in winning and holding power, which allows them to do favors for friends and indulge in crony capitalism. They are willing to bend their ideas to achieve political power--witness the "evolution" of H. W. Bush. They adopt ideas partly because they like them, but mostly for their political impact. School vouchers are a good idea, they feel, but more significant is the fact they'll destroy public teachers' unions, a key constituency for the Democratic Party. The political effect of policy matters more than policy.
Over time, this faction has come to carry more weight in the party, but in no sense is there complete dominance. The Reagan Republicans often have, at minimum, veto power.
Unfortunately or fortunately for Republicans, the two men who most clearly represent these two power centers are Paul Ryan and Jeb Bush. For the past several years, Paul Ryan has been the "idea man" of the Republican Party. That image has captivated the national media, despite considerable evidence that his numbers never add up. Meanwhile, as Kevin Phillips and some conservatives have lamented, the Bush family has come to dominate the other pole of the Republican party, much as Kennedy=liberal for some considerable time in the Democratic Party, and Jeb is the most obvious representative for this faction.
I believe, then, that part of the reason most have had such difficulty predicting a winner--or even a favorite--is the fact that the current field simply doesn't represent the major centers of power. For instance, the Bush faction has not tipped its hand--no rush of fundraisers, no movement of consultants, no tip of the hat from Roger Ailes, no name dropping from Mary Matalin, just a bland acknowledgement of the "fine qualities" of all. Meanwhile, the ideological Republicans have fallen positively in love with Paul Ryan; a neo-con, former VP Cheney, "worships" the ground he walks on. That ground, at least so far, is not leading to a presidential campaign.
In terms of the current field, Mitt Romney is desperately trying to win the endorsement of the Bush faction. He has consistently indicated his willingness to pay any price, bear any burden, abandon any principle that will lead to the survival and success of his candidacy. You name it; he'll become it. Tim Pawlenty is trying to become the Paul Ryan of the presidential race; that seems a tall order for an oft-confused goofball.
This is why there's such room to run for outliers like Ron Paul, Michelle Bachman, Newt Gingrich, and Herman Cain. In normal years--think 1988 or 2000--the power and money of the Bushies would squash them like a bug and, once John McCain handed over his backbone, that happened the last time around as well. But something about Mitt (health care?) and Tim (too little blood lust?) puts them off. I don't know how this'll end up, but I'd bet that, if Jeb Bush jumped in, it'd be over in an instant.
Impressive blog! -Arron
Posted by: rc helicopter | December 21, 2011 at 04:51 AM