‘Republican fatigue’

March 24, 2006

Knight Ridder had a terrific item last night on one of my favorite subjects: “Republican fatigue.”

Brian Wareing has been a Republican all his life. But ask him how his party has done running the federal government and his complaints pile up: Immigration. Spending. Trade. He’s had enough.

He won’t vote for a Democrat in November’s congressional elections. But he might vote for a third-party candidate – or he might not vote at all. “At this point, I couldn’t vote for the Republican,” the house painter from this Denver suburb said, with regret.

Across the country this spring, many Republicans alternate between anger and ambivalence five years after their party seized power over the federal government and seven months before a pivotal election for control of Congress.

The article included some key warning signs for Republicans, who can’t afford to see GOP voters “sit out” the midterm elections. The downward spiral in the polls is a problem, but the even bigger challenge is the decline in confidence among rank-and-file Republicans about their leaders. As Knight Ridder noted, “Since Bush’s second term started, his approval rating has dropped 16 percentage points among Republicans, 23 points among supporters of the Iraq war and 24 points among those who voted for him in 2004.”

“There’s some fatigue among the average Republican,” Denver Republican consultant Katy Atkinson said. “They’re tired of it all. They’re tired of scandals. They’re tired of the White House. They’re ready for change.”

It complements the analysis Charlie Cook offered the other day, when he wrote that parties suffer “unusually large losses” in midterms when one party’s voters are “complacent or disillusioned,” and the other party’s voters are “hungry or angry.”

If there’s “the average Republican” is fatigued and ready for change this fall, Dems are going to win back Congress.

I’m only sorry to hear that these Republicans had the stamina/constitution to hold on until after 2004.

The Great Awakening is near, people. Like Neo waking up from the Matrix, a lot of people are going to look around and realize they were sleeping in filth very soon.

  • If the Democrats do win, is anyone here worried that they–in a veritable one-party situation–won’t go the way of the Republicans? There are too many corrupting structural factors present in DC, and the current crop of Dems in the legislature aren’t exactly noteworthy for their quality. And, moreover, I’m not at all convinced that the situation with respect to our country can be saved at this late date. People can only do so much, even when not corrupt.

  • The devil is in the details, however. It seems that
    whenever we hear about Bush fatigue among
    Republicans, we find that he’s simply not
    conservative enough for them. Apparently, they
    demand even more Draconian policies, which, if
    you can imagine, would make things even worse.
    Bush, for all his incompetence, mendacity and
    recklessness, has not drowned the government
    in the bathtub, leaving it only to fight wars,
    support the military-industrial complex and provide
    other corporate welfare.

    The Republicans who are turning away from
    Bush aren’t turning toward us, and our goals.
    Just the opposite.

  • Flibble,

    Of course, there is always the worry that the Dems could go the way of the Repugs, they are after all only politicians. However, there will be no “one-party” situtation, because the Executive Branch is still controlled by the Resident Republican’t (at least until 2009). The big worry in my mind is when one party controls all three branches of government. When there is some opposition across branches, we are looking at secondary gridlock. 🙂
    Of course, the best bet for our country is when there is primary gridlock in Congress and a President that isn’t a power-hungry megalomaniac (or incompetent). But I’ll take secondary gridlock at this point.

    Government ineptness can’t be stopped…it can only be slowed down.

  • Greater prospects for a Democratic Congress is (are) my morale booster of the day.

  • Many in November will be voting for divided Government, after suffering from Republicanite control of all branches for so long.

    Come November 08, there is a chance that the Democrats will have control of two branches for two years. If we get a rationale President who does not need to spend all his time digging us out of Iraq, we might see tax reform, social security reform, immigration reform and single-payer health insurance.

    Then by November 10, we will have divided government again 😉

  • I still can’t believe that asshats like the one in the post will not even consider voting Dem when their party reps have been such embarrassments and ont he opposite side of what they actually stand for. This is part of the problem with america. Morons like Mr. Wareing.

  • Guys,
    What I mean is that there are entrenched problems that simply the election of a different group of politicians is not going to solve. I think we were raised with this mentality of government as this magical wizard that can command, like the biblical centurion, people to ‘go’ and ‘come.’ The ability to do that depends on the strength of government institutions, and they are practically all of them in a falling apart condition. Newly elected Democrats can legislate, but nothing will happen. It would be like Bush in his ranch getting briefed by Brownie on the situation and ordering FEMA to do its job–and then having Brownie tell him that he can’t comply.

    Then there is the other problem–most of the Democrats come from the same social class as the Republicans and are funded (or are going to be) by the same corporate interests. Democrats are not going to vote against their patron’s interests. Whatever change there is will be superficial and ineffective.

    In short, I think we’re going to be disappointed with the results if the only change is due to the election of a different political party. It’s going to take a catastrophe before government is going to make the fundamental changes in governance needed. By then, North America will be an economic backwater.

  • Each and every democrat must run on an antiwar platform.

    Easy. The party honchos (Dean, DLC, whatever) need to make a PLAN (!!!) for an orderly troop withdrawal. Each and every demo must stick to the plan. If there’s a demo running in a district that disagrees IN PRINCIPLE with the plan, the party heavies should not support that candidate.

    The hook is that WITH THE $$$ SAVED by not being in Iraq, citizens can be ‘helped’. The means and makeup of this ‘help’ is open to interpretation.

    One of my hotbutton issues is enacting a single payer healthcare system. That is one example of how gov’t can ‘help’ the citizenry.

    Your mileage may vary.

    Simple. Get the fuck outta Iraq. Use savings to better the lives of Americans.

    Make it a party theme.

  • Following up on Thor’s point, imagine the alternative energy research that America could have done for half of what will be spent on the Iraq war ($500 billion).

  • There is no savings from getting out of Iraq. All of it is borrowed money anyway. You’re asking the Chinese to fund alternate energy research for America so we don’t compete with them for oil…

    …which is maybe not a bad idea 😉

  • slip kid & Thor,
    There first has to be the will. The GOP prates on about the free market being able to do the alternative fuels thing and that no government involvement is required, conveniently ignoring the fact that by the time the free market is sufficiently motivated to implement changes the catastrophe may well be in a terminal phase. The Democrats…nevermind.

    How ’bout a joke before we get too depressed. Anyone see the new Britney Spears monument to pro-life over on Digby’s site. It doesn’t take too much imagination to see a threesome! 😉

    http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_03_01_digbysblog_archive.html#114318301693856827

  • This is beautiful! This is exactly what happened to the Democrats when I was a kid. People just hated the Repugs, but, you know, they couldn’t bring themselves to vote for the party of Nixon. No way.

    Reagan changed that by changing the terms of the debate, spinning reactionary ideas as revolutionary new initiatives, openly welcoming Democrats, and doing great political demagoguery. His ideas certainly were 180 degrees away from the conventional wisdom of the day, and that’s why a lot of Democrats found them appealing and refreshing… and switched parties.

    We can do the same in 2006 and 2008. People are as frustrated and disgusted with Bush today as they were with Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Congress in 1980. The time is now to flip that around.

    Clinton and the DLC probably thought that’s what they were doing in 1992, but they weren’t, they were just splitting the difference. We need an inspiring, edgy, media-savvy Party– not necessarily with one charismatic figurehead like Reagan or Clinton, but that’d help– with a clear, bold, positive, almost revolutionary message.

    I enjoyed the book “Crashing the Gate” and highly recommend it. It’s short and to the point: it is to 2006 what “Don’t Think of an Elephant” was to 2004.

  • I recommend playing I’m Takin’ My Country Back” for anyone who can even tolerate country music (I happen to like it). Click the left button to hear it performed; read the lyrics. Find some way to give this song air time in red states/counties, and we’ve got the election won, hands down.

  • I enjoyed the book “Crashing the Gate” and highly recommend it. It’s short and to the point: it is to 2006 what “Don’t Think of an Elephant” was to 2004.

    One certainly hopes not. One hopes that Crashing the Gates might actually be useful.

  • “If the Democrats do win, is anyone here worried that they–in a veritable one-party situation–won’t go the way of the Republicans? There are too many corrupting structural factors present in DC, and the current crop of Dems in the legislature aren’t exactly noteworthy for their quality.”

    I’m not worried about that issue in terms of it giving me any reluctance to want democrats to win; I am worried about that issue in terms of the fact that once the overwhelming problem of the republicans in power is addressed, there are institutional issues threatening our government’s ability to really represent the public, rather than ‘special insterests’.

    There are fundamental differences between the two parties; they’re not simply equal in their vulnerability to corruption, so that it doesn’t matter which is in power. For more detailed contrasts, try books from Ted Sorenson’s “Why I am a Democrat” to some of James Carville’s commentary to even Arthur Schlesinger’s 1960 book contrasting the choices.

    The republicans are the party of the few, of the wealthy and powerful. Their policies are inherently more vulnerable to cronyism. The democrats are the party more of ‘all Americans’,and less subject – but hardly immune – to corruption of concentrated wealth. They have a history of decades of not only strengthening the country overall, but of making things better especially for the weaker in society, as opposed to the right who have opposed most of those policies.

    Once the democrats are safely in power, there are issues to take on: let’s get rid of the huge role of money in campaigns that forces candidates to serve the big donors and not the public, let’s get rid of the ‘corporations have the same rights as a person’ nonsense (read the outstanding book “Unequal Protections” for the history of that topic).

    But for now – our need is to ask, why are so many Americans poorly informed and republican, and how can we fix it?

    • Comments are closed.