Gaining ‘insight’ into the GOP divide

August 30, 2006

As part of my ongoing fascination with the oddly anti-GOP articles appearing in Insight magazine, an off-shoot of Sun Myung Moon’s far-right Washington Times, the latest issue suggests the Bush White House is trying — and failing — to contain a growing split within the Republican Party.

President Bush has been trying to maintain a united Republican Party amid flagging conservative support and a split with the GOP�s liberal wing.

The two wings are so far apart that party strategists no longer envision a united front for the November congressional elections. The strategists said many of the liberals, already alienated from the White House, have been campaigning as opponents of the president in an effort to win re-election as part of an expected Democratic Party sweep of Congress.

I have a few problems with the thesis. First, there is no “liberal wing” of the GOP. Second, Insight mentions Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) as leading this non-existent “liberal wing” of the GOP, neglecting to mention his conservative voting record on, well, everything.

And third, Insight mentions that “the GOP’s liberal wing has so far joined with the Democrats in blocking conservative-drafted legislation that would bolster the U.S. military presence in Iraq.” I have no idea what this could be referring to; when was the last time an Iraq-related bill was blocked in Congress?

That said, I am willing to go along with the notion that there is a key divide within the GOP, and, in the midst of a difficult election cycle, the fissures that are usually hidden are closer to the surface.

Ryan Sager, a New York Post columnist, has published a book that argues that Mr. Bush’s agenda has split the GOP. Entitled “The Elephant in the Room: Evangelicals, Libertarians, and the Battle to Control the Republican Party,” Mr. Sager says Mr. Bush’s promotion of bigger government combined with evangelical Christian values has separated Republican support in the traditional South from what he termed “leave me alone states” such as Arizona, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico and Nevada.

Mr. Sager said Mr. Bush has attracted a new breed of Republicans, whom he termed big government conservatives. He said this group is mostly female, southern, religious, and seeks solutions from government.

“If the Republican Party is no longer the party of Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, limited government, or fiscal restraint, then what is it?” asked the Cato Institute, which hosts Mr. Sager next week. “And what’s a self-respecting, small-government, fiscally conservative, socially liberal voter supposed to do?”

I don’t know; vote Libertarian?

Obviously, this divide has been part of the Republican Party for several decades. In fact, most don’t call it a “fissure,” they call it a “coalition.” For years, the discordant interests will vie for the upper hand, conservatives will win, and then they end up bothering both sides by a) failing to deliver a successful right-wing agenda; and b) taking on enough stridently right-wing initiatives to annoy the less-conservative wing of the party.

Is this year really different? I think Insight is missing the real split — it’s not between the right and the far-right; it’s between those who are willing to share a dais with Bush and those who aren’t.

Insight thinks Bush is hoping to close the fissure. The reality is Bush is the fissure.

I don’t know; vote Libertarian?

If you’ve got advice on how I can pitch that idea to my father, I’m all ears.

  • I think it is kind of unreal to suggest that there are two parts to the Republican party (neither of which would be liberal). There may, in a way, be two parts to the Republican voter base, but that is not even real.

    The BASE

    Government Taxes Me too Much – Government Does too Much

    – Want just enough Government

    Religion should help people – Religion should save souls

    The Politicians

    Anti-Tax Conservatives – Small Government Conservatives – Libertarians

    – Fiscal Conservatives – Hate and Fear Liberals Conservatives

    Real Christians – Opportunists – Theocratic Reactionaries

    And that, children 😉 Is the Republican’t Party. Any wonder they can’t get anything done?

  • The real divide is between the anti-immigrant, social conservative wing (Tancredo and many others in the house) and the pro-business, pro immigrant wing (Bush, McCain and the establishment).

  • If the Republican party is divided, it’s division is just an adjustment of political expediency in an election year. The GOP has supported Bush because it’s been getting its way. If necessary, they’ll heave Bush in a New York minute. Republicans eat their young.

  • “And what’s a self-respecting, small-government, fiscally conservative, socially liberal voter supposed to do?”

    vote for DLC candidates apparently. Wouldn’t the above be a fair description of the Clinton administration?

  • It’s all a matter of perspective. Due to right-wing political drift, the “liberal” wing of the Repub Party now equals what were formally considered to be the hard-core conservatives. And the “conservative” wing consists of the neo-con and religious wackos.

    This right-wing bias in political categories has affected the public and media perception of the dems, as well. A decade ago, who would *ever* have categorized Lieberman to be a liberal? Of course, Reid and Pelosi are “radicals”, and people like Kos are eviler than commies. I heard some Repubs at my local coffee house insisting that Pelosi was Marxist. Aarrggghhh!

    –Beo

  • “Liberal wing of the Republican Party” my ass.

    I smell Rove, and it shouldn’t be long before we step in some, too.

    Karl is trying to paint a subsection of the goopers with the liberal monniker so moderate conservatives disgusted with the Republican Party will think they won’t have to go outside the GOP in order to vote their conscience.

  • “Liberal,” in GOP usage, simply means “anyone who opposes us.” It has no other meaning.

    The Republicans’ problems aren’t about a split between imaginary “liberals” and true-believing conservatives. The real difficulty is that the basic far right wing point of view never made any sense. You can’t have a highly militaristic foreign policy with a low-tax regime at home. Nor can you impose “freedom” abroad by the use of that same military. Nor can you sustain an imperial military without conscription. As to domestic policy, the whole libertarian notion of limited government can’t possibly work in a modern society, and in fact the only reason it gets so relentlessly promoted is that it allows the very rich to, for a time, grab ever more of the nation’s wealth. Eventually, though, a Katrina comes and reveals the bankruptcy of the libertarian project.

    With policies based on a mixture of self-delusion and mendacious dishonesty, it was inevitable that right wing government would be a disaster. It’s not a question of a “fissure.” It’s a matter of reality reasserting itself.

  • episty, you nailed it: Karl is trying to paint a subsection of the goopers with the liberal monniker so moderate conservatives disgusted with the Republican Party will think they won’t have to go outside the GOP in order to vote their conscience.

  • call the two wings the plutocrats and the evangelicals, and you begin to see why they hope Bush can solder the two together a little longer – but the underlying conflicts of interests are now too far out of the bag to hide, I think (especially on some supposedly ‘cultural’ things like teaching ID, where the medium-term impact on the economy & its ability to be harvested by the plutocrats, is too obvious for them to ignore).

  • “And what’s a self-respecting, small-government, fiscally conservative, socially liberal voter supposed to do?”

    vote for DLC candidates apparently. Wouldn’t the above be a fair description of the Clinton administration?

    Comment by Edo — 8/30/2006 @ 7:00 pm

    That is a good point. I guess I should support the DLC as that describes my viewpoint.

  • Why can’t anyone see that issues like illegal immigration and lack of fiscal discipline are the main policy differences that conservative Republicans have with the President. And I do mean illegal immigration – many posters seem to try and blur the issue…

    • Comments are closed.