When it comes to the politics of the war in Iraq, the Republican approach seems entirely counter-intuitive. Conditions in Iraq are deteriorating (as they have been for years), the vast majority of the U.S. electorate believes it’s time to go, the president’s policy is a failure, and the percentage of the country that buys into the White House’s rhetoric on the war is in freefall. Bush can get away with this — he’s not running again and there aren’t enough votes to impeach him.
But congressional Republicans are in a far different spot. It would appear that common sense would rule the day — the GOP would abandon the president that’s been wrong every step of the way, embrace a realistic policy, and curry favor with their boss (the public), which is shifting to Dems in large numbers. And yet, the GOP isn’t changing course. Only four Republican lawmakers (two in the House, two in the Senate) endorsed the Dems’ war policy. Indeed, Republicans aren’t embracing any kind of substantive policy changes at all, despite their dire political circumstances.
The NYT’s David Brooks, in one of his best column in a long while, considers why.
On Capitol Hill, there is a strange passivity in Republican ranks. Republicans are privately disgusted with how President Bush has led their party and the nation, but they don’t publicly offer any alternatives. They just follow sullenly along. They privately believe the country needs new approaches to the war against Islamic extremism, but they don’t offer them. They try to block Democratic initiatives, but they don’t offer the country any new ways to think about the G.O.P. They are like people quietly marching to their doom.
And at the presidential level, things are even worse. The party is blessed with a series of charismatic candidates who are not orthodox Republicans. But the pressures of the campaign are such that these candidates have had to repress anything that might make them interesting. Instead of offering something new, each of them has been going around pretending to be the second coming of George Allen — a bland, orthodox candidate who will not challenge any of the party’s customs or prejudices.
He sees four reasons for all of this.
First, there are structural barriers to change. As it has aged, the conservative movement has grown a collection of special interest groups that restrict its mobility. Anybody who offers unorthodox tax policies gets whacked by the Club for Growth and Americans for Tax Reform. Anybody who offers unorthodox social policies gets whacked by James Dobson.
Second, there is the corrupting influence of teamism. Being a good conservative now means sticking together with other conservatives, not thinking new and adventurous thoughts. Those who stray from the reservation are accused of selling out to the mainstream media by the guardians of conservative correctness.
Third, there is the oppressive power of the past. Conservatives have allowed a simplistic view of Ronald Reagan to define the sacred parameters of thought. Reagan himself was flexible, unorthodox and creative. But conservatives have created a mythical, rigid Reagan, and any deviation from that is considered unholy.
Fourth, there is the bunker mentality. Republican morale has been brutalized by the Iraq war and the party’s decline. This state of emotional pain is not conducive to risk-taking and free and open debate.
In sum, Republicans know they need to change, but they have closed off all the avenues for change.
Brooks’ second point seems particularly accurate right now. The WaPo ran a front-page item this morning about congressional Republicans trying to move ever-so-slightly away from the president’s war policy, but running into harsh criticism from their Republican backers in their home districts. In turn, they’ve stopped trying. The GOP base still insists Bush is right, and won’t tolerate dissent from anyone, no matter how conservative.
“That’s the dilemma for Republicans going forward,” Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press told the Post. “They’ve got to look out for their base, but they have to acknowledge the independents have aligned themselves with the way Democrats are thinking on the issue of Iraq.”
But that’s just it, Republicans don’t believe they “have” to do anything. As Andrew Sullivan explained, “The 20 percent or so of Americans who still think we’re winning in Iraq happen to be the Republican base. And so the GOP in Congress has to pick between surviving their own primaries, maintaining civility with their own faithful, and potentially getting wiped out in the next election. The game of chicken is getting very intense.”
That’s largely true, except it’s not that intense. The blind and unyielding GOP base is demanding fealty — and Republican officials and candidates are giving it to them.
“Good Republicans” are only good if they keep their heads down, do what they’re told, and listen to unhinged activists who want to call the shots. As of last week, 98% of congressional Republicans said, “Sounds good to me.”
It might have something to do with why independents are aligning with Dems, why Republicans are struggling to raise money and suddenly can’t recruit candidates anymore, and why Dems are looking at 2008 with a smile on their face.