For some time now, I’ve had a persistent intuitive notion that the Republican Party has become, for its various factions, like a marriage from Hell. Now comes confirmation from the Wall Street Journal, in a long article by Jackie Calmes. (h/t to HuffPo)
New evidence suggests a potentially historic shift in the Republican Party's identity -- what strategists call its "brand." The votes of many disgruntled fiscal conservatives and other lapsed Republicans are now up for grabs, which could alter U.S. politics in the 2008 elections and beyond.
To me, there seem to be some radical incompatibilities within the Republican coalition. How did hard-headed businessmen wind up in the same party with religious fundamentalists? How long can well-mannered, old-money bluebloods comfortably share a platform with lower income, less-educated, NASCAR-lovin’ Southern white males? What serious person outside of the neo-Nazi community wants to be in the same party with anti-Latino racist xenophobes?
More from the article:
Some intraparty tension is rooted in cultural differences. Social conservatives tend to be relatively lower-income, less educated, concentrated in the South and West, and newer to the party than many old-line Republicans of an economic or business bent. Each blames the other for the party's current state -- often employing pejoratives such as "Bible-thumpers" or "country-club Republicans."
Yeah, "cultural differences". I think you could say that.
Contrary to what many of us like to think around here, not all Republicans are drooling idiots with a fact-free devotion to ideological dementia. Or at least, they didn’t used to be. More and more, the non-droolers now describe themselves as former Republicans. What choice did they have, given their party’s bold leadership in denying global warming?
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has lost some Republican Party support because of his socially liberal stands and his proposals on global warming and universal health care. But those stands have made him more popular generally in the state, while his party is less so. Last month, at the state Republicans' convention, he sounded an alarm. Noting that California Republicans have lost 370,000 registered voters since 2005, the former actor said, "We are dying at the box office."
Look, I was never an R, but the supposed basics of their party were not entirely without merit. Control deficits. Manage the economy well. Be strong on national defense. Focus less on idealism, more on common sense and competent execution. Keep government out of your personal life. Have a little integrity. Those are not bad things.
But 12 years of Republican congresses, and 6 years of GOP control of both congress and the White House, have produced, um, strong negatives in every one of these areas. Deficits are astronomical, and the economy is in the toilet. Iraq is destroying our military and has virtually eradicated the generations-old international alliances which, it turns out, were the greatest source of our security. "Republican competence" has become an oxymoron, while the party has pursued fevered ideological visions ranging from supply-side economics to neo-con nation building. The government is now checking our urine, snooping through our financial records, and deciding when we should have babies. And all this has taken place in an atmosphere increasingly thick with cronyism, corruption, and outright criminality at every level of government.
Back to the WSJ article:
Richard Cooper of Winnetka, Ill., a 67-year-old investor and former chairman of Weight Watchers Inc., hasn't just switched parties -- he is helping Sen. Clinton's campaign. An early Reaganite, he unsuccessfully sought the Republican nomination for Illinois governor in 1976. He says he has been alienated in recent years by Republican policies across the board. A leader of the international "Responsibility to Protect" project for global action against humanitarian crises, he opposes Bush foreign policies. The father of a daughter with lupus, he wants funding for stem-cell research, which antiabortion Republicans oppose.
As for fiscal policy, Mr. Cooper contends that "Democrats are the new conservatives." Republicans "are still talking about tax cuts. It was one thing when Ronald Reagan was doing it and the top [income-tax] rate was about 80%. Now tax rates are reasonable. So what if I have to pay 5% more in taxes?"
Did I read that right? A Republican who thinks a little more taxes wouldn’t be so bad?