--New York Times
That sentence popped out at me from an article discussing dissatisfaction with the president among some minority groups.
The article was interesting, but that sentence -- and it certainly said nothing new -- pithily summed up for me today's Republican dilemma. How do the Republicans ever again win nationally when they depend for their support on whites, rural residents and older voters -- three demographic groups that are declining drastically in percentage of total votes, year after year? (I view "older voters" as a specific phalanx of voters, maybe 65 and older at present, that is aging and dying off, their age group being replenished by baby boomers who do not, in general, share their values and/or prejudices.)
The obvious answer, and the one being pushed by "mainstream" Republicans -- i.e., "traditional" Republicans or big business Republicans or non-radical-right Republicans -- is for the party to ally itself with one or more of those groups of Obama supporters whose values over-all may actually be more conservative than liberal. Middle class Hispanics and Asians, maybe, or libertarian young people.
The problem with being an idealogical party, as opposed to a party with general principles, is that you paint yourself into a corner. Non-mainstream Republicans -- those in ascendency in the House -- have rigid beliefs about immigration that make it impossible for them to appeal to Hispanics (or to many Asians). They have rigid beliefs favoring foreign triumphalism and support for Israel, as well as rejecting legalized marijuana and same-sex marriage, that repel young libertarians.
By the time they've added up all the people they can't tolerate, or who can't tolerate them, they don't have much left to work with. And, demographically, things are getting worse, year by year.
For all their rejection of all things European, the new Republicans have essentially formed themselves into a European-style political party, a party with rigid idealogical beliefs. These parties do become governing parties in Europe -- not by being inclusive but by joining coalitions to form parliamentary governments. The compromises come not from within, but in their negotiations with other parties.
How would that work in a presidential system? And, more importantly, with just which political groups, not already within the party, would today's Republicans be willing to form coalitions?
Republicans should note -- and this idea certainly isn't original with me -- that other political parties have also painted themselves into idealogical corners, trapped in corners from which they could only watch as history marched by. They might want to consider the histories of the Federalist and Whig parties, and, although it was never a "major" party, the curious history of the Know Nothing party.
None of this is new to Republican leaders. They fully understand their dilemma. But the days are long gone, for both parties, when a Sam Rayburn or a Lyndon Johnson could crack the whip, and lay down the law for his rank and file.
If a serious immigration reform bill doesn't make it out of the Senate, or is derailed in the House, the Republican party faces a bleak future. It will find itself, at best, a party of permanent opposition -- winning national elections only in protest against temporary missteps by the Democratic majority, never as mandates to enact its own programs.
No comments:
Post a Comment