Symbols of Delusion: Chambliss, Cao, Boehner, and the Future of the Republican Party

At WaPo’s The Fix on Monday, Chris Cillizza asked if Republicans are “on the march” and concluded that the recent Republican victories in Georgia (Senate) and Louisiana (House) “give Republicans something to rally around” and “lay the foundation for at least the possibility of a comeback in 2010 and beyond.”

Oh… really.

While I do not deny that things can change quickly in politics, and that the GOP could make a comeback within the next few years, I’m not sure that any sort of pre-comeback should be read into what happened in two of the reddest states in the country:

Georgia: Saxby Chambliss held on to his Senate seat in last week’s run-off election. No surprise there. He was ahead in the polls leading up to the (first) election and he almost reached the 50% threshold the first time around. The fact that a libertarian was on the ballot, and won about 3%, cost him the outright win. True, he expanded his lead in the run-off, but the Republicans poured far more money and resources into the run-off campaign than the Democrats did, with the likes of Sarah Palin stumping for him. In the end, the incumbent won. So what?

Louisiana: Disgustingly corrupt Democratic incumbent William Jefferson lost his bid for re-election in the state’s 2nd District to Republican challenger Anh Cao on Saturday. In response, House Minority Leader John Boehner wrote that “[t]he Cao victory is a symbol of our future.” True, Cao is un-traditionally Republican (he will be only the fourth visible minority in the GOP House caucus, joining three Cuban-Americans), and, true, the 2nd District (which includes New Orleans), where Jefferson (the first black to represent Louisiana in Congress since Reconstruction) has been firmly and comfortably ensconced since he first won the seat way back in 1990, is overwhelmingly Democratic, but was it a win for Cao or a loss for Jefferson?

Surely the latter much more than the former. Indeed, according to an analysis of the vote reported by The Times-Picayune, “Jefferson’s downfall was largely a product of apathy and confusion among black voters.” Had black voters turned out as they did on November 4, Jefferson would have won. Some voters may simply have had enough of Jefferson, at long last, but it was the turnout, or lack thereof, that gave the vote to Cao.

So… that’s the “symbol” of the GOP’s future? Capitalizing on low turnout against a corrupt incumbent? That’s not much of a future.

And… Republicans can “rally around” these two wins? Well, they can rally around whatever they want, including their own delusions, but the two wins don’t really “lay the foundation” for anything. Will the new Boehner-inspired strategy be for GOP incumbents like Chambliss to hold on to their seats in tight races and run-offs and for upstart no-names like Cao to topple disgustingly corrupt Democratic incumbents in low-turnout run-offs?

That’s not much of a strategy, and certainly not much of a winning one. Then again, maybe it’s all the Republicans have.

(Cross-posted at The Reaction.)

9 Responses to “Symbols of Delusion: Chambliss, Cao, Boehner, and the Future of the Republican Party”

1. superdestroyer says:

   December 10, 2008 at 2:48 pm

   The Republicans still do not have an answer for the changing demographics of teh United States. The Georgia vote just shows that if blacks voted at the same rate as whites, that the Republican party would be irrelevant today.
2. kritt11 says:

   December 10, 2008 at 6:20 pm

   SD

   It is the GOP's own policies, which appeal to only a very narrow portion of the population, that are making them increasingly irrelevant.

   Don't blame black voters. The GOP is also losing suburban voters, women, gays, hispanic voters, the Reagan Democrats, moderates, Independents, environmentalists, scientists, college-educated voters and people of both genders under 50. In reality they should be losing veterans- but they are still voting Republican.

   The response to two thumpings in a row? A vow to stick to their conservative roots, LOL!
3. DLS says:

   December 10, 2008 at 6:47 pm

   K — the problem with that vow is that a) the vow is hollow; b) what does, and what should, “conservative” (or non-liberal) mean? There's nothing in what the words by rights ought to mean that merits disparagement at all. (Maintream America is naturally conservative insofar as it is English-heritage libertarian and antagonistic to government; as the population ages and becomes wiser as well as older, by definition it should become more conservative in addition. It is a fact that remains in force despite the creation of the modern welfare state in the 1930s, the development of the entitlement phenomenon [which buys many a vote] and the growth of Washington and its reach [in place of constitutional federalism as well as limitation of authority], the overreach of which Americans have already rejected, in 1980, and remain wary of since.)
4. Don Quijote says:

   December 11, 2008 at 1:18 am

   Maintream America is naturally conservative insofar as it is English-heritage libertarian and antagonistic to government;

   America's Progressive Majority
   

   Start with the economy. Polling by the Pew Research Center shows 84 percent support to increase the minimum wage. Gallup shows that more Americans sympathize with unions than with companies in labor disputes (52 to 34 percent). NBC News and the Wall Street Journal polls indicate that nearly twice as many people think the U.S. is more hurt than helped by the global economy (48 to 25 percent). Other polls open the door to increased labor and environmental standards as part of the solution.

   For people caught on the wrong side of the economy, research by the University of Michigan National Election Studies reveals that 69 percent of Americans believe government should care for those who can’t care for themselves. Twice as many people want “government to provide many more services even if it means an increase in spending” (43 percent) as want government to provide fewer services “in order to reduce spending” (20 percent). Majorities say we need a bigger government “because the country’s problems are bigger” (59 percent) and a “strong government to handle complex problems” (67 percent).

   …

   The percentage of Americans who consider abortion the “most important” issue ranks in the single digits in poll after poll. When an election forces them to pay attention to it, Pew research shows a 56 percent majority oppose making it more difficult for a woman to get an abortion, a proportion that has hardly changed in the past 20 years. Only 29 percent want to see Roe v. Wade overturned. And 67 percent, according to polls by Kaiser and Harvard, want sex education in schools to include information about contraception, not just abstinence. Yet conservatives continually push these subjects to the fore and stand on the wrong side of them. It’s time for mainstream media to question whether movement conservatives, not coastal liberals, are out of the mainstream.

   On new and emerging issues, progressive opinion is even stronger. Americans understand that energy policy, for example, has implications on topics that range from national security to new growth industries. Gallup polls in March 2007 reveal that twice as many Americans want to solve energy problems with more conservation instead of more production (64 percent compared to 26 percent). Polls by CBS and the New York Times in April 2007 show 64 percent are willing to pay higher fuel taxes if the money were used for research into renewable energy sources, and 75 percent would be willing to pay more for electricity if it were generated by renewable sources like wind or energy. Only oil companies, conservative politicians and a minority of Americans (41 percent) want to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to drilling.

   On health care, Gallup’s latest poll reveals that 69 percent of Americans think it’s the government responsibility to make sure all Americans have health coverage. Only 28 percent disagreed. Polls by CBS/New York Times in February 2007 reveal that 76 percent of Americans would give up the Bush tax cuts to make sure all Americans have access to health care.

   And that was in 2007, before the Bush-conomy really hit the wall.
5. kritt11 says:

   December 11, 2008 at 2:06 am

   D-

   Read Dennis Sanders excellent post on this site on Michael Steele's woes in dealing with conservative power-mongers in the party. Steele (who is too conservative for me) makes the obvious point that the GOP cannot continue to alienate its moderates and still win elections. Being pro-life and anti-gay is not a governing platform in its own right. If the GOP doesn't manage to repair the rift between the moderate and conservative wings of the party, it will cease to exist. This is already happening in the Northeast- where social-cons are not popular with voters.

   IMO, conservative Republicans are losing elections because they are against more things than they are for. They are not sounding the message that worried Americans long to hear. The average person doesn't give a whit about Republican principles.

   They are now a regional party- only supreme in the South and some Western states.
6. superdestroyer says:

   December 11, 2008 at 6:46 am

   People are nowing realizing that more than 50% of the American people want to vote themselves goodies from the government while other are left to pay for them. Republicans and conservatives could win more elections is they had stayed fiscally conservative and keep arguing that the government cannot keep supplying more goodies to more people. HOwever, the stupdity and fiscal recklessness of the Bush ADministration destroyed that idea.

   Republcans can win back middle class and suburban whites with good governance and the right view on the issues. HOwever, there is nothing that Repubicans can do to win a signficant amount of black or Hispanic votes when the Democrats are promising to tax whites and give the money to them.
7. Rudi says:

   December 11, 2008 at 11:27 am

   LOL I guess the financial industry is run by minorities.
8. kritt11 says:

   December 11, 2008 at 11:43 am

   Rudi- I am puzzled by your comment. Everyone knows that the banking industry and Hollywood are run by Jews! (who tend to pay more than their share of taxes)

   SD- Conservatives believe that government is the problem- how can they provide good governance if that is what they think? After 8 years of George, I'm almost ready to agree with them!

   And, BTW- what c0nstitutes the “right view” on the issues, LOL?

   Taking a rigid view of issues and ideology has led many past presidents to failure- while those who were willing to be flexible were almost always more successful. Compare the success rates of Jimmy Carter- who tended to be stubborn and FDR who was not.

   Success is usually born of failure- the result of trying many different things. Bush 43's 1st term foreign policy of preemption and unilateralism is widely viewed by analysts as a failure, while his 2cnd term of multilateral diplomacy has received better reviews from the experts.

   Tax cuts may help in some economies- hurt in others. Cutting government spending may be fine in a time of economic expansion, but is a death wish during recessions or depressions. GOP candidates are forced to support both by party bigwigs.
9. timr says:

   December 11, 2008 at 1:22 pm

   Ideology + Authoritarianism=republicians
   Capitalism without constraints and govt regulation=anarchy
   republician ideology about wanting a small govt yet also wanting both a strong military and intrusive govt regulations on both sex and family planning are contradictory. Yet the republician party does not see the contradiction
   republicians are not conservative by nature, they are authoritarian.
   multinational corporations + military industrial complex + ideology + oligarchs – conservatism =modern republician party