The Upside of a GOP Blowout
The blogosphere is chatting about former McCain and now former Huntsman advisor John Weaver’s fears of a 2012 GOP Blowout if the party’s guiding lights are Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and Dick Cheney.
There is a lot of talk that if the party doesn’t start appealing to moderates soon, 2012 is going to be bloody.
That prospect used to bother me, but I’m beginning to wonder if that’s not a bad thing. Let me explain.
As Ross Douthat explained a few weeks ago in his case that Dick Cheney should have ran in 2008, I am beginning to think that maybe we should let the Limbaugh wing have its way for a few years.
That wing of the party has spent the last few years blaming others for the Republican Party’s problems. In 2006 and 2008, it was that George Bush was not a true conservative because of his big spending. Or it was that the Republican-controlled Congress was seduced by the tempting ways of Washington. In 2008, they said McCain was a moderate. They look at the losses in the past elections and think the problem was that the party was “too liberal.”
They refuse to listen to the data which says the GOP is losing support. They brand anyone that thinks it’s okay to have civil unions or thinks the environment might be an issue, a Republican in Name Only or RINO. The brush off concerns that the party must be allowed to run more moderate candidates in blue states and pick off the moderates that are in office.
This far right wing has wanted to run the show in the party and I am sorely tempted to say, “It’s all yours.” Let them select candidates for Congress that will go down to defeat. Let them select a Mike Huckabee or Sarah Palin, candidates who have no chance in hell of winning in 2012.
The thing is, after such a devastating loss, ala Mondale and the Democrats in 1984, the far right will have no one else to blame. They could no longer live in denial that they only need to be “more conservative.” Maybe, just maybe, they would finally know that they need help and that the party needs to change.
Maybe. We will see in 3 years. Hopefully it won’t be too late.
The cartoon by RJ Matson, Roll Call, is copyrighted and licensed to appear on TMV. . All Rights Reserved. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
15 Responses to “The Upside of a GOP Blowout”
Let the war-mongers divide and conquer the GOP on behalf of the democrats. I can't tell you how many elections I've sat and watched the GOP drooling over the bloodbath in democratic primaries.
'bout time the shoe was on the other foot.
Seems to me Dennis that you have three options: 1) leave the party, 2) work to change it, or 3) withdraw from the fray and let the party fail on its own.
“The blogosphere is chatting…” “There is a lot of talk…”
So do something. It has become quite clear that the Repubs are not willing to conform with how you want them. Perhaps its time to organize the moderates and throw the bums out.
“That wing of the party has spent the last few years blaming others for the Republican Party’s problems.”
The moderates seem to be in a finger pointing contest then, as all the talk you mentioned blames the “true believers” for your party's current position. It has become quite entertaining to watch your Party's peeing contest for internal power, but I would really like for them to get their act together so they can serve as some kind of check on unbridled control by the other party. Look what happened the last time one party was in power of everything.
Hoping the ideologues will “learn from defeat” seems a bit Polyana. The reasons they are ideologues is precisely because they do not learn pragmatic lessons. They are convinced of their own purity and the absolute rightness of their cause. Please note the percentage of the hardliners who are religious absolutists.
Jchem is right. Take control back (they will not cede it) or start the hard work of forming a centrist pragmatic party to replace a marginalized Republican fringe.
I wrote the exact same thing on here 3 weeks ago.
Dennis,
As a republican moderate, I am also concerned about the direction the party takes to reconstitute after the last defeat.
However, do you think that maybe you, as probably one of the only gay, black, republican priests, might not have your finger on the pulse of the conservative movement?
With McCain, we tried a liberal republican who spent 8 years criticizing the administration, but that didn’t work.
We could, I suppose, follow the advice of nearly every democrat and run an even more liberal candidate next time, but being a contrarian, I tend to lean the other way.
Although you are part of the religious segment of our party, as an atheist I hope you stay a republican.
There is no traction to “the alternative party” until the status quo starts to bug the swing voter. These folks don't spend their lives wonking about party platforms on blogs. Until the Dems give them pain, why would they be motivated to even spend the time listening?
CO: “Until the Dems give them pain, why would they be motivated to even spend the time listening?”
If the Dems give them any pain, they will never know about it because they are too busy reading daily stories about how evil Dick Cheney and the Repubs are, or who the next Repub heathen to call Rush Limbaugh a bad name is. The moderate Repubs are doing themselves no favors by whining and crying about not being allowed under the tent. Take it back or give up. On the bright side, I'm sure the Dems will welcome you for awhile; that is, until you become too moderate for them.
jwest – You present a Hobson's choice. Run a right wing ideologue, who will likely get clubbed like a baby seal, or run a “more liberal” Republican than McCain, who will also lose as a Dem Lite. Neither option presents a winning strategy.
A third option would be to run a traditional conservative, as opposed to the neocon/cultural con/big governement con coalition that presents itself as the face of conservatism today. This does not mean driving neocons, cultural cons or big government cons out the Party, but rather giving them a non-dominant role in a Party that focuses on principles of fiscal restraint, free enterprise, realistic foreign and military policy and a cultural focus on individual and economic liberty.
Traditional conservatism is a deep rooted and attractive philosophy…not Dem Lite and not perceived as extemist. Of course, as jchem points out, traditional conservatives would first have to wrest control from the faux conservatives who currently control the Party.
jwest: “As a republican moderate”
So jwest, as a Repub moderate, how do you manage to get along with the folks that Dennis is having such a hard time with? How do manage to get along with the “religious right” since your an atheist? Maybe the two of you are two completely different moderates, because from what I can tell of your past comments, you seem to be in favor of the party purging that's going on.
jchem (above)….good god, man!……..don't ever mistake me for a Dem! Do you think I would want to belong to the same organization Greendreams, SteveK, ChrisWWW, Dorina Delong, Elrod and Silhouette belong to??
Don't fall for the Gandelman/Begala/Olberman ruse that the pragmatic swing voter is being turned off by Cheney/Limbaugh and decidely becoming aligned with Democrats as a result.
These people have lives and don't even listen to Sunday morning talk shows or Rush Limbaugh. For the moment, they are awaiting Hopenchange to deliver. That's what they're paying attention to.
If he does deliver a turnaround of the economic conditions, then of course they will remain aligned to Dems…….and I wouldn't blame them. However, the idea that the next election will be primarily driven by the moderateness of the Republican candidate as opposed to primarily what the Dems deliver ignores the reason regular people with lives go to the polls.
I don’t have any problems with the religious right because they haven’t proposed any laws or regulations that would affect me in any way.
No one is mandating prayer. I am not required church services and abortion isn’t outlawed.
Now, I wish I could claim the same amount of non-interference with my life with left-wing liberals, who seem to think they alone have the best answers for my health and welfare, but that is not the case.
People are aghast that some of us on the right have written Colin Powell off as a Democrat. Much of that comes from how he votes and who he supports. If he is a Republican, why doesn’t he ever speak up for conservative principles? Where is he in the discussion. He has no problems complaining – we know what he’s against – but what is he for?
Good point on Powell. His military career was saved, and political career launched, by Cap Weinberger. I think he “became” a Republican for career reasons and not out of political philosophy. Now that he is retired, the decoupling is without significance to him.
CO, I don't believe I mistook you for any party, but if that's the way it came across, then my apologies. It really doesn't matter to me what party anybody belongs to, so long as we can discuss an issue without a bunch of name calling. And the everyday ramblings of people like Rush Limbaugh or Dick Cheney, or never-ending posts concerning the deflated whoopie cushion called the Repub party are just a bit tiring. Funny me, I thought the party in power pushed policy, but its beginning to look the other way around.
[...] The Upside of a GOP Blowout (themoderatevoice.com) [...]
DENNIS SANDERS OP-ED: The Upside Of A GOP Blowout…
…