Party Loyalty Is A Two-Way Street
A dual tretise on the pervasive, intractible Republican penchant for self-destruction.
~ ~ ~
I don't. Remember 1986? 1992? 1998? Even if we didn't deserve to lose, we're overdue for it.
However, if you look back over those years you see a definite pattern emerge. Start with 1992. Bush41 loses his bid for a second term? Why? Because he broke his "no new taxes" pledge two years earlier, and the base punished him for it. Next, 1994. The GOP wins in a rout. Why? Because the Party grew spines of tensiled steel and stopped HillaryCare. How about 1998? Instead of making the big gains that history indicated they should, Republicans instead only broke even. Why? Because every single GOP candidate ran away from impeachment, and the base stayed home as a result.
2000 is interesting in that we picked up a few House seats but lost four senate seats. Dems insisted that House Republicans would be "punished" at the polls for impeaching Clinton, but in fact it was the Senate, which cynically acquitted him, that paid a price.
Aided considerably by President Bush, the GOP picked up six Senate seats over the past two election cycles. The momentum was ever upward.
Until the "Deal." For the first time in six and a half years the GOP caved on a huge issue with its own base. Like it or not, that will be the lingering perception if Bill Frist doesn't move swiftly and massively to contain the damage from this disaster.
It's way too early to speculate on the size of Republican losses next year, but conversion of their newly minted pseudo-minority into the genuine article has to be considered a distinct possibility.
~ ~ ~
Winning is their "principle." For Democrats, that demands unprincipled conduct because their other principles are broadly unpopular. Their base understands this and applauds them for it because they're not interested in persuading people back to their way of thinking, but rather to impose their way of thinking on the people. For their "own good," of course.
For Republicans, it's just the opposite. Their principles are popular, but they're not willing to fight for them to anywhere near the same degree as the Democrats are theirs. So they cave, their base feels betrayed, and the latter takes it out on the former by withdrawing support.
This is what Matt and Mark simply do not grasp: withdrawal of support is the only leverage the base has by which to hold our elected counterparts accountable. If the Dems don't do it to their people, perhaps, just perhaps, it's because their people don't have a spinal problem, while we're continually having to ram titanium rods up our reps' suit jackets.
At some point in any dysfunctional business relationship the party on the short end has to start asking him/herself what s/he is getting out of it and whether it makes sense to perpetuate it or try to make some changes.
Think of the team sports analogy: if a vastly talented team that should be dominant instead underachieves to the point of failing to make the playoffs (no mean feat in this day and age), what usually happens? The coach or manager gets the boot. Why? Because he's primarily accountable for the success level of his team.
The problem Senate 'Pubbies have is that if you sack Bill Frist (who unquestionably deserves to be sacked), who are you going to put in his place that would do any better? Assuming there is such a person (George Allen, Jon Kyl, Tom Coburn, John Cornyn), there's no way that his/her colleagues would ever elect him. You'd probably have to go back most of a century to find the last strong GOP Senate leader. The culture of the upper chamber doesn't breed Tom DeLays; what it does breed is the perfidious narcissism we saw on display Monday evening.
And that means that the caucus itself will take the heat, and the punishment, for the manifest failure of a leader so feckless and bumbling and weak, and so reflective of the caucus that elevated him.
Might not be fair to all the casualties come November 2006, but at least maybe then the message will be reiterated that party loyalty is, after all, a two-way street.
~ ~ ~
I think we're quite a long ways from being in a situation where the Congressional GOP will lose in 2006
I don't. Remember 1986? 1992? 1998? Even if we didn't deserve to lose, we're overdue for it.
However, if you look back over those years you see a definite pattern emerge. Start with 1992. Bush41 loses his bid for a second term? Why? Because he broke his "no new taxes" pledge two years earlier, and the base punished him for it. Next, 1994. The GOP wins in a rout. Why? Because the Party grew spines of tensiled steel and stopped HillaryCare. How about 1998? Instead of making the big gains that history indicated they should, Republicans instead only broke even. Why? Because every single GOP candidate ran away from impeachment, and the base stayed home as a result.
2000 is interesting in that we picked up a few House seats but lost four senate seats. Dems insisted that House Republicans would be "punished" at the polls for impeaching Clinton, but in fact it was the Senate, which cynically acquitted him, that paid a price.
Aided considerably by President Bush, the GOP picked up six Senate seats over the past two election cycles. The momentum was ever upward.
Until the "Deal." For the first time in six and a half years the GOP caved on a huge issue with its own base. Like it or not, that will be the lingering perception if Bill Frist doesn't move swiftly and massively to contain the damage from this disaster.
It's way too early to speculate on the size of Republican losses next year, but conversion of their newly minted pseudo-minority into the genuine article has to be considered a distinct possibility.
~ ~ ~
That's why you don't ever hear Democrats say "I'm staying home and not voting because my party has abandoned its principles". Their base admires them for "doing whaterver it takes" to get the job done - principles be damned.
Winning is their "principle." For Democrats, that demands unprincipled conduct because their other principles are broadly unpopular. Their base understands this and applauds them for it because they're not interested in persuading people back to their way of thinking, but rather to impose their way of thinking on the people. For their "own good," of course.
For Republicans, it's just the opposite. Their principles are popular, but they're not willing to fight for them to anywhere near the same degree as the Democrats are theirs. So they cave, their base feels betrayed, and the latter takes it out on the former by withdrawing support.
This is what Matt and Mark simply do not grasp: withdrawal of support is the only leverage the base has by which to hold our elected counterparts accountable. If the Dems don't do it to their people, perhaps, just perhaps, it's because their people don't have a spinal problem, while we're continually having to ram titanium rods up our reps' suit jackets.
At some point in any dysfunctional business relationship the party on the short end has to start asking him/herself what s/he is getting out of it and whether it makes sense to perpetuate it or try to make some changes.
Think of the team sports analogy: if a vastly talented team that should be dominant instead underachieves to the point of failing to make the playoffs (no mean feat in this day and age), what usually happens? The coach or manager gets the boot. Why? Because he's primarily accountable for the success level of his team.
The problem Senate 'Pubbies have is that if you sack Bill Frist (who unquestionably deserves to be sacked), who are you going to put in his place that would do any better? Assuming there is such a person (George Allen, Jon Kyl, Tom Coburn, John Cornyn), there's no way that his/her colleagues would ever elect him. You'd probably have to go back most of a century to find the last strong GOP Senate leader. The culture of the upper chamber doesn't breed Tom DeLays; what it does breed is the perfidious narcissism we saw on display Monday evening.
And that means that the caucus itself will take the heat, and the punishment, for the manifest failure of a leader so feckless and bumbling and weak, and so reflective of the caucus that elevated him.
Might not be fair to all the casualties come November 2006, but at least maybe then the message will be reiterated that party loyalty is, after all, a two-way street.
posted by JASmius at 10:38 AM
<<< Home