It’s déjà vu all over again, a nursery rhyme with a political twist.
“The Republican Party sat on the wall. The Republican Party had a great fall. All the Party horses and all the Party men couldn’t put the Party back together again.”
Last night in the Iowa caucuses, the Reagan revolution died before our eyes, and no one seems to be noticing. The fundamental components of the Republican Party, forged together by Ronald Reagan in1980, are no longer part of a whole, ripped apart by the Tea Party and its unintended consequences. The only thing that may keep the party going is hatred of Barack Obama.
“Reaganism” was never a coherent position. It involved tensions that were unified by the power of Reagan’s sunny televisual personality.
In 1991, in The Cynical Society, I observed:
“The ‘conservative mood’ was not a … natural creation. It was constructed … by Reagan himself…his package brought together a new combination of symbols and policies…Fetal rights, a balanced-budget amendment, advanced nuclear armaments, tax and social-welfare cuts, and anti-communism do not necessarily combine. Reagan combined them.
As the satirical columnist, Russell Baker glibly put it, some supported Reagan so that he could be Reagan (the ideologues – this was the well-known refrain of the New Right), others supported him so that he could be the Gipper (the nice guy) he portrayed in an old Hollywood football film. But both sorts of supporters, who were fundamentally in conflict, created the new conservative mood. They constituted the Reagan mandate. Reagan did not represent a diverse constituency. He created it as the political majority.”
Neo-conservatives concerned then about the Communist threat, now are concerned with Islamofascism. Christian moralists, libertarians and corporate conservatives conflict on many issues. Reagan minimized this through his media presentation of self in political life.
The coalition persisted through the one term presidency of Reagan’s vice president, George H. W. Bush and his son’s Presidency, George W., who also used a down home personality to win a contested election and then fear as the basis of his re-election. But now the grand Reagan coalition of the Grand Old Party is falling apart. The Tea Party has radicalized Republican rhetoric, and atomized its political positions, making the coalition impossible.
The tepid front-runner status of Romney, combined with the persistent strength of “not Romney,” is a clear indication of the present state of affairs. Yesterday, Romney couldn’t break through his glass ceiling, only 25% of the vote. The religious right coalesced around Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul revealed his libertarian power. Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry lost because of their substantial political weaknesses, while Newt Gingrich, the object of relentless attacks, promised to attack in turn in New Hampshire. There is serious contestation, with foundational disagreements. The thing that holds these disparate politicians together is a common rejection of Barack Obama, which has dark undertones, strikingly different from the lightness of Reagan’s personality.
The talking heads have noted the likely practical result: there will be a longer primary season that might have been. It may take some time for Romney to seal the deal, though he still will seal it. The election will be between Romney and Obama, with the vaunted enthusiasm for the right greatly diminished. Romney lacks both the clear convictions and the personality that Reagan had to keep the coalition together. Paul may run as a third party candidate. True believers, Christian conservatives along with libertarians, will probably continue to doubt Romney’s conservative bona fides. And there are just not that many neo-conservatives and corporate conservatives. The Republicans are falling apart.
Barbara Ehrenreich posted a witty note on her Facebook page yesterday that went viral:
“In a race between a white supremacist, an advocate of child labor, a couple of raving homophobes and an empty suit, there can be no “winner,” so please don’t bother trying to wake me with the news.”
I think Ehrenreich needs to wake up. The Republican Party is one of the two parties in this institutionalized system, with a distinguished past. Its twists and turns, its rise and fall, will determine what is possible in the United States, as well as what is impossible. This has been quite clear since the election of President Obama. Imagine where we would be if he had a loyal opposition. And it will continue to be true if Obama wins yet again, which I think is likely.
My conclusion: the Republicans are at the brink of disarray. They could conceivably prevail in the November elections, but if they do, there would be a contradictory mandate, Reaganism beyond Reagan, with fear and hatred holding it together. More likely, after the Iowa caucuses, will be the re-election of President Obama, with a disorganized opposition permitting him to operate more freely. That, along with a social movement pushing him forward, making “change we can believe in” likely. But then again, maybe I am being a bit too optimistic.
It is very dangerous when a group of people unite around and through their hatred of an “other”— in this case Obama and all that they have made him to be (Islamofascist). The hatred is palpable and it is, as you say, the only thing that unites the opposition. I am not sure that the Republicans are going to scatter and fall apart, thus making Obama’s second term (if he gets it and I am not sure he will) any easier. We do see an absence of a candidate worth anything and we see all the fissures, as you say, of the fractured ideology (I think we are watching, over time (decades), the reshaping of conservative identity—- but we don’t see an absence of anti-Obamaism. A lot is up to Obama himself—- I would like to see him court Dr. Paul’s voters (young and angry) and I would like to see him chase until he wins over OWS. Neither one of these groups is on his side (to their own peril) and he needs them and frankly, if he had delivered more in terms of the economy and punishing the banks, he would have them.
Over time, I have learned to respect the opposition. This principle works in all aspects of life. Underestimating the opposition invariably leads to disasters.
Relatively few people watch the early part of the primary season carefully. Many voters simply don’t tune in until after the conventions and the Presidential debates unfold. Even then, few don’t follow the election carefully and are moved to vote based upon impressions and habits rather than thoroughly considering policy issues.
Most likely this will happen again. Late in the process, there are always extrinsic factors that influence voters. We could speculate about what they are, but we would probably be wrong: chances are it will be related to the economy, fiscal or international issues. Just think abut how the last election developed. Many candidates tested the political waters in Iowa. The Democratic candidates included: Barack Obama, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Christopher Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gavel (and others?). The Republican candidates included: Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, John McCain, Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani, Duncan Hunter, Alan Keyes, John Cox (and others?).
Actually, I do think that there are issues at stake and they will be contrasted for most people in the fall. Between now and then, most of what happens will be of interest to a relatively small number of people in my opinion.
It would seem then that the crisis of the Republican party is in part due to lack of a central charasmatic (yet sane) figure that could unify them. Worshiping in the Church of Reagan and reciting passages from “The Reagan Diaries” won’t do the trick without a living embodiment of the mythic ideal type conservative (or at least an adequate public visage of him or her). I would not be surprised if there is one waiting in the wings somewhere, but in the meantime it seems that Republicans will try to make due with hating Obama, threatening Iran, and xenophobia. And while Romney is not “the one” I think the fact that, compared to Tea Party standards of conservatism, even Reagan would appear too liberal for their own tastes, they need to wake up to the fact that, in one shape or form, we’re all liberals.