A Liberal Nightmare: Moderate Republicans

Radical right-wing Republicans are good for business—especially if your business is being an Official Liberal. Look no further than The Nation magazine whose circulation now hovers at an all-time high of 160,000. That’s more than twice that of its long time and more moderate rival The New Republic and almost three times the size of the conservative mouthpiece, the Weekly Standard. Many of us associated with The Nation know very well that the growth spurt comes in direct proportion to the real (and imagined) zealousness of the Bushies.

Go to any cocktail party or political fundraiser nowadays on the Westside of L.A. or Manhattan’s Upper West Side and the assembled liberals seem to take an almost masochistic relish in claiming just how right-wing the Republican Party has become. You know the drill: “The Christian Coalition has seized the party…Jerry Falwell calls the shots…The Neocons have staged a coup… Diebold has cooked the election thru the voting machines...the Ashcroft fundamentalists are in charge…This is the most radical administration in the history of the country, the world, the universe!”

A certain succor is derived from the endless recitation of these articles of faith. It’s a great way to rationalize not only the relative political impotence of the liberal left, but it also justifies the often palpable moral superiority of the collective Volvo-driving People In Black who fancy themselves as disenfranchised in the Age of Bush (notwithstanding their balooning home equity and upper bracket tax relief).

Against that backdrop I find it tantalizing to wonder what would happen to the American political debate if the Republicans were about to move to the center? Writer Ben Smith of The New York Observer tackles that question head-on this week. He notes the recent rise of a knot of decidedly moderate Republicans – McCain and Giuliani; Pataki and Bloomberg; former New Jersey Governor Tom Kean who has led his September 11 Commission into some scrapes with the White House; Arnold Schwarzenegger (whom the L.A. Times noted last week was busily avoiding campaigning for Bush; and the quartet of Republican Senators (including McCain) who are currently blocking a new round of tax cuts:

In the public eye, in the Senate, and in a handful of key primaries around the country, it’s the moderate Republicans’ moment—though whether this is a renaissance or a death spasm remains to be seen. At its core is a handful of men loosely grouped around Mr. McCain. The Arizona Senator and Mr. Giuliani, who returned to the front page during his testimony before the Sept. 11 commission, are long-time friends. Secretary of State Colin Powell, apparently ascendant after a series of debacles at the Pentagon, and his deputy, Richard Armitage, are close to Mr. McCain. And New York’s newly feisty Mr. Bloomberg supplied Mr. McCain with a private jet when the Senator’s wife suffered a stroke last month

.
Smith then quotes a moderate Republican beltway strategist saying: "The hard right within the party has reached its apex and is on decline. After 2004, regardless of the outcome of the election, you’re going to see a major battle within the Republican Party for its heart and soul. This is all about 2008. This is the coming Republican division.

"The moderates’ apparent revival runs counter to a well-documented trend toward polarization in American politics, and it may not last. The closeness of the Senate, Mr. Bush’s current political weakness, and the election-year tendency to move to the middle are all lending strength to the centrists.

But the real question for the Republicans will arrive after the November election. If Mr. Bush loses, the party will face an internal crisis. If he wins with Mr. Cheney as his running mate, he will have no obvious successor. Loyal conservatives, like Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, Governor Bill Owens of Colorado and Governor Jeb Bush of Florida, are angling for a future Presidential nomination, but two New York moderates also have their eyes on that prize. Mr. Giuliani has denied that he has any office in mind, but he certainly hasn’t allowed the spotlight to leave him for long. Mr. Pataki spent the evening of May 21 at a Lincoln Day dinner in Belknap County, N.H., a hint of his own aspirations.

"The party is fraying, it’s cracking," said the moderate Republican strategist. "It’ll hold through November, but not long after that."

Imagine what all this might mean for next year’s cocktail chatter. What’s the point of being a liberal if you can’t moan any longer about living under "fascism?"

Comments

[Stevenson]

I wonder if we'll see moderate Republicans, espically from the Northeast, defect and become Democrats if Bush gets reelected.

One major problem for moderate republicans is how few of them there are. Its enough to tilt the presidential election, but is it enough to build a sustainable party? There importance is only as a possible swing vote in November.

[steve]

Don't write it off so quickly.

I am a lifelong resident of the Commonwealth of MA. The last four governors of MA are all Republicans; and this in one of the most liberal states in the union. But if you look at the official policies beginning with Weld and continuing through Celluci, Swift, and, now, Romney you will find more of a Libertarian bent than a far-right Republican one. These folks are social liberals (Romney being least so) and fiscal conservatives. Their Democrat opponents didn't even come close to winning.

Giuliani, Schwarzengger, Powell, Bloomberg, etc. are of similiar pedigree.

There is more to this than just the hoped for "death rattle". And any of these folks blow John Kerry away in terms of presence, articulation, and personality. Oh, and they do a pretty good job on Bush too!

[steve]

An interesting talk was given by the sociologist Val Burris at the ASA mtg. 2 years ago about the mcdonaldization of right wing foundations that back the gamut of right wing lobbying 'committees'. He found that foundation donors like Coors and a number of other prominent ones donate to a variety of issues, often in direct, or seemingly direct, contrast with each other. For example, in the more liberal/libertarian type states in the north, they are likely to donate to groups that advocate for drug legalization, gay rights, reproductive freedom, etc. In the southern states, where the fundamentalist orientation is stronger, they donate heavily to 'committees' that mobilize for tougher drug laws, anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, etc.
The common thread to both types of donations? The advocacy of free markets, roll back of unions role in the workplace, lower taxes and lower taxes again and privatization of social security, health care, and schools as the way to improving the republic, which libertarians and fundamentalists both embrace and which is the backbone of the right's agenda (across national borders). And the only real source of opposition and barrier to the right's agenda, be it in the soft friendly Ahhnold form or the Theomaniac Ashcroft form, is the lobbying role of public unions, especially the much maligned teachers' unions.
Val Burris delivered this talk to a prominently leftist audience at the ASA lecture. It probably would have gone over the heads of most 'moderates' who think of politics largely in terms of personalities and style. But the lefties I saw in the audience, like Val himself, actually thought the arguments Val made were pretty reasonable. I can't comment on the ones Marc claims to be running into in NYC. I would bet they would probably be quite open to Val's argument. I would hope they would not think the answer to ashcroft's brand of conservatism was McCain or Giuliani.
Nota Bene, before I'm attacked for sayining McCain or Giuliani are 'evil', it should be plain to any reasonable reader that that is not the argument. In fact, they surely sincerely believe that they are doing the right thing in their challenges to Ashcroft's wing. Unfortunately, as any serious critique of politics will tell you, intentions are not enough. Marc is occasionally sharp at picking out the failures of some leftists despite their intentions. He seems blind to the same failure on the part of the softer friendlier free marketers in the Republican party.

[Strxx]

Well.. looks like u are proving Marc's thesis! You sure seem uncomfortable with the thought that any Republicans might actually move to the center. I didnt see Marc arguing that McCain or anyone else were now politically progressive or that they even stopped being Republicans. He doesn't seem "blind" to their faults he merely stated some obvious facts i.e. that some Republicans are more moderate than others and may be in ascendance. That's all he said. But here you go stamping them as "evil." Perfect! It reads like Marc's headline. Moderate Republicans equals a nightmare for leftoids like you.

[steve]

Well.. looks like u are proving Marc's thesis! You sure seem uncomfortable with the thought that any Republicans might actually move to the center.

--that's a remarkable interpretation of what i wrote. my point is that it doesn't matter if they move to the center or not, the free marketer anti-union, privatization, budget cutting thrust is basically the same, with minor variations here and there. how my arguing that 'proves' marc's thesis that all leftists can't distinuguish between fasicism and what we have now 1) and 2) that there is a big difference between the 'moderate' conservatives and the 'fundamentalist' version , is beyond me.
--------------------------
I didnt see Marc arguing that McCain or anyone else were now politically progressive or that they even stopped being Republicans.

--no, but he finds something about their politics that proves that the left or liberals have a fundnamental misunderstanding of the republican party. i'm on left discussion lists like max sawicky's, doug henwood's lbo-talk , and michael perlememan's pen-l , and i'd concede that there are surely some on the left who have simplistic understandings of the state of the repub. party. i'd also say i see a whole lot of other informed analyses on those lists that contradict marc's apparent belief that misunderstanding of the repub. is everywhere on the left. Or put another way, anecdotal stories about alleged manhattan parties don't tell very much. all you need to do is go to left discussion lists and objectively observe to see that.
---------------------------------
But here you go stamping them as "evil."

--really? sounds odd, i don't recall using silly words like 'evil'. in fact, it's interesting you quote me saying 'evil', when in fact in my post i nowhere write that mccain or giuliani's politics are not that far from the fundamentalists in important ways because those two are 'evil'. that's the last reason why they are similar. they are similar because they have a sincerely held belief that privatization, budget cutting [outside the military], anti-union policies, etc. are good for America. I disagree, but not because they are evil people. It's odd how right wingers really have trouble understanding a structural argument. It's like all there is in the world are actors with 'good' or 'bad' intentions, like some comic strip. ugh.
---------------------------------
Moderate Republicans equals a nightmare for leftoids like you.

--no, they strike me as much the same as their fundamentalist counterparts, no more or less nightmarish really, although they often have views on particular social issues that dovetail with my own to a greater extent than the fundamentalist right. on the key issues of taxation, wealth redistribution, public investment, job creation, health care, day care, public education,...we disagree and strongly. I wish I could say they think the way the do because they were evil, but that wouldn't even get close to an informed analysis of what to do in response to their politics.

[steve]

Well.. looks like u are proving Marc's thesis! You sure seem uncomfortable with the thought that any Republicans might actually move to the center.

--that's a remarkable interpretation of what i wrote. my point is that it doesn't matter if they move to the center or not, the free marketer anti-union, privatization, budget cutting thrust is basically the same, with minor variations here and there. how my arguing that 'proves' marc's thesis that all leftists can't distinuguish between fasicism and what we have now 1) and 2) that there is a big difference between the 'moderate' conservatives and the 'fundamentalist' version , is beyond me.
--------------------------
I didnt see Marc arguing that McCain or anyone else were now politically progressive or that they even stopped being Republicans.

--no, but he finds something about their politics that proves that the left or liberals have a fundnamental misunderstanding of the republican party. i'm on left discussion lists like max sawicky's, doug henwood's lbo-talk , and michael perlememan's pen-l , and i'd concede that there are surely some on the left who have simplistic understandings of the state of the repub. party. i'd also say i see a whole lot of other informed analyses on those lists that contradict marc's apparent belief that misunderstanding of the repub. is everywhere on the left. Or put another way, anecdotal stories about alleged manhattan parties don't tell very much. all you need to do is go to left discussion lists and objectively observe to see that.
---------------------------------
But here you go stamping them as "evil."

--really? sounds odd, i don't recall using silly words like 'evil'. in fact, it's interesting you quote me saying 'evil', when in fact in my post i nowhere write that mccain or giuliani's politics are not that far from the fundamentalists in important ways because those two are 'evil'. that's the last reason why they are similar. they are similar because they have a sincerely held belief that privatization, budget cutting [outside the military], anti-union policies, etc. are good for America. I disagree, but not because they are evil people. It's odd how right wingers really have trouble understanding a structural argument. It's like all there is in the world are actors with 'good' or 'bad' intentions, like some comic strip. ugh.
---------------------------------
Moderate Republicans equals a nightmare for leftoids like you.

--no, they strike me as much the same as their fundamentalist counterparts, no more or less nightmarish really, although they often have views on particular social issues that dovetail with my own to a greater extent than the fundamentalist right. on the key issues of taxation, wealth redistribution, public investment, job creation, health care, day care, public education,...we disagree and strongly. I wish I could say they think the way the do because they were evil, but that wouldn't even get close to an informed analysis of what to do in response to their politics.

[steve]

sorry about the double post, a computer glitch. i will now talk gently to my dell and try to make it understand better my needs.

[topo gigio]

Welcome back, Marchetto! Nice to see the old tabby cat has unsheathed its (ostensibly) lefty claws and is using them to advantage against those who deserve a scratch or two: the bevy of wailing banshees gathered under the wings of the bejeweled Mother Goose Katrina.

Until now you have reserved your slings and arrows for that rag-tag collection of pathetic losers clinging like barnacles to the keel of the sea-unworthy Pacifica boat, or the groupuscules holed up at the Peace Center, hardly worth the bother.

But wait! Are you by any chance preparing to pull a Hitchens?

[Michelle]

What happened to the thinking man with a heart? (Drudge has posted a photograph of Gore pounding the pulpit, lips flared, hair greased back, a face contorted in rage.) He and his party seem to be less about thinking and more about histrionics.

As a registered democrat it's a bit disconcerting to find myself somewhat beguiled by men the likes of Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Colin Powell.

As for next year’s cocktail chatter, it will remain the same. Anyone who questions, challenges or attempts to scale back on issues such as entitlements, abortion rights, regulatory oversight is viewed as fascist. A moderate Republican will still take a swing at those issues. (I miss Moynihan.)

[Steve Smith]

While it doesn't surprise me that "moderate" Republicans are becoming a trendier commodity, I think that several things will have to happen before any of the people mentioned become serious contenders for the Presidency, including but not limited to a massive defeat this fall discrediting the ideologues, the loss of both houses of Congress, and the emergence of an able politician who is willing to govern from the center, but without sparking massive opposition from the right (in other words, a GOP-version of Clinton). Tax-cutting has become to Republican orthodoxy what the welfare state was to the Democrats; like Clinton, an effective moderate Republican resurgence will have to challenge the orthodoxy, while still mouthing the appropriate conservative platitudes on abortion, crime and other social issues. If he doesn't challenge the ideologues, he will have no credibility in appealing to less partisan members of the Democratic Party; if he doesn't say the right things to the ideological activists, he risks being challenged for renomination from within, and having to base his entire political appeal on remaining in the good graces of the other side.

[steve]

Anyone who questions, challenges or attempts to scale back on issues such as entitlements, abortion rights, regulatory oversight is viewed as fascist.

--Clinton was a fascist? i knew it.

[steve]

My kind of Republican:

LONDON, England-One of the ideological architects of the Iraq war has
criticized the U.S.-led occupation of the country as "a grave error."

Richard Perle, until recently a powerful adviser to U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, described U.S. policy in post-war Iraq as
a failure.

"I would be the first to acknowledge we allowed the liberation (of Iraq) to subside into an occupation. And I think that was a grave error, and in some ways a continuing error," said Perle, former chair of the influential Defence Policy Board, which advises the Pentagon."

It will be very very very interesting to see if the warhawk blogs are attacking Perle tomorrow as an America hater? Gosh, this is hard work when ya think about it for the warriors. First Zinni and now Perle! Who next? Now, I'd bet you anything that guy Perle is connected with Chalabi who is connected with the evil of axis over there in Iran...and I bet ya anything some of that 'chatter' that Ashcroft has Americans nervous as nellie about tonight came from Perle's text messaging!

[sam]

Marc, Your website has possibilities, but it has been taken over by someone named Steve who seems to have no life and is gigantically boring. Can you limit his presence to one statement a day and enable us to read the many useful comments without having to scroll past endless grafs of turgid prose?

[Marc Cooper]

Steve.. I think this comment is on the right track. Im loathe to censor or edit commentators.. for the moment. But I think you would be appreciated and read a lot more if you pared ur comments down by aboyt 3/4. Let's try it.

[steve]

it's amazing that the best sam can do is complain about my comments as 'boring' or too many. gee, i'm sorry, i don't swear, i don't namecall, i don't accuse people of hating america or being unpatriotic, i don't slur ethnic groups. and to think that when someone responds to me and makes completely false claims about what i said in my previous comment that i respond back to such 'comments'. yeah, i've really overdone it.

[steve]

i'll be glad to try to pare down my comments. i'm not at all sure that that is really what bothers sam, my suspicion is he is more upset that i don't repeat his point of view [or engaged in some other style, swearing perhaps? calling people names?], in which case i suspect he'd be glad to hear from me endlessly.
but, i'll try to scale back.

[Michael J. Totten]

Clinton was a centrist Democrat, but that didn't stop the Republicans from going absolutely bat shit over him and Hillary.

I think a centrist Republican like John McCain could be a real national unity candidate because many Democrats actually like him. But it won't make a hill of beans worth of a difference to Jane's Law if someone like Bush moves to the center.

Jane's Law: The devotees of the party in power are smug and arrogant. The devotees of the party out of power are insane.

http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/004185.html

[too many steves]

While admitting that Clinton was hated by Republicans for lots of reasons (leaving aside the legitimacy of those reasons) I think the primary one was because he was a Democrat.

Should McCain run, regardless of his moderate appeal and middle-ground stance on many issues, he would be hated and vilified by many Democrats.

The reason? Because he would have what they want (Presidency and Power) and he is from the "wrong" party.

[GMRoper]

I just couldn't end this morning without making what to me is an obvious comment. The left, and especially the Far Left (radical left? (left)Wing-nuts?) have a great deal of trouble imagining that the Repubs are in fact, a party composed of liberals, moderates and conservatives.

The mantra of the left has been that the Repubs are all right wing nuts. That just isn't so! Conservative? Yes, with a strong moderate force within and even our share of liberals.

To discount the Repubs as being "wing nuts" is to play into the hands of the left. Unfortunately, as a rule, "America doesn't buy it" and continues to vote for the Republicans, much to the consternation of the left and especially the ABB crowd. And, often to the dismay of the Repubs, America also votes for Dems, left, right and center. That is as it should be and it represents the true diversity of our political system.

Conversly, not all Democrats are "wing nuts" either and many are upset that their party too often falls prey to the Kerry/Kennedy branch.

We really don't have a two party system, we have a system with two major parties, each of which is composed of countless and myriad forces vying for the vote. This is one of the things that makes this country such a great force for good (though we also have our share of idjits-if you will pardon the expression)

Just some thoughts.

[steve]

The left, and especially the Far Left (radical left? (left)Wing-nuts?) have a great deal of trouble imagining that the Repubs are in fact, a party composed of liberals, moderates and conservatives.

--GM, I'd suggest that you don't really know that many leftists. However, what strikes me on the warbloggers' comments sections is that the right wing and 'moderate' war bloggers [who seem to define moderation as 'i also criticise ann coulter and michael savage'] has great trouble dealing with the notion that Republicans are deeply critical of the US intervention in and occupation of Iraq. In their book it's all about a 'liberal/left wing' anti-war movement and the utterly laughable notion of the "liberal-left media", end of story. That I could easily verify with references to blog discussions you participate in, but I doubt you could verify that on the left there is a lack of recognition that there's a mix of competing blocs within the Republican Party.
In fact, all you would have had to do is read my comments above or Steve from MA to know that what you say is contradicted by this very thread (!).

[wil]

Marc, I think one thing can explain the Nation's success. Poeple have finally realized how attractive it is to use newspaper stock for the magazine format.

check out http://bullmooserepublicans.com.

[GMRoper]

Steve writes: "--GM, I'd suggest that you don't really know that many leftists."

Steve, I teach in a university, and my profession (counseling) is rife with leftists. Too, while I consider myself fairly conservative on the international front, I'm quite liberal in other political arenas such as health care reform, etc. Should I do a survey of the professors at my university, I would estimate that better than 50% but far less than 65% of the "leftist professoriate" are indeed surprised when I argue vociferously for some "liberal" positions. I have also had a Professor of Psychology tell me that because I'm a counselor, I can't possibly be a republican. No my friend, what I said was true, that you have trouble accepting it is your problem.

[Wagner James Au]

> Should McCain run, regardless of his moderate
> appeal and middle-ground stance on many issues,
> he would be hated and vilified by many
> Democrats.

> The reason? Because he would have what they
> want (Presidency and Power) and he is from
> the "wrong" party.

Then there's the other reason: he's against
abortion rights in most cases. Even though he
has said that Roe v. Wade should not be over-
turned "in the near or even distant future".
But that's not good enough, and most liberals,
while admiring him on other issues, reject him
as a candidate out hand, because of that.

I've come to think that pro-choice-as-absolute-
litmus-test is probably the most destructive
position that Democrats have taken, in recent
decades. This is a tremendously complex issue,
and most people are hugely ambivalent and nuanced
about it, but somehow, if a candidate doesn't
endorse Roe v. Wade, they are rejected out of
hand, by liberal Democrats. (And don't get me wrong-- personally, I tend to support Roe v. Wade.) Not enough coverage was given to last year's poll, conducted by Faye Wattleton's group (formerly of Planned Parenthood, she),which suggested that near 70 PERCENT of American women want abortion rights scaled back somewhat or drastically. (51 percent would limit it to cases of rape, incest, and endangerment of the mother's life, for example.) This is extraordinary. And it suggests that in terms of raw numbers, Roe v. Wade is actually the *less* mainstream position. But somehow, Democratic and centrist Republican candidates have to lockstep behind it, or they are simply not kosher to the Democratic leadership. *They're* the ones labeled "extreme conservative". (Witness their treatment of the Bush judicial nominee who supported parental notification, like she was a slathering reactionary, for that.)

This is all too bad, because if Democrats are genuinely interested in getting back in power, this is one of the issues they're gonna have to do some soul searching on. And there's not the slightest indication that they're willing to do that.

[steve]

Should I do a survey of the professors at my university, I would estimate that better than 50% but far less than 65% of the "leftist professoriate" are indeed surprised when I argue vociferously for some "liberal" positions.

--I'm not sure what kinds of leftists you acquaint yourself with, but it's odd that after you see the posts that I or Steve from MA made that you insist that your comments really represent some significant reflection on the state of the left. Like I said before, I'd gladly acknowledge that there are lefties with quite mistaken analyses of the membership of the Repub. party. But I'd also suggest that that is not that deep a problem among those on the left. Among liberals perhaps it's a deeper problem, since their tendency is to view politics in terms of personalities unlike the leftist's predisposition toward structural analysis of class power relations [kinda like what you'd find in Marc's article on class warfare in silicon valley btw., a fine piece as any he's written in my opinion].
------------------------------