Kenton Asks: "Will the Republicans go the way of the Whigs?"

By: Lowell
Published On: 6/29/2007 10:02:59 AM

The week isn't over yet, but I vote for this post by Kenton Ngo as "best diary of the week in the Virginia blogosphere."  Here's an excerpt:

The Republican coalition is splintering. The top, George Bush, stands mute and emasculated while the rest of the party grapples with raucous infighting. Corporate moguls, their profits sustained by a steady IV of cheap illegal labor, find themselves at odds with nativists. Social conservatives hell-bent on using government as a cudgel find themselves fighting disgusted libertarians. Meanwhile, power-hungry neoconservatives that used all of the party?s facets to catapult to power are threatening to bring the whole structure down in flames.

Even if the present of the Republican Party looks bleak, the future is even more of a desolate wasteland. Democrats have taken away the Republican's main advantage?fundraising. Even with the ban on "soft money," Democratic coffers overflow with riches. The next generation has always been a reaction to the previous, but the long-term drift of the population away from conservatism toward the left side of the pendulum spells trouble for the Republican Party of today and the future.

Will the Republicans go the way of the Whigs?

I would just add that conservative ideology has been, or certainly SHOULD have been, completely discredited by the utter disaster of the past 6+ years. 

Are you a fiscal conservative?  Welcome to record deficits and out-of-control spending after 6 years in which the Republicans controlled Congress AND the White House.  Are you a libertarian?  Welcome to the new, "conservative" Supreme Court, in which a woman's right to choose - and civil liberties, and separation of church and state - are already being whittled away, with much worse yet to come.  Are you a traditional, mainstream internationalist on foreign policy?  Welcome to the unholy, "neocon" hybrid of Woodrow Wilson, Ronald Reagan, and Paul Wolfowitz.  Are you a pro-environment conservative?  Welcome to a world without polar bears, ice caps, rain forests, or coastal cities.

Basically, the only Republicans who should be happy at this point are the Jerry Falwell/Pat Robertson, flat-earth, evolution-denying, apocalyptic, "Left Behind" bunch.  If you're not one of them, you don't have a home in the Republican Party.  No wonder why so many Republicans are leaving for the Democratic Party. 

OK, so the Republican Party and conservatism have failed.  The question then becomes, what about the Democrats - what do THEY stand for?  Do Democrats  want to be Progressives in the tradition of Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt?  How about populists in the tradition of Andrew Jackson?  "Great Society" liberals in the tradition of LBJ?  "Third Way" centrists in the tradition of Bill Clitnton and Tony Blair?  Are they none of the above, all of the above, or simply confused?  Can Democrats avoid answering these question?  If so, for how long?  And eventually, if Democrats don't figure out who they are and what they stand for, will "the Democratic coalition...falter and collapse," as Kenton predicts?  I think Kenton's onto something here, and I just hope that Democrats find the leadership they need to forge a new paradigm for the 21st century.  So far, unfortunately, they haven't done it.

Comments



It's a fun fantasy (brimur - 6/29/2007 10:26:19 AM)
but I think, as much as the Republican party is drifting nationally, our two-party system has developed a pretty entrenched way of making the small and necessary corrections to sustain itself since the mid-19th century.


While an entertaining notion... (ericy - 6/29/2007 10:49:43 AM)

it will never be the case that we can have a one-size fits all political party.  There will always be different opinions and different agendas.  In addition, a one-party state is much more subject to corruption.

If the Republican party were to completely disintegrate, another party would rise to take its place.  If this were to happen however, I would hope that we could fix the system to eliminate the builtin biases towards having just 2 major political parties.



Well (Kenton - 6/30/2007 12:28:57 AM)
That's what I said later in the post--Democrats will disintergrate eventually too. You can't beat the two-party system.


I agree its more an anit-R and not a pro-D (novamiddleman - 6/29/2007 11:29:44 AM)
Thats the lesson you guys should have learned from 2004 and Kerry.  It wasn't enough to be ani-Bush.  There was no argument for pro-Kerry

Trying to group all of those coalitions together is like herding cats

You guys need a JFK or Ronald Regan type to create a solidifying majority for a decent run

Otherwise, I think its pretty conceivable that the house could flip-flop several times over the next election cycles.



The GOP will survive (Hugo Estrada - 6/29/2007 12:47:34 PM)
It already has shown its resilience. What helps it is the amount of money that they can command, and its party discipline. Even if they are weaken, its consistent discipline means that they can wield enough power to still be significant, as we have learned this year.

As for Democrats securing a generation of voters, I see the need for the party to embrace its Jacksonian populists roots, with a blend of Roosevelt progressive thought: we need a people's party that can restore the economic security and dignity that the middle class has been losing since Bush got into office.



Also its "Teddy Roosevelt Progressive" legacy (Lowell - 6/29/2007 12:57:13 PM)
For instance:

*Social and other reforms, such as reducing the power and influence of special interests and lobbyists in our political system.
*Ensuring that everyone has the right to vote, and that their votes are counted.
*Trust busting (e.g., the opposite of what the Supreme Court ruled yesterday on price fixing)
*National health care
*Labor laws that don't just protect businesses, but also working people
*Environmental protection (TR was the greatest conservation president in US history)

Etc., etc.



Yes, Teddy R. too (Hugo Estrada - 6/29/2007 2:36:36 PM)
Thanks for fixing my omission. :)


More like "Will Republicans inspire the re-birth of the Whigs?" (mg - 6/29/2007 12:59:46 PM)
If we're striving for historical precedent involving the Whig Party, it might be more instructive to look at the Whig Party's inception, rather than it's slavery-fueled implosion.

The Whig Party, as I remember, was born as Henry Clay's (Clay being the most notable among several others, including Noah Webster) reaction to Andrew Jackson's high-handed approach to the presidency.  The current WH occupants' even more high-handed approach and the ineffectual response by the Democratic opposition could well spur the creation of a reactive new party.  And it could grown and become a significant force if the movement were to be led by someone with the stature that Clay had back in the 1830s.

This probably couldn't happen today since today's media landscape is so overbearing.  But I think the historical parallel is potentially closer for the birth of the Whig Party than its death.



that's Daniel Webster (presidentialman - 6/29/2007 2:33:24 PM)
but you're forgiven. When starting out in reading American History, I thought Daniel Webster wrote the dictionary,because when you think about its Webster's Dictionary, not Noah Webster's Dictionary. On that note, I like your diary.