After The GOPocalypse
Now that it is becoming increasingly clear that McCain is going to lose in a blowout (and here I must acknowledge that I never imagined this would happen and assumed the electorate would remain evenly divided), what will be the aftermath within the GOP? Before we get to that, first consider how truly bizarre a Democratic victory, large or small, will seem. Democrats have not won an open (i.e., no incumbent President or Vice-President on either side) presidential election since 1884. Republicans have won the last four fully open elections (1896, 1920, 1928 and 1952). Republicans are accustomed to their unpopular incumbents being thrown out from time to time, and they are used to their incumbent Presidents or Vice-Presidents winning, and they won all three open elections of the twentieth century, so it has been a very, very long time since they have gone to the country with an ostensibly fresh or at least non-incumbent candidate and been rejected when there is no incumbent on the other side. That will make this loss much more damaging and shocking than 1996 in the repudiation of the GOP that it will represent. In 1996, Republicans at least had the consolation of remaining in control of Congress.
Of course, Republicans have experienced one calamitous defeat in the last fifty years, and this was 1964, which has entered into legend as the springboard for Reagan and the immediate disaster that later yielded success, but this year is not like 1964. The only real similarity between the two nominees is that they both happen to be from Arizona. Unlike in ’64, McCain’s nomination was not the product of a bitter intra-party battle that started to change the character of the GOP but was instead an almost default acquiescence to the heir apparent out of a lack of enthusiasm for the alternatives. After November 4, it is hard to imagine anyone picking up McCain’s standard as the rallying point for the future of the party, because he has resolutely not stood for any coherent message of any kind. Oh, right, reform–a message as elastic as it has been vacuous. The Palin Phenomenon has gone from what some thought might be the future of the American right to a growing debacle that her fans hope will not become an absolute nightmare tomorrow night. Obviously, losing VP candidates do not return to claim the leadership of their party, especially not if they are on the losing side of a lopsided election, so whether or not Palin has contributed significantly to McCain’s defeat (probably) she will be dragged down with him and that will be the end of her story on the national stage.
It is hard to know what the Democrats will do with a victory. If the last two years are any indication, they will squander it as recklessly as the Republicans squandered their opportunities, but how the GOP will respond, if it will be able to respond, is very much up in the air. The next few months after Election Day will see all manner of recriminations as the various factions try to find convenient scapegoats, of which Palin will be the most prominent and the easiest to use against social conservatives. Expect to hear a lot about how Republicans need to “move beyond” and “get over” pro-life concerns. In the wake of the bailout, whether it passes or doesn’t pass, there will be little patience with more flirtations with anything resembling big-government conservatism. Expect retrenchment and revivals of the old time religion, and also expect that anything called reform will be viewed warily. Becoming once more a purely oppositional party, the GOP will promote or keep leaders who are good at giving stemwinders and then cutting pretty awful deals with the Democrats. The also-rans of 2008 will bide their time, but will find themselves upstaged by some moderate, big-state governor and the return of Jeb Bush.
Knocking on wood.
For me, the main question is “Will the Neoconservatives finally be exposed for the catastrophic influence they are?”. I imagine they will steer all the blame toward Bush, McCain and Palin; retreat and regroup at their respective think-tanks; attend each other’s lectures and favorably review each other’s books; and then get ready to attach themselves remora-like to the next promising Republican candidate – Jeb himself?
It would be refreshing to see others besides the Reformed Marxists and their loyal children providing the direction and leadership of the GOP, leaving deficit-spending and foreign adventures for the Democrats.
“what will be the aftermath within the GOP?”
A long, long, loooooong period in the wilderness, hopefully with the Gerson/compassionate conservatives/neocons put to rout for all time. Let the GOP focus on races on the state and local level; a renewal of local ideas and institutions. A thorough-going understanding that we are not, in fact, all Georgians or Israelis, and we must look to putting our own house in order first and foremost. A proper understanding of how low party politics ought to rank in the heirarchy of things real conservatives care about.
It will ultimately be good for the conservative soul: It is very difficult to focus on the permanent things when your sole focus is winning the next news cycle.
Since we are almost certainly looking at an Obama administration with greatly expanded Democrat majorities, it will be interesting to watch those progressives who think that this is 1932 or 1964 all over again, to either 1. raise taxes signifigantly in the teeth or a severe recession (I am no supply sider, but large tax increases in a downturn is a bad idea) 2. Radically expand the size and scope of government in the face of a defecit that will be approaching $1 trillion. If we’re facing a severe recession, I’m not sure how we buy all of the cheap Chinese made products that allow them to finance our debt, the cycle that perpetuates the ongoing firesale of American sovereignty.
I hope that Obama is not the empty suit/Chicago machine pol that he seems to be; as he will face an array of challenges that would be daunting even in economically good times, and these will not be economically good times for several years at least. The best we can do is wish him well, and that the cold brick wall of fiscal reality constrains his worst instincts.
“It is hard to know what the Democrats will do with a victory. If the last two years are any indication, they will squander it as recklessly as the Republicans squandered their opportunities”
Without question, though I hold out hope that the current financiers of our profligacy (China, Japan, Gulf Arab states) will finally snatch away the charge card in time.
“Will the Neoconservatives finally be exposed for the catastrophic influence they are?â€
The answer is: probably not. They will claim that McCain was on his way to victory until he a) picked Palin and b) the financial crisis hit, rendering him unelectable. Unfortunately, there is just enough to this claim that they will be able to escape accountability. It’s what they’re best at. They will then spend the next four years kneecapping Obama and second-guessing every move he makes overseas, perhaps even when he advances policies with which they generally agree, and in this way they will assume the leading role in opposing him. Maybe I’m wrong–I am a pessimist, so I tend to see the worse possibilities.
Daniel,
Quick question: I don’t think you’re incorrect about the result on 11-4-08, but could you clarify “blowout”? I honestly don’t expect McCain to do worse than 47% of the vote.
I am guessing Daniel means “electoral blowout”… Politico has it, as of now, at 353 to 185.
As to the neocon question, I agree with Daniel on the answer “No,” they won’t be exposed… but I tend to believe it’s because the average voter doesn’t understand the distinction or even know that it exists. Sure, there is many a voter who agrees with social cons but who don’t quite understand why we’re still in Iraq, but they probably don’t realize that it comes down to two ideological camps, the neos and the paleos (I’m convinced most conservatives fall into one or two of these, at least on the main issue of how we use our military and what we do vis a vis foreign policy).
“1. raise taxes signifigantly in the teeth or a severe recession (I am no supply sider, but large tax increases in a downturn is a bad idea) 2. Radically expand the size and scope of government in the face of a defecit that will be approaching $1 trillion.”
This is what confuses me. Even reformist conservatives (or, more accurately, real orthodox conservatives) like you guys seem to trade on the notion that it’s the Democrats who expand the size and scope of government. But George Bush just expanded government far more than his Democratic predecessor, and if you don’t exclude defense spending– and you shouldn’t– so did Ronald Reagan, the previous two-term Republican president. And Nixon, small government? Forget about it.
What makes you guys think that the Republicans have ever genuinely offered a small government alternative, when it comes to the Presidency?
It’s an interesting exercise to think of who will fill the leadership void for the GOP. It seems that there are a the party could go: The Romney economics way, the Huckabee Jesus way, and the Pawlenty lower-middle class sympathizer. Obviously, there are some overlaps in these three conservatives views and qualities, but I will be curious to see who can rally the cause in the next few years, as there doesn’t seem to be anybody that can tie together the disparate threads of GOP conservatism. As for Jeb Bush, I highly doubt that America will ever vote for a Bush again, even if he is a more attractive option than his brother. The only up and comers I can think of are Jindal and Cantor. Might they have a chance to fill the vacuum?
I seriously hope we’ve put the Bush name to rest for long long time, if not forever.
I smell a realignment, personally. I don’t think the Republicans are the only party due for a good ol’ fashioned leadership fight after the elections and/or if things settle down a little.
nhgriffin -
I don’t see as much gap between Huckabee and Pawlenty as you do (nor, for that matter, do I see Pawlenty as having that much of a class-based agenda/appeal; certainly no more than Huckabee. Could you explain?)
Depends of course on how the next few years play out.
I can’t see Cantor making the big time (unless he converts). I can easily see Jindal being the next big thing. Other than general GOP brand exhaustion, I can’t really see that Jindal is particularly tarred with any of their manifest failures. And as I’ve said before to Daniel, he neutralizes a lot of attacks, but OTOH, and here I disagree with our esteemed host, I fear that he’ll never be “American” enough, notwithstanding his being born here and having lived almost all his life here. Plus he’s not particularly charismatic (although compared to Pawlenty …), and he’s a bit wonkie (neither of those are negatives for me, but for the base – can you imagine him being a red meat thrower? I can’t).
I have to think that people will get angry with the neocon failure as they watch decades of hard work go out the door.
Additionally, the fat cats may finally decide that the war was not worth it as a bigger chunk of their paycheck gets eaten up each month.
The neocons burned down the Republican house with lighting speed. I don’t see how they escape accountability, and I will make a point of bringing this up with every so called conservative I meet.
I take issue with the claim that the Democrats “squandered” their victory of two years ago. Yes, the Democrats took control of Congress. And yes, they did not pull the plug on the war. Some wanted to, but most did not, and that reflects the views of the nation as a whole. They are not at the helm, and the GOP in the Senate went to unprecedented lengths to frustrate even moderate legislative aims.
After insisting earlier this year that Obama could not possibly win because he’s not likely to win a majority of Appalachia, Mr. Larison now admits the possibility of a landslide, but still claims that no good will come of it. If Obama should win in a landslide, and takes the helm with the country in a recession, fighting two wars, and desperate to forget the Bush disaster of the last eight years, why not expect big changes? It’s happened before in our lifetimes, with Reagan. Without a veto to back up their foot-dragging, why would Republicans in Congress not be willing to give a hugely popular President a chance?