A 2nd Pick, not a 2nd choice…
President Bush is confronted with a historic opportunity in naming a new successor to the Supreme Court Associate Justice seat held by Sandra Day O’Conner, but one wonders whether or not he will avail himself of the promises made in 2000 and 2004 to name someone reflective of a conservative philosophy to the court in place of O’Conner.
Failing his first two tests of presidential leadership concerning reconfiguarion of the judiciary by forwarding John Roberts as chief justice rather than a dependable stalwart like Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia, and in failing to back the Republican party in the Senate when they pondered the Nuclear option, Bush must carefully consider his next appointment, lest he completely alienate the base that has carried him and the Republican party to their electoral success.
While the hard left would openly rally to challenge a conservative nominee, there is a greater substantive risk in abandoning the hard right for the Republican party– Bush and companions have never counted on the backing of Planned Parenthood members, NARALites, or ACLU members at election time. They cannot win without the likes of Focus on the Family, Operation Rescue, and think tank backing from places like the Heritage Foundation mobilizing voters and creating issues for electoral fodder.
Conservatives have carried their electoral pre-eminence to every level of American government that can be reached by the ballot box- 10 consecutive Republican Congresses, and a 7-3 advantage in the last 10 presidential elections. At the state level, Republican govenorships are at an unprecidented level, and Republicans control more state legislative bodies outright than the Democrats. It is difficult to overstate how thorough the victories of the Republican party have been over the last 10 years in particular, as it broke through historical lethargy that had previously religated it to what was seemingly indefinite minority party status in legislative bodies.
What has mobilized voters to vote Republican? Social issues are a key factor– school prayer, abortion, special rights for minorities [affirmative action, homosexual entitlements], and a myriad of unpopular Court decisions that have expressed an animus to the way of life of middle-America. To these people, the Supreme Court hasn’t been a neutral force in forty years– it has engaged in a systematic assault upon the core values of the American people– and now they expect the President they took to the White House to do something to correct this situation. They will be naturally wary- they remember David Souter all-too well, and are antsy about John Roberts as a second coming of the trojan liberal.
How serious are both ends of the spectrum about the coming battle? It promises to dwarf the $35 million spent in advocacy concerning the Roberts nomination, with some estimates coming in closer to the $100 million mark. Phone banks and national contact drives are already being planned logistically by both the Right and the Left; lists of nominees are being vetted privately by every major organization on each side of the spectrum, and everyone is ready for a fight. Even this correspondent has waded into the fray with a private donation for advocacy– something it is hard to get an evil money-grubbing Conservative to do willingly.
For many, this is bigger than 2000 or 2004. These are rarer opportunities than Presidential elections, and have consequences that last decades without opportunity to revisit decisions. As both sides prepare for battle, the question remains if this is a conservative Midway or the culture war’s Stalingrad.
Great post, publius (though it’s O’Connor, btw). I really enjoyed reading this, and I think you’re right on pretty much all counts.
So let me toss out a tangent for discussion. I’d argue (this is a pretty orthodox poli sci view) that the New Deal coalition that the Dems rode to dominance in the 30s began to break up in the late 1960s as civil rights became a more and more important issue. Over the next 20 years, the South realigned toward the GOP, and the Dem base began to fracture as more and more of its legislative goals were met.
Ok, so fast forward to 2005. Today, the GOP is the dominant party, and is such because it has become the “big tent” party. Specifically, I’m talking about the melding of social/religious conservatism popular in the “heartland” (methland?) and economic conservatism that has more appeal to the traditional monied Republican coastal core.
Therein, says I, lies the fault line of the fracture. The coastal old-money wealthies do not tend to be socially conservative or particularly religious. By the same token, social and religious conservatives in the south and midwest tend to be middle class at best; in fact, most self-identified religious conservatives are working class. In MO, at least, the working, rural poor are really getting stirred up over Gov. Blunt’s huge cuts in Medicaid and a perceived lack of results on core social issues – the same problems that kept religious conservatives away from the polls in 1992 and 1996.
Well, Bush can’t run for re-election, and there’s definitely no heir apparent, so this opens up some interesting opportunities for speculation. I think the smart money is on McCain as the Republican nominee in 2008, and while he’s a solid conservative, he won’t be the darling of the Christian right that President Bush has been. They’ll support him (77%+ lifetime rating from the Christian Coalition), but they probably won’t love him.
Which, IMO, is good for the Republican Party. McCain would be a darling of the center and probably palatable to independents. After all, he’s a “maverick” who only votes with his party 94% of the time.
Anyway, discuss: fault lines in the Republican coalition? 2008 nominee? Anything else going on out there?
The 2008 question is a valid one; I think the fault line you describe will not come into play until the Democratic party divests itself of the addiction of government as gauraunteeor of the social welfare.
As much as Republicans like to call themselves the party of small government, they are at least more open to private individuals, organizations, and industries pursuing matters on their own, without government’s heavy hand on the pulse at all times. While still spending like a drunken sailor on shore leave, they at least don’t have the knee-jerk reaction of rolling back tax cuts, or of imposing thousands of pages of new regulation. The Democratic party turns inward to its most liberal members to give them the platform– its Barbra Boxers and Ted Kennedys , not Mark Pyrors or Joe Liebermans that sets the agenda of the Democratic party — and that is electoral suicide. If they ever wake up to that fact, they would be quite more than formiddable in presidential elections– as it is, they are often out of it before they even get started.
As for the Republicans, 2008 is very much in doubt. I think Frist is out, though I think he would be extremely popular with the base– he needs to have any allegation of impropriety cleared quickly, if he is to make a run at the nomination. McCain will be the media’s darling– he’s like a more-media friendly version of Bush [though both would be aghast to hear it, as would the media] — and to many on the right wing of the party, he is too quietly casting his conservative votes, very much leading them to question whether its really McCain’s philosophy, or McCain the Candidacy. There are a lot of the members of the core of the party who have a fundamental distrust of McCain- unless he finds some way to get the party machinery on his side, they will fight him tooth and nail and clog up his nomination prospects.
I expect he will be the Republican equivalent of Howard Dean in 2008. News news everywhere, but a base that fundamentally distrusts him, and goes with someone ‘more dependable’ — Jeb Bush comes to mind immediately, as does George Allen, especially if Frist bows out early or cannot run; if its in doubt on Super Tuesday, Jeb wins going away.
Should be interesting. I expect the joy-gasam of CNN and the networks if McCain wins the nomination to give way to ‘wary professionalism’ as they try to defeat him in the general election.
“I think the fault line you describe will not come into play until the Democratic party divests itself of the addiction of government as gauraunteeor of the social welfare.”
Well, if my analysis is correct, this will benefit the Dems, right? If the socially conservative but financially vulnerable working class comes to fear seriously the loss of gov’t-guaranteed benefits like social security, it’s to the Dems that they should swing. People tend to vote pocketbook more than values, at least when pocketbook is hurting.
“While still spending like a drunken sailor on shore leave, they at least don’t have the knee-jerk reaction of rolling back tax cuts”
This is a good thing? Increasing spending and cutting taxes is a pretty disastrous policy, isn’t it?
It’s interesting to me to hear your assessment of McCain. He’s been in the Senate for quite a while now, and his record is very conservative, on both the social and economic fronts, though moreso on the latter. I would think that a soft-spoken, principled conservative of immaculate pedigree would be an ideal choice for the Republicans. I can’t understand why the base doesn’t trust him – his record is near-spotless.
How about Sam Brownback for the base? I don’t think there’s any way Jeb Bush gets anything, if for no other reason than the easily-fanned specter of dynastic politics. His conservative credentials are impeccable, though, aside from the immigration issue, but we are not talking about the Party of Buchanan.
It’s quite ironic to hear you claim that the Dems aren’t formidable in Presidential elections, when Gore won the popular vote and even sucktastic candidate Kerry garnered 48% of the vote against a reasonably popular incumbent. I’d think Republicans should be very concerned that the Dems will be smart enough to nominate something like an Evan Bayh / Wes Clark ticket.
… I would say your analysis would be correct, if people widely percieved that the Republican party was eliminating benefits, rather than expanding them with government largess as it is now.
The flip side of this is that economic growth is flying right along, to the point that government tax reciepts in the first quarter were nearly $100 billion ahead of projections– that does a lot to take some of the bite off of even larger deficit numbers that are financing these Republican splurges.
Tax cut roll backs will stifle growth; as federal reciepts now are higher than they ever were pre-tax cut and are continuing to grow, it makes no sense to choke of the goose that is laying a golden egg, in the form of a robust economy that holds the best hope of balancing the budget, as I don’t expect Congress to be spendthrift with an election cycle coming up in ‘06.
I didn’t say they weren’t formiddable– I said they would be quite more than formiddable, were they to embrace the Clarks, Old Style Gores, and Lieberman’s of the party. They would be prohibitive favorites in many regards.
I would be far more concerned, as a Republican, if the organic machinery of the Democratic power was headed by a John Edwards, than a Howard Dean– if the organizing committee for the Convention platform had more Soccer moms and fewer NARALits or PETAphiles.
The criticism of Jeb is fair; its just very tempting to go with a popular, pro-hispanic, keystone state candidate with that kind of profile.
As far as McCain goes, one need look no further than The Straight Talk Express– McCain attempted to derail what the party bosses had deemed inevitable, the nomination of GHWB, and he invited the Enemy [make no mistake-- the Right regards MSM as the enemy]– into the heart of the fray. I can count from memory at least a dozen former state chairmen who won’t even speak with McCain– and those are the folks who leverage the Republican party organizations.
I don’t mind Sam Brownback, but the Republican party is highly conscious of profile in their candidates– and Brownback, despite being reliable, doesn’t have the profile necessary for electoral success in the long term.
Let me clarify– its one thing for the Democrats to be a party of Social Welfare– its quite another for them to advocate even larger largess than the Republicans, and link it to tax-hikes. That’s a prescription for voter-assisted suicide. People don’t want a party that’s vocally pro-Government growth– they want one that quietly maintains and expands the state, while growing the economy fast enough to maintain it all.
Eventually, one party or the other is going to present the public with the poison pill of curbing spending. More than likely, it will be the Republicans– and it will mean short term electoral hardship for them, and the real imperilment of their status as a majority party. I don’t expect it before 2010, as the Republicans will look to ramp up their advantage to 60 in the Senate and make a fillabuster-proof majority to give the much needed medicine to the body politic. Hopefully it will be in time.
“[...]if people widely percieved that the Republican party was eliminating benefits,”
At least down here in southeastern MO, the rural poor, overwhelmingly conservative, are hammering Gov. Blunt, who is really trying to eviscerate Medicaid. One of the few benefits of being entirely out of power is that there’s only so much the Dems can be blamed for. Besides our fundamentally traitorous nature, that is.
“[G]overnment tax reciepts in the first quarter were nearly $100 billion ahead of projections”
It’s $54 billion, tops (Washington Post, May 5, 2005), and “Budget analysts inside and outside the government said the positive turn is likely to be short-lived.” (Ibid.) Not to mention the $80 billion war supplemental (Bush’s budgets don’t include war spending) or the $63 billion (and ticking) that’s already been appropriated for Katrina aid.
GDP is growing reasonably well, but almost entirely from productivity increases, which is not always a good thing. Real disposable income has been decreasing for the past 5 years, job creation is less than flat, and consumer debt is at all time highs. Not the best economic picture, certainly not “robust,” and neither are tax receipts predicted to continue to rise. In fact, the true costs of the 2001 and 2002 tax cuts will not really be manifest until 2006 and 2007, because the budget projections they’re based on all assume those cuts will expire in 2005.
I don’t think we’ve seen the last of John Edwards. I hope I’m right about that, he was by far the best thing about the Kerry ticket…and I think Edwards is way more liberal than Dean, whose record as governor of the Syrup State was pretty centrist.
I didn’t know that inside dope on McCain, it’s very interesting. Of course, politics makes strange bedfellows, and if Pat Robertson can say he’d endorse Giuliani if he were the Republican nominee, I’d expect the state chairs would fall in place behind McCain. I hope I’m wrong, though, because I think he’d win the Presidency in a walk.
2 predictions: neither party gets 60 Senators in either of our lifetimes, and neither majority party even mentions any serious tax increase until we’re in DIRE financial straits.
I’m unfamiliar with your term “homosexual entitlement.” Care to clarify?
It is an umbrella term for the active political injection of homosexuality into the daily lives of Americans– it covers everything from same-sex unions to inclusion of homosexuality related materials in multicultural studies, to homosexual participation in the military. It is an entitlement mentality in the sense that there are concrete attempts to enscone advantages into law.
At the risk of sounding tongue-in-cheek, what’s the advantage of participating in the military?
But seriously, I suppose I’m not entirely sure why some of the things you’ve listed are “advantages” (as opposed to simply participation in functions of society) or how it relates to the “entitlement mentality” often ascribed (in a negative manner) to poor people.
I grant that there is what you call an “active political injection of homosexuality” (though I’m sure I don’t see it quite that crassly) but I don’t understand where that fits into entitlement or advantages.
Because they are not questions of equal rights– no one actively blocks homosexual participation in civil society– they are creation of special rights. Things like the inclusion of Homosexuals in affirmative action measures, the creation of homosexual marriage– those are material advantages. Homosexuals already have a right to wed– just like every other single person who has opted to not marry a partner of the opposite sex. Just because they have an affinity for their own gender is no reason to give them preferential treatment to others who make the same choice not to exercise their marriage rights.
Ultimately, its not crass; its frank– and frankly, most of America wants no part of the Homosexual agenda.