Bloodless Coup

It is certainly true that, as Broder says, "More and more traditional conservatives are complaining that the Bush administration is wrecking their heritage, with its reckless military, foreign and fiscal policies and its disregard for the law", and that as he goes on to say, the political environment is changing. I don't see any movement toward bipartisanship, though; rather, I think the GOP is teetering on the edge of a nasty period of infighting. Likewise, I don't see these supposed independent lights defying the noisy portions of the GOP base but rather REACTING to them -- the libertarains and the supply-siders and even some of the evangelicals are ripshit right now at this very un-conservative administration, and their voices are getting louder.

The environment might be changing - but I don't see it really changing in ways that Broder wants - an end to partisanship (it is to laugh) and extremism, in favor of "centrism". On the latter Broder seems to be praising style over substance (so sadly predictable) since centrism is a meaningless term that stands for nothing specific (in the policy arena), except that it isn't whatever is considered extreme on a given day.

And while there are more and more Republicans upset with President the Decider, I don't see many signs in his party that it's becoming less partisan or extreme. In terms of extreme - well look at all the Club for Growth candidates winning contested primaries all across the country. They are having a very good year, in one case even defeating an incumbent Congressman (in Michigan). And in the best known case where the "centrist" Republican won a primary - well that was probably in large part due to the activiation of the national Republican GOTV network - and what's more partisan than that?

Tactially, the GOP will try to hold together for as long as they have power. If they keep both the House and the Senate, they'll paper over whatever differences they have and march forward: they still need to both govern and field a candidate in 2008, both of which they can't do if they fall apart.

If they lose both the House and the Senate, they'll collapse. The can't sustain the social conservatives, "club for growth", globalization, anti-immigration, libertarian, and generally moderate factions in the face of that catastrophic an electoral loss (especially since Bush has awful approval ratings). It will get very, very messy, as everyone blames everyone else's policy for causing the collapse; however, there isn't a high likelihood of this.

The interesting question is what happens if they lose one house (not both). That might be enough to trigger a collapse, but I don't think so. They still would be the dominant force in Washington politics, but there would be some serious centripital forces pushing this strange coalition apart. It will certainly weaken them for 2008 (unless they can successfully blame the single Democratic part of Congress for everything; this isn't unlikely).

As Armand notes: a "centrist" really isn't anything at this point. It means less extreme than others in the party, but that's not clear position (moreover, as the extremes get more extreme, a centrist can look fairly extreme anyway).

I think the GOP will be forced to make itself less extreme when it loses some election at some point (when that is, I dunno). On the other hand, have you seen what passes for "centrist" in some very Red states in our glorious midwest? There are some peopel walking around holding some political positions that just don't seem American to me. And rather than discouraging them, the present GOP seems to be encouraging them (telling them what they want to hear), in order to get their vote. That's going to come back and bite them at some point.

However, while they have power, they have an incentive to huddle together. I can't see anything "centrist" or "moderate" coming out of that.

Baltar: I disagree. I think the moment Bush is a lame duck, the whole thing starts to unravel. He is too far from the GOP's bases now.

What sort of "un-American" positions are you thinking about? I don't have firsthand exposure to red-state dynamics, but many of my friends are connected to the Cambridge/Somerville Democratic apparatus -- arguably ground zero of the rabid American left -- and they certainly hold some "un-American" positions, as well as some just plain divorced-from-objective-reality views, so I'm willing to believe that their right-side counterparts are similarly radicalized.

I was mostly thinking of social conservative ih the heartland: they want a far different interpretation of "separation of church and state" than I could ever fathom. They also tend to have very reactionary views on homosexuality, immigration, and other social issues. I'm an ex-Republican, but I suspect I would feel closer to those in Cambridge than in Kansas or Idaho.

If it starts to unravel when Bush is a lame duck, then everything goes to hell in just a few weeks. I don't see that. The Republicans recognize that they need to remain more-or-less united behind Bush; if they fly apart, that hurts their ability to hold both the White House and Congress in 2008. They don't want to lose that badly.

But Bushism can't win another election. To hold the White House, the GOP nominee will have to run on something other than "staying the course".

And yeah, I'm quite sure you'd like these folks a lot better than you'd like the average Idaho churchgoer, even if their political pronouncements/conspiracy theories would make your eyes pop out every now and then.

I'm an ex-Republican

Dude, last I checked you were still a republican. A completely disaffected and alienated republican, holding onto the shred of the party that still believes in liberty and that conservatism is rooted in privacy, but still...

Baltar and I are about the last members of that particular party, it seems. Maybe we should rename it.

Actually, why wouldn't the 2008 GOP nominee run on "staying the course" (especially if nothing much changes over the next two years)? Again, if the party fractures, then that will make it look bad, and make it harder to run. A party that "looks" like everyone is happy, united, successful and winning is one that will do better on election day. There is every incentive to keep everything together. Moreover, every separate interest group has an incentive to stay in the tent; at least if your part of the winning side, you have a chance to get what you want.

Only after they have lost will we see collapse: then the disparate elements have to find a new strategy (since the old one didn't work), and that will cause the facturing.

Binky, I don't think my brand of Republicanism is ever coming back. It died with Chafee (Senior).

Maybe we should rename it

Or yourselves. Something like, "british."

Only if I can be a Viscount or a Duke or something. That would be cool.

Ah, Tony Blair's England, that well-known bastion of low taxes and individual liberty.

I hear Auckland is nice this time of year, though.

As I've said before, by resemblance, you must be this dude's long lost cousin or something. His family's got imperial connection (albeit to the Turkish empire).

Hey, I applied for a job in New Zealand. They're moderately socialist, but at least they don't have either Islamic fundamentalist trying to blow them up, or governments seeking permission to torture to prevent that.