Moderate Republicans: Why They Stay In
Democrats-turned-Republicans are famous for saying their party left them, and so they left it. Moderate Republicans today frequently warn of a right-ward shift in their own party, but remain in it. Why?
Over at Bellum: A Project of The Stanford Review, I had the pleasure of interviewing General Brent Scowcroft the other day. Called "Yoda" by Time Magazine, Scowcroft served as deputy national security advisor in the Nixon adminstration, national security advisor in the Ford and George H.W. Bush administrations, and head of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board during the George W. Bush administration. Reagan also appointed him to the Tower Commission. In other words, he's served during every single Republican administration since Nixon.
Consider this provocative quotation:
ME: What is the sustaining force that keeps you in the party? Is it social, cultural...?
SCOWCROFT: I believe very deeply in the two-party system, and I believe it's in jeopardy, and so I want to try to help...It's easy to stop things from happening. To make them happen, you've got to go around the restrictions and cooperate, and that's what is missing right now, and that I find alarming.
This sentiment was similarly expressed by Colin Powell last year on Meet the Press:
MR. GREGORY: Have you thought about leaving the party at any point?
GEN. POWELL: No, not really, because I still think that there is a need for a two-party system and that the Republican Party still has strength in it...I'm not happy with the rightward switch, shift that the party has taken, and I've said this on many occasion, said it in 2008 on this program. And so I'm not about to give up.
Essentially, they are saying the party seems to have changed a bit since they joined, but they still consider themselves Republicans.
Now consider this from former Senator Zell Miller (D-GA), who echoed the cry of many Democrats-turned-Republicans when he stated in 2004:
The Democratic Party today has gone further and further to the left. It's left me, it's left moderates and it's left a lot of people who want to support a strong commander in chief.
When the party left him, he left it.
Do Republicans think about party loyalty differently? Does the fact that both Scowcroft and Powell are former servicemen have something to do with it? Is the GOP more inclusive?
- Comment (52)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments :
Sep '10
Re: Moderate Republicans: Why They Stay In
The left are smart enough to kick them out. We should do the same. Powell is a liar if he says he's a Republican. he endorsed Obama over McCain. I'd call him a liar to his face. So much for civility.
May '10
Re: Moderate Republicans: Why They Stay In
Good on them for staying in. I remember Cheney saying Powell was no longer Republican. Big tent is good, no?
Jan '11
Re: Moderate Republicans: Why They Stay In
Wait, how is Powell lying? Who decides who is a Republican and who is not?
May '10
Re: Moderate Republicans: Why They Stay In
I thank General Powell for his military service, but he has demonstrated repeatedly that he's not a Republican:
He's a fan of big government:
Powell's right, though. The GOP is abandoning him and those like him. For years, government grew under Republicans and Democrats alike. Now, Republicans are actually expected to live up to their rhetoric.
Good riddance.
I suspect there are far more blue-collar Democrats who have been kicked out of the DNC by the liberals and are focused on making the economy strong again.
Re: Moderate Republicans: Why They Stay In
One thing I don't quite understand: do these men favor the two-party system as opposed to a three-party system, or opposed to a one party system? It seems that if it were up to them, the two parties would be nearly indistinguisable and what we'd end up with would in essence be a one-party system. What do they stand for? What principles guide them?
Jan '11
Re: Moderate Republicans: Why They Stay In
My sense is lots of them entrenched as Republicans during and after Vietnam for Cold War reasons, but weren't really concerned with the social issues.
May '10
Re: Moderate Republicans: Why They Stay In
I hadn't considered the Cold War as a primary basis for party loyalty. Good point. I wonder how many voters would change parties over just one or two issues.
Re: Moderate Republicans: Why They Stay In
Tristan Abbey
My sense is lots of them entrenched as Republicans during and after Vietnam for Cold War reasons, but weren't really concerned with the social issues. · Feb 18 at 2:01pm
But the Cold War is over. And they aren't concerned with fiscal issues or social issues or anything of much lasting import. Doesn't this makes them irrelevant? Why should they determine the shape and scope of the party if they have nothing to contribute?
Oct '10
Re: Moderate Republicans: Why They Stay In
They're not moderate republicans. Rudy Giuliani and Chris Christie are moderates Rs. I consider Powell an "Independent" now.
Dec '10
Re: Moderate Republicans: Why They Stay In
Moderates stay in the Republican party because the other national party is much, much more polarized.
And more repugnant to boot.
Jul '10
Re: Moderate Republicans: Why They Stay In
True Diane, but foreign policy isn't over. It is important, and dems do tend to surrender first and ask questions later. I think these guys serve a purpose in our coalition. Mostly because huge swathes of the electorate agree with John:
Consequently, Brent and Colin have credibility that plenty of sharp ideologues lack.
On this issue:
you're absolutely right. It's creepy. We should oppose them. But, their one party state wouldn't be run by surrender monkeys. Which is why they're useful.
Edited on Feb 18, 2011 at 6:08pmNov '10
Re: Moderate Republicans: Why They Stay In
Great point. I was just about to think of that myself.
Jul '10
Re: Moderate Republicans: Why They Stay In
I don't think you can draw any conclusions based upon Scowcroft and Powell. They are both careerists whose careers were nurtured at the bosom of the GOP establishment. It makes perfect sense for them to remain there, in their own self-interest.
Jun '10
Re: Moderate Republicans: Why They Stay In
Where is Colin Powell's concern that the Democrat Party has veered too far to the Left and is now dominated by politicians who are happy to admit that they are members of the Democratic Socialists of America and a President, who Powell most enthusiastically supported, who was once mentored by a Communist, considered a radical Marxist-Leninist in college, befriended a known and unrepentant terrorist who attacked the Pentagon, and who was active in socialist circles in Chicago?
Is the former general and Secretary of State simply stupid? Or does he refuse to learn the truth? Sadly, my previous respect for him in the days of the first Gulf War have completely disintegrated. I don't care if calls himself a Republican...to me he has demonstrated that he is simply a buffoon and no longer worth listening to.
Edited on Feb 21, 2011 at 11:19amJun '10
Re: Moderate Republicans: Why They Stay In
Diane Ellis, Ed.
Tristan Abbey
My sense is lots of them entrenched as Republicans during and after Vietnam for Cold War reasons, but weren't really concerned with the social issues. · Feb 18 at 2:01pm
But the Cold War is over. And they aren't concerned with fiscal issues or social issues or anything of much lasting import. Doesn't this makes them irrelevant? Why should they determine the shape and scope of the party if they have nothing to contribute? · Feb 18 at 3:46pm
The Cold War between the Soviet Union and the West may be over but the philosophical war between Marxist ideology and the idea of America rages on. Unfortunately Powell doesn't see it. Those in the Tea Party movement see it and comprehend what's happening to this country and Powell discredits them for being too extreme. Someday he may have an epiphany and apologize for being so blind.
Sep '10
Re: Moderate Republicans: Why They Stay In
In true RINO squish fashion, it makes little difference whether Republican or Democrat. Huge speaking fees and a big pension mean that he's part of the Ruling Class and the US doesn't think much of turncoats who abandon their party. Much better to work from within and get what he wants. He almost has.
Oct '10
Re: Moderate Republicans: Why They Stay In
I find it revealing that both Powell and Scowcroft stated that they "believe deeply in the two party system". I find this widely held belief interesting. The party system is extra-constitutional and was not envisioned as a two party system at the time of the founding. From my reading of the circumconstitutional literature there were no debates about parties at the convention or during the ratification. I find no mention of party in the Federalist or Anti-federalist liturature. Washington decried the evils of party in his farewell address. It seems to have come about initially through the actions of Jefferson who organized the oppostion as a counterweight to the more united and well organized Federalists, who consolidated power under the Washington administration.
Ergo, the idea of a two party system is a product of tradition not of constitutionalism. Why does it have such power over the minds of American politicians?
Edited on Feb 21, 2011 at 12:56pmJun '10
Re: Moderate Republicans: Why They Stay In
I know a lot of usually reliable Republicans who voted for Obama, for a host of reasons ranging from Bush/McCain/RNC fatigue to the hope of racial equalization. They're not any less Republican for being squishy or for making a mistake at the ballot box. Not conservatives, certainly, but they're still Republicans. I think Powell and Snowcroft can be excused for thinking "new boss, same as the old boss", given how long they've been in the political arena.
Oct '10
Re: Moderate Republicans: Why They Stay In
In their current form the parties are two faces of the same statist coin!
Jan '11
Re: Moderate Republicans: Why They Stay In
I distinctly remember, thirty years ago, my college professor saying that a political party has no natural content. It's simply a group of people who are willing to put up with each other long enough to acquire a ruling majority. That's why you can have a big tent; there's no hard and fast connection between party and ideology. Party is more about people. You usually share a party with people you agree with ideologically, but it isn't absolute.
Rudy Giuliani and I disagree about some social issues, but we completely agree on the need for law and order. I'm willing to put up with Rudy's mistaken social views (my bias is showing) if I can tap into his talent as an executive. It's precisely because we make policy distinctions that we can agree and disagree on various issues. From such distinctions are political alliances made.
We can debate ideologically, but still happily remain political allies. I'd say the same for Scowcroft. For Powell, the problem is that he voted for the liberal Democrat. He broke that alliance.
Edited on Feb 21, 2011 at 1:11pm