Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
What’s a Party for?
What is a political party? By the intensity of internecine conflict among Republicans, you might conclude that it’s a church. Senator Ted Cruz is among the leading voices of a faction that wants to treat the Republican Party as a confession – singing to the choir, denouncing heretics, and damning sinners to hell.
This appears to be part conviction and part political calculation on Sen. Cruz’s part. He’s fully convinced that a Republican can win in 2016 by energizing the base. “The evangelical vote,” a Cruz strategist told National Journal, “is the largest unfished pond of voters – it’s a frickin’ ocean.” Convinced that dispirited white, evangelical voters stayed home in recent elections but can be roused by a sectarian candidate, Cruz barreled into Washington DC in 2013 spitting fire not just at Democrats but at his own party too. They were all part of the “Washington cartel,” he thundered. Republican leaders were not just weak or ineffective — they were treacherous.
A terrible thing happened on the way to Cruz’s plan to ride popular outrage with his own party to the Republican presidential nomination: Trump offered an even more attractive brew of misdirected anger and indignation. If the Republican Party is now being hijacked by Trumpkins – and I truly pray that it is not — Sen. Ted Cruz is hardly in a position to protest. He helped stack the tinder for this auto da fe.
This is not to say that Republicans have enjoyed unblemished leadership during the Obama years – but that’s not the point. Cruz indicted the Republican House and Senate leadership, and nearly all of his colleagues, for cowardice and cupidity. It was this, and not Cruz’s firm conservatism, that alienated fellow senators. It was all a carefully choreographed prelude to his bid for a great swell of white, evangelical Protestants he hopes to inspire to his standard.
So what is a political party for? The Democrats seem to have long since decided that their party is a coalition of interest groups: blacks, women, gays, Hispanics, Asians, and unions. For the past few decades, the Republican Party has rejected identity politics in favor of smaller government and more individual liberty, more free enterprise, a strong national defense, and traditional values. The party I joined did not seek to vindicate the interests of white people, or the native born, or Christian conservatives. It was open to all who shared its principles.
Trump represents a total collapse of Republicanism in favor of nativism, protectionism (that worked so well with Smoot-Hawley), and American-style Putinism. If he were nominated, he would be soundly defeated. Trump is viewed more unfavorably than any other candidate, including Hillary Clinton. He peddles identity politics for white people, but even most white people disdain that. For what it’s worth, I could not vote for him, for these and many other reasons.
Cruz’s strategy is a bit more subtle, but also includes polarizing the nation – thus his dig at “New York values.” As outlined by National Review’s Eliana Johnson, Cruz’s theory rests upon belief in the “missing evangelicals.” Many pixels have been expended on the subject of voters who stayed home in 2012. When 42.5 percent of eligible voters refrain from voting, millions of African Americans, Hispanics, and others are also on the list of nonvoters.
The case for a wave of previously unmotivated evangelicals flocking to the polls for Cruz is shaky at best. Consider that the last time a Republican won a presidential election (2004), evangelicals comprised 23 percent of the electorate and Bush won 78 percent of their votes. In 2012, they represented 26 percent of voters, and Romney won the same share, 78 percent, but still lost. Besides, the 2012 drop in voter turnout was much less pronounced in the battleground states that really decided the election than in places like Oklahoma, West Virginia, and Arkansas, where an evangelical tide would not have changed the outcome.
Or consider the sobering possibility that evangelicals are not all that conservative. Among evangelical voters today, according to an NBC poll, fully 37 percent support Trump, with only 20 percent backing Cruz. As he watched Jerry Falwell Jr endorse Donald Trump, Senator Cruz saw his theory circle the drain.
The appeal to groups as groups is the bane of modern politics. The resort to shrill appeals to “base” voters on either side is shredding our national unity. To succeed, the Republican Party will have to win the votes of moderates as well as conservatives in states like Florida, Virginia, New Hampshire, Ohio, Colorado, and Nevada. A conservative can do that with a straightforward pitch to Americans as Americans. Anything less is unworthy – and unlikely to be successful.
Published in General
I am a Cruz guy at heart, but at this point I don’t see why it’s unreasonable to assume Trump won’t be the nominee. This race is less about so-called true conservative witch hunting (NR) than it is about globalism vs. nationalism.
Trump supporters, even the rock-ribbed conservatives, don’t care whether or not he is principled. Trump is running, above anything else, as an American. Trumpkins like his purported America-first policies. They like his unabashed nationalism, because until now many voters are angry and disaffected with both parties because they believe that both parties, the GOP especially, have put the interests of the “donor class”, Wall Street, and cheap labor ahead of what’s best for the country.
Mona makes some laudable points, but Americans are angered by the “establishment,” and they are beginning to see Cruz as just another pawn in the game.
Did I just defend The Donald? Inadvertently, yes, but I’m just calling it like I see it. I’m not in the business of choosing candidates and will vote for the GOP nominee regardless of who it is, but I don’t think it’ll be Cruz (unfortunately).
Mona Charen: “Trump represents a total collapse of Republicanism in favor of nativism, protectionism (that worked so well with Smoot-Hawley), and American-style Putinism. … He peddles identity politics for white people, but even most white people disdain that. For what it’s worth, I could not vote for him, for these and many other reasons.”
I believe, Mona, that this is, roughly speaking, the 117th time you’ve alluded to Trump (and by extension his supporters) as nativist, at least borderline racist, etc. We get it. And while it isn’t worth a great deal (to me at least) whether or not you could vote for him, it might mean a great deal to the Democrat nominee. Speaking of which, what do you make of his newest supporters, those nativist knuckle-draggers Bob Dole, Trent Lott, Orin Hatch and John McCain, who apparently could vote for him?
Oh. I cannot wait to see her long post her supporting Rubio. Man, she could have jumped in on that thread here that we had last week. Would have loved to engage her on that.
Must all be racists.
Also, what do we mean by nativist?
I looked it up:
1.
the policy of protecting the interests of native inhabitants against those of immigrants.
Protecting the interests of Americans over the interests of people moving here is something that Mona thinks is a bad thing?
When Obama had a supermajority, he was able to advance his positions. Since then, conservatives have done pretty well. We have more abortion restrictions, more gun rights, more border security, more school choice, more self defense rights, fewer unions, a smaller portion of our economy being spent on government, more free trade, a higher degree of support for American military action, etc. etc. etc. They got gay marriage, and… What?
It’s true that their side have won some victories on budgets, but we have too. Even if we were losing, there’s a big difference between a contested loss and a blowout, and Democrats haven’t been able to deliver on their campaign promises of taxing and spending any more than they’ve been able to do so on GITMO.
I think that it’s a matter of degree; Mona’s not a Reason Magazine or The Nation style extremist on the subject, but it’s probably the case that one can be more enthusiastic about antipathy to immigrants than is helpful.
I’d also urge Mona to ask your fellow co-host on ‘Need o Agree’, Jay Nordlinger why he’s a bigot? Does love of classical music trump (cards not comb-over) bigotry? Wagner trumps Klan?
I keep hearing about Cruz’s evangelical fire and anger, but all of his proposals are solid, calm headed and, in my view right. So where do we get the religious fervor and anger from? The media, whispers from Congressional leadership? He did call Mitch McConnell a liar, but McConnell lied to him. That doesn’t bother Ms Charen but his reaction does?
Mona is happily married to her own ideas. She’s going to come here to the singles mixer looking for something new. Not Mona Charen.
James, last time it was Kansas City, but in reading your comment, I was curious…
“When Obama had a supermajority, he was able to advance his positions. Since then, conservatives have done pretty well. We have more abortion restrictions, more gun rights, more border security, more school choice, more self defense rights, fewer unions, a smaller portion of our economy being spent on government, more free trade, a higher degree of support for American military action, etc. etc. etc. They got gay marriage, and… What?
It’s true that their side have won some victories on budgets, but we have too. Even if we were losing, there’s a big difference between a contested loss and a blowout, and Democrats haven’t been able to deliver on their campaign promises of taxing and spending …
So the Dems have gotten a complete makeover of 15% of our economy that will soon lead to control of all health care, and an unpopular shift in traditional marriage, not to mention an adoration of Gay and Transgender proclivities that is leading to making it unlawful to even disagree. This is a huge shift in societal norms performed almost entirely through the courts and pop culture, with nary a winning popular vote anywhere in the country regarding these positions. But the GOP with a huge victory in 2010, sideways in 2012, and an historic win in 2014 has gotten what? Oh, they’ve nibbled at a few margins. Hard to be impressed.
these proxy arguments in service of Rubio without just coming out and endorsing the guy are a bit tiresome
“What’s a Party For?”
Apparently to nominate only my favorite, or I am not voting…maybe even switching to the other Party. Is that what Mona is saying?
I agree that Democrats got a lot from their supermajority and the White House. Republican successes at a Federal level were not equivalent to that (no supermajority, no White House) but I think you’ll find that they more than nibbled at the margins.
In terms of the judicial stuff, the Constitution has been moved in a conservative direction on speech, religion, guns, takings, excessive fines, somewhat on abortion, and the Tenth Amendment. We lost on gays. Does that seem like such a terrible swap?
This is an interesting post and commentary. Mona Charen presents a case and facts. I have the voting pattern detail from 2012 and her case is factual. Evangelicals are not going to make the difference in much of anything going into the future except in selecting the GOP candidate – and even there their influence is waning. Their numbers, their drift away from conservative positions, and their voting lassitude are making them a minoriity of a minority. If they could vote 93% for one candidate, they might be felt in national elections. But, they don’t.
Speaking of bloc voting, Hispanics and minorities are unlikely to determine the outcome in 2016 either. They don’t live in the right places to make much of a difference in the total Electoral College Voting. Nate Silver has analyzed this point into a corner too.
No, the people who will make a difference this time are mostly white and mostly college educated and getting younger. They are socially flexible and fiscally worried, but they are not opposed to government like so many on Ricochet. They (like the Tea Party constituency) don’t want to see government spending cut, but some (and this is just the opposite of the Tea Party, small government crowd) want to see Social Security and even Medicare gradually adjusted and delayed. They want to replace Obamacare, not do away with it. They are amendable to bloc granting Education, welfare and most of the Federal government social programs to the states. But they are not for small government if you add up all the programs they want to see funded.
So while some may rail at Mona with ad hominem attacks, her point is a point that is a fact and will soon get shoved down our throats, again. We can cry “Remember the Alamo” or shout, “I want small government” all we wish, but we are unlikely to carry the day – Election Day.
Trump is about, “You got a raw deal. I can negotiate a better deal.”
Cruz is about, “Shame on those who are wrong. I can take us back where we once were.”
Rubio is about, “We are a great nation with a great future.”
The rest are about, “Look at me, please look at me, if you don’t I won’t have a future.”
The vision the candidate has about the future is what appeals to voters in the General Election. The reality is 2016 should be an even match between the GOP and Democrats despite that fact that 26% of voters identify as Republican’s and maybe 35% of those who vote are Republican’s. If the GOP nominates someone who appeals to them, Independents will vote GOP. The issue is how tough is the GOP candidate on social issues that can scare voters and how likely is the candidate to help the voter do better. Despite the advantage the GOP has, it is not a given even with Hillary, Joe, Bernie, or Elizabeth on the ticket. The Dems show up with more voters who are registered Democrat and a better mobilization effort. Despite what Trump claims about the loyalty of his followers, the Democrats could actually elect a felon, convicted or not. They will begin a general election with 240 Electoral Votes and a billion dollars.
Right. Our wins, like their wins, are reversible. Does the fact that their wins are reversible mean that they’re not wins? It’s my impression that they’re not. If we win the White House this cycle, our Constitutional successes should be locked in for a long time (if both Scalia and Thomas retire after Kennedy, we could hold the Court with a majority unprecedented since the 1920s and hold it for a generation or more).
Because the country is set to implement radical reforms in either direction, this election is absolutely essential, but getting to this point has been a huge fight of which conservatives should feel justly proud.
What wins of theirs have been reversed exactly?
James, what’s the chance that Ginsburg will quit this year for Obama to make another appointment? Anybody heard anything?
I think the Senate would be more than justified to just not approve anyone with less than a year to go.
That’s a thought — you are surely correct that they could delay things for quite a while.
I don’t think thats true, but it would certainly be huge battle. all the presidential candidates being forced to chime in.
Just don’t let it come to a vote, or vote them all down. He got two. Too late for more. I’d not approve one more judge for any reason.
Sorry, but that sounds like dreaming to me. Remember we are dealing with McConnell and most of the R’s who are too scared to fight. And Cruz will be campaigning with no time to filibuster. I have my doubts they would have the cajones to stop Obama.
Once again Mona [my favorite Rico pundit] cellos in the Emerald City while the country burns. The remedy for jingoism and chauvinism is not masochism and self-loathing, it’s a healthy self awareness and self respect. In Mona’s world any objection to the Niagara of illegal immigration is nativism and racism:
The party I joined did not seek to vindicate the interests of white people, or the native born, or Christian conservatives. It was open to all who shared its principles…
He peddles identity politics for white people, but even most white people disdain that.
Where has he ever done that? I have seen him reach out to African Americans victimized by illegal criminals. Why do you ignore the courage of the African Americans that suffer the taunts of apostasy and “Uncle Tom” for our principles? Why do you ignore Trump’s frequent lead among Hispanics as well? Mona all we’re asking for is an immigration system as hard-hearted and mean-spirited as Canada or Australia. Unfettered illegal immigration has hurt the Weimar Republicans as badly as hyperinflation hurt the responsible parties in Germany in the interwar period. You shouldn’t be surprised that we have our own strongman coming to the rescue.
I think the issue there is that much of the establishment is still (to use Franco’s analogy) married to Jeb!, and doesn’t want to get caught stepping out with Rubio until the divorce is final. If Bush & co don’t have an enemies list to rival the Clinton list, that money is being wasted.
So having ventured to the swamp once again and then tracked all of this mud into the house, does anybody expect to change anybody’s mind here?
Talk is cheap. Mona makes her provocative ad hominem attacks and then chortles approvingly if there’s a snooty and pointless bon mot. Other than that, this is just a chance to get called a poo-brained “nativist” racist crypto-fascist.
It’s good to be a contributor.
I was responding to the (accurate) claim that our wins could be reversed, so the obvious parallel would be Obamacare, which has only been somewhat undermined so far.
Still, if you want Constitutional wins on their side that we’ve reversed, the vitiation of the Takings Clause, Tenth Amendment and Second Amendment all seem like good examples, along with partial birth abortion bans, restrictions on campaign finance regulation, protections for religious liberty, and such. Obama had a lot of temporary wins when he tried non-recess recess appointments, executive amnesty and such, and the courts have knocked ’em back, sometimes before they went into effect.
If you want it outside the Court, then labor unions were the proudest creation of the Democrats and have been dying off. Comprehensive public education was perhaps the biggest Progressive movement, and is similarly losing ground. They got High Speed Rail to start and break ground again, but it looks like they’re never going to get a functioning system. There’s a lot more.
Cruz has never filibustered anything, so far as a I know. There was a moment in 2013 when Reid gave him permission to slander Republicans for 21 hours, but Cruz calling that a filibuster did not make it a filibuster; it was just Harry Reid deciding, sensibly, that Cruz talking for 21 hours would be good for Democrats. I’m not aware of Cruz ever having made a material difference to the fight over any piece of legislation. Perhaps a Cruz supporter can produce an example?
McConnell has consistently been able to prevent Obama from passing his legislative agenda. He was able to do so when he had a zero vote margin of error after Scott Brown removed the supermajority. He is able to do so more easily now.
I agree that Ginsburg’s successor is unlikely to be confirmed before January. Unless Clinton wins, in which case a November confirmation seems plausible.
Oh, uh, sorry about that; these last two were James of England, not Max. I lent my iPad to Max and I guess he didn’t log out. Oops. Sorry. Please don’t blame Max for my foolish opinions.
Those are wins around the edges. Here is what THEY have:
*Taking wealth from on person and giving it to another in transfer payments
*Abortions as a Constitutional Right
*Gay Marriage
*Massive Regulatory State where Congress has given lawmaking power to the Executive
*Eminent Domain Abuses
*Controls on Political Speech
*Abuse of IRS to target conservative groups
There are, as you say, many more.
It boils down too the fact that the Left has been winning since 1937, in ways the Right has not even begun to undo. In fact, the Right no longer wants to undo them, for the most part.
We have been losing since my Father was born. And I am tired of it.