Is the Republican party divided?

[RJ]

There has been a lot of talk(well, at least during the campaign last year) that Democrats are too divided on certain key issues. There's the war, for example. There is the theory that we should pull out all together, supported mostly by Dean. There is the idea that we should take a different approach and involve the UN/not take such a hands on approach in forming the new government/whatever a la Kerry. Then, there's all out support for the war from the Democratic side of the house, a position largely held by(can't think of a better example) Zel Miller. While it isn't my intent to create a thread disecting the rights/wrongs of the Democratic party or the war in Iraq, I just wanted to point out this as an example. I'd be willing to concede that, looking back on it, the divisions caused by the war cost the Democratic party dearly last year.

I'm working on a theory. I think the divisions in the Republican party are more serious than that of the Democrats. This is a bit of a serious statement and I realize not everyone will agree, but I hope everyone will at least agree that the divisions are more serious than we're led to believe. What I'd really like to know is what others think. Please, don't post "the GOP is off it's rocker and will fall apart in a few years" or "Republicans have their heads so far up their ass they're never coming out" or even "the GOP has its S-H-I-T together 10X more than the Democrats."

Here's some questions and statements to think about before you post: Why do so many Republicans hate McCain, Romney or Hagel and others can't stand Frist or Santorum? Not many Democrats, for example, loathe the likes of Lieberman, Conrad or Fiengold. Is there a distinct difference between Northeastern Republicans and those from the rest of the country? The GOP still has a presence in the Northeast. There are several Republican Governors and Senators, not to mention Congressmen and state legislatures. The Democratic party, in contrast, is almost dead in the south. A handful of states have Democratic governments overall, but there's only 1 senator from a true southern state if I remember right(Landrieu) and no southern state has a mojority of Democratic congressmen. Is it possible that there is generally a different degree of Republicans overall as opposed to Democrats? I think most Democrats(and most Republicans) see Harry Reid in the same light as someone like Phil Bresden or even(dare I say) Hillary. Kerry even seems to be more accepted among Democrats along with the likes of Barbara Boxer or even Chuck Schumar(sp?). There seem to be polar opposites in the Republican party, however. Allen is not considered to be anything like Romney. Frist is even more different from the two of them. Gulliani? Owens? Lindsey Graham? 3 men with 3 different groups of followers.

I think the concern for Republicans is that it seems as though they are going to have a harder time uniting around 1 person/candidate. Anyone think I'm right or am I just being to general?

[patrick1]

I feel the Republican party is a larger idealogical tent as opposed to the demographically large Democratic tent.  There is not the same litmus test as there is in the Democratic party that precludes one from success in the party.  Pro-life Democrats seem to be persona non grata and it seriously inhibits their chances for success.  Take Rudy or Arnold both pro-choice and social libererals- yet they are pretty pro market and hawkish- That is enough for MOST Republicans to accept them to the extent that the chant Rudy's name and parroted Arnold stupid catch-phrases at the Convention.  The G.O.P. is divided and as angus mentioned that is a key to their success.  The Democrats have been painting themselves into an ideological corner and is they have lost serious ground in many parts of the country. 

I am a Northeast Republican who is not at all fond of the Evangelical wing of the party, but, I stay with the party because I support most of its basic tenants.  Add to that that many people are Republicans by default (myself sometimes)- in that they are not the Democrats 

[Giant Saguaro]

One final post for the evening. It depends on what you call division - if it's a discussion, sure, that's good to have going on. And beyond that I think we might be seeing some old school CYA going on - cover your ass, so if it looks popular locally to take a step back from Bush's position on something like the war - for which Bush won't have to answer for election-wise anymore, but some of these Republicans might - then it's not a bad idea and isn't indicative of a split. The GOP will rally around a candidate unless he's a dud, I believe.

The Dems on the other hand - honestly, I think they're so eager to elect 'a Democrat' that it doesn't matter as much - "Republican lite," liberal, moderate, somewhere in between, just get one in. Maybe not that bad, but leaning that way.

Re: Angus - are you a writer, by chance? lol, you have a way with words!

[Gustaf]

No Democrats loathe Lieberman? Lol, you haven't been on this forum that long have you?

I do agree that the GOP is more divided than it appears. However. A two-party system will ALWAYS create a LOT of intra-party disagreement. It's unavoidable. Electoral coalitions will be formed depending on current issues, etc, etc. That has defiend our current parties the way they are. As long as nothing changes in the area of general political debate that won't change either. What you have to do is try to predict what will be tomorrow's prominent issues and how that will realign voters. For instance, the New Deal coalition worked because race wasn't a political issue from reconstruction to the 1950s. So the fact that the Northern liberal wing and Southern conservative wing of the Democratic party differed extremely on the issue didn't matter. In the 50s it became a primary issue and then reshaped politics accordingly as the GOP became the party for segregationists and economic conservatives (not to say all Republiacns are racists, of course, that's not the point).

[minionofmidas]

You're also underestimating the Dems' remaining Southern strength, as I'm surprised to notice Al hasn't pointed out yet.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

On Lewis's orders...

The Democratic party, in contrast, is almost dead in the south.

Only if you define the South as just Texas and Florida (sans Miama et al and the eastern bit of the Panhandle)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Southern States with Democratic Governers: LA, TN, NC, VA, WV
Southern States with Democratic State Senates: LA, AR, MS, AL, NC, WV
Southern States with Democratic State Houses: LA, AR, MS, AL, TN, NC, KY, WV

While I don't have all the stuff on Statewide positions in front of me right now, the Democrats hold quite a few in just about every Southern state (Texas and Florida excepted o/c).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Since when was Arkansas not a "true southern state"? It has two Democratic Senators... and one of the seats was a gain from the GOP

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Southern States with a majority of Democratic congressmen: AR, TN, WV
Southern States with a tied delagation: MS

[J. J.]

First, I agree with the comment about the lack of litmus test.  I make no claims that I am not a partisan Republican, and a Bush supporter, but anyone who would read my comments on the Schiavo case and judge me solely on that would disagree.

Second, yes I think that there is a cleavage between the what could be called the "conservative Christians" and the "Libertarians," but there far more common ground between the two than you get between the "loony leftists" and the "moderates" in the Democratic party.

[Blue Rectangle]

Second, yes I think that there is a cleavage between the what could be called the "conservative Christians" and the "Libertarians," but there far more common ground between the two than you get between the "loony leftists" and the "moderates" in the Democratic party.

The Republican-type Libertarian tends to have positions like:
--opposition to gun control
--strong support for property rights
--opposition to big federal government (spending and regulation)
--support for states' rights/local control

The Religious Right is usually in near-perfect agreement on these issues.  There are very few (major) wedge issues that separate the Libertarians from the Religious Right.  The two simply fear the Left far, far more than they fear each other.

[angus]

I reckon it's more loathing than fear.  And more toward the Democrats than the Left.  (not that those groups are orthogonal, but it's important to make the distinction.)

That the republican party is a big tent, and thus an ideologically diverse (okay, "divided" if you insist) should come as no surprise.  Most of my life, the Democrats were the more divided.  But then most of my life the Democrats controlled both houses of congress and had far more registered voters than the Republicans.  Right now the GOP is gaining in membership, and controls both houses.  Therein lies the dilemma:  as a party grows, it gets more ideologically diverse.  This creates a cyclic condition whereby the two parties will alternatively shrink and grow.  It's all rather simple, really.  And is neither good nor bad.  Just the way it is.  In this way the two major parties guarantee their mutual duopoly of politics as well.  Probably to the frustration of the rightist-purists and the leftist-purists.

[AuH2O]

The GOP is so much more unified than the DNC it's not even funny. You can wiggle numbers around or make various hypothesis but the GOP has a pretty clear core of support and is not reliant on identity-based voting blocs-- only evangelical Protestants support the GOP in ridiculous numbers, but that is for ideological, not historical reasons.

The DNC relies on a huge number of small interests (pro-abortion, environmental extremists, marxists, etc.) and then their historical hold on blacks. Their only national vote is basically social leftists, i.e. non-affiliated religiously, urban young.

[J. J.]

Second, yes I think that there is a cleavage between the what could be called the "conservative Christians" and the "Libertarians," but there far more common ground between the two than you get between the "loony leftists" and the "moderates" in the Democratic party.

The Republican-type Libertarian tends to have positions like:
--opposition to gun control
--strong support for property rights
--opposition to big federal government (spending and regulation)
--support for states' rights/local control

The Religious Right is usually in near-perfect agreement on these issues.  There are very few (major) wedge issues that separate the Libertarians from the Religious Right.  The two simply fear the Left far, far more than they fear each other.

Yes, that's exactly what I trying to say (and you said much better).  On some things, like stem cell research, there is a divergence, but on most of the core issues, there is none. 

[RJ]

I'm just looking at a few certain things and wondering:

The Republicans have the RINO movement in which they go after their own. Spectre was in the mix of this movement but he survived. There was a senator from Rhode Island(I believe) who wasn't so lucky. I have the feeling they'd go after McCain, but he's just too powerful for them to handle. I saw a piece on PBS about this once. I know of no such movement in the Democratic party, although there may be one. Second, when Democrats talk up potential 2008 nominees, there's about 3-4 that rapidly come to mind. On this board alone I've seen the Warner movement intensify, although Clinton is the current odds on favorite to win the nomination. When Republicans talk about 2008, there's every name from Romney to Sanford to Hagel. No one name stands out among others. I've heard nothing but bad things about McCain, Frist, and the other three I mentioned. By the numbers, I read in another thread that the current favorite to win the GOP nomination is...Gullani? What's up with that? And what about this Supreme Court thing? 7 of the 9 justices(at least in a month or so) were appointed by Republican presidents. Each has a different point of view from the other.

I have little doubt that Lieberman has his enemies inside his own party, but I'd also venture to say the percentage of Democrats who don't like him isn't as high as the number of Republicans who hate say Hagel or Romney. What does everyone think of this?

Southern States with Democratic Governers: LA, TN, NC, VA, WV
Southern States with Democratic State Senates: LA, AR, MS, AL, NC, WV
Southern States with Democratic State Houses: LA, AR, MS, AL, TN, NC, KY, WV

Since when was Arkansas not a "true southern state"? It has two Democratic Senators... and one of the seats was a gain from the GOP

Southern States with a majority of Democratic congressmen: AR, TN, WV
Southern States with a tied delagation: MS

I don't think all the states you mentioned are true southern states. Still, I suppose there is more for the Democratic party in the south than I ralized. I thought MS and GA were the only southern states with Democratic leaning governments. Sorry.

[© tweed]

No.  While Republicans feel differently on many issues, with the religious right wing, libertarian wing, traditional conservative wing, northeastern liberal/moderate wing, etc., they all seem to unite enough around their candidate(s) to win elections.  2000 is the best example, as the Democrats divided and splintered enough to the Nader candidacy while Pat Buchanan went relatively unnoticed.

[angus]

 Al,
I suppose DC isn't a "true southern state" by virtue of it not being a state, but it must be the most "democrat" of the entities in the region.  Among the southern state, I'd have figured WV is the most "democrat" and FL is the most republican, in the sense it has a higher per capita GDP than others in the region, which are "republican" primarily by virtue of "wedge" issues.  That's a tenuous hold, and more likely to give than an economic hold.

Also, I agree with you that the Democrat party isn't "dead" anywhere.  Neither is the GOP.  Folks here seem to have short memories, and shorter imaginations.  Though I think until our national paranoia blows over, Democrats will generally have a tough time in any of the more patriotic regions, with the exception of Greater Boston, since in most of those regions patriotism is tantamount to nationalism.

More importantly, and as long as we're on regions, I think the GOP is experiencing greater division in CA than in any other state.  But then there are more republicans (and democrats, and everything else) in that state than in any other.  But in that state, because of legislative rules, the diversity tends to hurt, rather than help, the republicans.

[angus]

totally as an aside, MA governor Romney is on Chris Matthews bitching about some school districts frowning on the use of the phrase "mother and father" in textbooks on the grounds that it's too hetero-centric.  Rather amusing, no matter where you are on these issues, I think.  Check it out.  MSNBC.

[Gustaf]

Republicans are good as long as foreign policy, terrorism, security issues are the most important. That's where they stand united.

RJ, Democrats hate a lot of moderate Democrats. Look what happened to moderates in the primaries during the last 30 years (with the exceptions of 76 and 92)

[angus]

Republicans are good as long as foreign policy, terrorism, security issues are the most important. That's where they stand united.

RJ, Democrats hate a lot of moderate Democrats. Look what happened to moderates in the primaries during the last 30 years (with the exceptions of 76 and 92)

my recollection is that moderates lost the primaries in 76 and 92 as well, to an anti-capital punishment, welfare-state liberal in 76, and to a conservative in 92.  I really think a correct read would be that the "moderates" lost all the primaries in the last 30 years except in 2004, when they nominated a moderate.

The first paragraph is true and concise.  And has roughly defined the GOP since its first national convention in Pittsburgh in 1856, in fact.

[Gustaf]

Hehe, well put it as you want...I merely meant that those candidates were percieved as moderate ( and Kery wasn't)

[angus]

I just thought it was odd that you picked, of all people, the last true liberal president we had to single out as a moderate in the 1976 primary.  Or maybe I misread your post.

yeah, I think there's some argument about whether kerry was a "moderate"

I think we can safely say that the democrats put together an extremely conservative ticket in '92 and '96.  But they outdid themselves in 2000 by putting together an even more conservative ticket.

That was my only dissention.  Otherwise I agree with the spirit and letter of your post.  I'd said the same thing several times in this post earlier about the republicans, but not so concisely.

I really need to work on that. 

[RJ]

Republicans are good as long as foreign policy, terrorism, security issues are the most important. That's where they stand united.

I think there are a lot of differences on these issues more than any others. Look at that border business in Arizona. It's pitting Republican vs. Republican. Opinion polls for the war are falling. Some who thought the president was doing the right thing as little as 6 months ago must be saying something different with the numbers being lower than what they were.

RJ, Democrats hate a lot of moderate Democrats. Look what happened to moderates in the primaries during the last 30 years (with the exceptions of 76 and 92)

If you look at the last 30 years, there have been 6 primaries in which the nomination was contested. Carter was 1 of the winners. Clinton was another. I believe Gore was a moderate as well. The others were not(Dukakis, Mondale, and Kerry). 1/2 of the candidates being moderate would indicate to me they at least tolerate center-type candidates. I would consider any of the 4 GOP nominees in that time period to be more arch conservatives than moderate myself(Reagan, Bush41, Dole, Bush43).

I think the concern if I'm the Republican Party is that here I have a bit of a mandate with the White House, majority in Congress, and majority in the senate and everyone is squabbling amongst themselves, conservatives against other conservatives as well as Democrats, on what to do and how to do it. Sympathizing more with the Democratic cause myself, I keep holding my fingers in my ears and closing my eyes and from time to time peeking or listening for the big boom. It never seems to come. THis majority and position of power isn't going to last forever. If the GOP doesn't get its act together like the Democrats in the 30's thru the 60's, they'll have blown a golden oppurtunity to push their own legislation.

[Redefeatbush04]

Yes they are divided but they aren't nearly as divided as the democrats.

[angus]

All I'm saying is that the democrats nominated a liberal in 76, 80, 84, and 88, (here "liberal" means left), and lost in 80, 84, and 88.  They decided to go another route, and nominated a conservative in 92, 96, and 2000, and won in 92 and 96.  2000 was a bit of a fluke, with the democrat actually getting about 4/10 of a percent more actual people's votes than the republican, neither getting a majority, and the republican won.  2004 they bounced back to the left again, but not quite so far as they had been in the 76-88 period.  Wisely, so most observers would argue.

The republicans, on the other hand, really haven't botherd with this "liberal" vs "conservative" vs "moderate" game, as it really doesn't suit them.  Instead, they have always nominated a Nationalist.  (we can quibble about who's more and who's less, I suppose)

Who ultimately wins?  I suspect it has less to do with The Social Issue of the Day (capital punishment in 76, for example; gay marriage in 04, for example, etc.) or even how "liberal" or "conservative" the democrat nominee is.  I think it has more to do with security.  Economic and national, that is.  76 wasn't a very nationalistic period, what with the humiliation of our team no longer being undefeated, (though it was extremely patriotic, what with the bicentennial parades that many, including yours truly at the ripe old age of 8, marched in carrying US flags but wearing peace sign T-shirts) and the humiliation of a president pardoning another president who resigned under less-than-optimum circumstances.  But by 80, with gas costing (gulp!) a dollar a gallon (imagine that), double-digit inflation, and hostages in Iran, folks were ready for "morning again in America"  By 84 the cold war had been ramped up, and by 88 even more so.  Thus the GOP victories.  By 92 the cold war was over, and we were more concerned with Economic, rather than National, security.  Thus the Democrat victory.  96 similarly.  2000 was a fluke, and doesn't fit my analysis.  How can a man who served as VP during the largest period of economic expansion in history, no cold war, no hot war, and a democrat, loose to a relatively inexperienced governor?  Well, that's Al Gore for ya.  2004 we're back on track.  Analysis holds.

One of two things will assure a Democrat victory:  A quick end to Iraq and defeat of terrorism.  This removes the need for abject Nationalism that gives us that warm, fuzzy feeling, rightfully or not.  Or, some scandal by the GOP, either within the Bush camp or within the camp of the eventual '08 GOP nominee.  And with the 24-hour news cycle and heady polarization, the latter isn't entirely impossible.  National insecurity trumps economic insecurity at the moment, so don't start in with the jobless numbers.  Anyway, we have enough sense to redefine "unemployment" when the going gets rough, if necessary. 

That's my sense of the correct interpretation of where Gustaf was going.  I now return you to your regularly scheduled lovefest.

PS:  Red VT Avatar, Love the signature man!

[© tweed]

Carter ran in 1976 as a populist/moderate, angus.

[angus]

Carter ran in 1976 as a populist/moderate, angus.

we're probably about the same vintage, boss tweed.  and we'd have been about 3rd grade at the time.  you probably even remember the show "Maude"  The had lots of fun with the '76 election.

Walter:  "This election is getting confusing.  I saw a Ford sticker on a Toyota, a Carter sticker on a Ford, and a Dole sticker on a banana."

ba-da-boom

Anyone old enough to remember Carter knows he was a Liberal.  These days we're into discriminating between "social liberal" and "economic liberal"  Fine.  THE defining social issue of the day was capital punishment.  It was to 76 as Homophilia/phobia was to '04.  You may have read that a well-publicized SC decision made it legal again in 1976 after a 1967 SC decision decided it was unconstitutional.  Everyone had an opinion on it, including Carter, a strong one in fact.  As for economic issues, this man was a pro-welfare, pro-affirmative action Democrat.  Seriously, he was the philosophical antithesis of Clinton, at least within the party.

Populist??  Nobody even used that word in 1976.  Where are you getting this sh**t?  I know you're smart enough and old enough not to argue with the statement:  Carter was the most liberal president in our lifetime.  I'd even go so far as to say he was the last.

Again, this is neither bad nor good.  Just the way it is.

[© tweed]

Angus,

I guess you weren't here when this happened.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=7763.0

Enjoy.

-------------------

PS: I agree Carter was our most liberal president since FDR, but I also believe he ran as a populist southern Governor with a smile in 1976, and not as a liberal.