Is history repeating itself? Is the GOP following the Whigs?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Musing over the subtext of the Shutdown thread -- TEA party v GOP moderates -- I decided to do a little reading.

While the Democratic Party can trace its roots back to Jefferson, its ups and downs have not torn the party apart -- despite deep divisions that lasted for decades (Dixiecrats and Northern Democrats for example) and despite temporary fragmentation (War v Peace Democrats in 1861-1865).

By contrast, the Whig party that formed to oppose the growth of Presidential power under Jackson, was torn apart and destroyed by the slavery question. The anti-slavery elements of the party opted out, denying the party's nomination for President even though he was an incumbent, and...in a very few years...the party folded. The new party, the Republicans, took advantage of a major rift between southern and northern democrats to elect Lincoln in 1860.

Following the civil war, however, the democrats reformed, brining in the conservative dixiecrats who were often at odds with their northern party members but nevertheless maintained a mostly coordinated effort on behalf of the party. The democrats remained viable despite the domination of the Presidency through most of the last half of the 19th century.

So, unlike the Democratic party, the GOP comes from a group that has already demonstrated that they will withdraw support from a party and kill it rather than give up their point.

Is this happening again?

Are the situations analogous? Is limited government/stricter constitutionalism as focal an issue as slavery? The nascent GOP of the 1850s were the "liberal" party. Are the TEA conservatives fundamentally different so that that analogy does not apply, or is this issue as divisive as slavery?

Thoughts?

[Lemur]

Is limited government/stricter constitutionalism as focal an issue as slavery? [...] is this issue as divisive as slavery?

I would question the premise that the Tea Party is about limited government. The #1 predictor of Tea Party involvement is not libertarian registration, or independent registration, or any particular stance on issues. No, the #1 predictor of Tea Party involvement is previous engagement with GOP politics (PDF warning).

A better analogy for the Tea Party might be the John Birch Society (which did not destroy the GOP).

Medicare then, as Obamacare now, was the key evil. An editorial in the Morning News announced that “JFK’s support of Medicare sounds suspiciously similar to a pro-Medicare editorial that appeared in the Worker—the official publication of the U.S. Communist Party.” [...]

The whole thing came to a climax with the famous black-bordered flyer that appeared on the day of J.F.K.’s visit to Dallas, which showed him in front face and profile, as in a “Wanted” poster, with the headline “WANTED FOR TREASON.” The style of that treason is familiar mix of deliberate subversion and personal depravity. “He has been wrong on innumerable issues affecting the security of the United States”; “He has been caught in fantastic lies to the American people, including personal ones like his previous marriage and divorce.” Birth certificate, please?

The really weird thing—the American exception in it all—then as much as now, is how tiny all the offenses are. French right-wingers really did have a powerful, Soviet-affiliated Communist Party to deal with, as their British counterparts really had honest-to-god Socialists around, socializing stuff. But the Bircher-centered loonies and the Tea Partiers created a world of fantasy, willing mild-mannered, conflict-adverse centrists like J.F.K. and Obama into socialist Supermen.

[AntiDamascus]

It depends on what is worth more, ideology or money. You could see Tea Party members split to form a new party but it would mean the death of both on the national scale. It's going to be interesting to see what happens in the next few years. It mostly depends on how the TP does in elections and where groups put their money.

[Kadagar_AV]

USA

[a completely inoffensive name]

There is too much money involved to let a little thing like ideology get in the way of good business.

[AntiDamascus]

For the people with the money. The people with the ideology? That's a different story. Would the TP splinter off if it felt it wasn't being respected?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The "leading lights" among the TEA party Republicans are mostly in very secure districts. Ryan, Paul, Cruz and a number of others were seated/returned by large majorities.

In a couple of other places, notably NV and CO, the TEA party candidate bested the establishment choice for the nomination, but then went down to defeat in the general (though most of them were defeated by modest, not resounding, margins...except Contreras and Rankin, who got whupped).

According to Gallup, the TEA party is slightly more likely to be white, male, religious, and gainfully employed than the national average. So far, there are few indications that the party has a funding problem. Most of their losses seem to be a result of the inevitable split among GOP voters following some of the primaries and not a lack of funding support.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Comparing the issue to slavery is asking for trouble, but there are some similarities. Prior to the rise of Lincoln and the Republicans, slavery was the pressure-point for ideological voting. You either supported states' rights to do as they pleased, or you were some kind of hippy who wanted the federal government to step in and do something about the backwards reactionaries who refused to accept social and economic change.

The issues are different, but the political situation is very much the same. Reactionary forces have dug in and chosen their issues, and the rest of the nation has begun to recognize that they're loonies not to be taken seriously.

I certainly was not making any claim about moral equivalence between the issues. Only about the political divisiveness factor.

I see smaller government as a more moral choice of governance, but human freedom is even more so.

[Lemur]

I see smaller government as a more moral choice of governance

Is that a well-thought-out position?

A corporation can be amoral and oppressive. So can a union, a military, a government, a fraternity, a church—there is no human organization that is guaranteed to be good.

Are small business inherently "more moral" than big businesses?

Are small armies inherently "more moral" than big armies?

Is a small church inherently "more moral" than a big religion?

So why would we take "small government as a more moral choice of governance" as any sort of given?

To flog the old and obvious example, Somalia has a very small government indeed. And Finland has a very involved and expansive government. Where would you rather raise your children?

Anyway, I think as a fixed point of reasoning, "smaller is better" leaves a lot to be desired.

And I don't 100% buy the premise that the Tea Party is really about small government. Seems to be a lot more at work.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Is that a well-thought-out position?

A corporation can be amoral and oppressive. So can a union, a military, a government, a fraternity, a church—there is no human organization that is guaranteed to be good.

Are small business inherently "more moral" than big businesses?

Are small armies inherently "more moral" than big armies?

Is a small church inherently "more moral" than a big religion?

So why would we take "small government as a more moral choice of governance" as any sort of given?

To flog the old and obvious example, Somalia has a very small government indeed. And Finland has a very involved and expansive government. Where would you rather raise your children?

Anyway, I think as a fixed point of reasoning, "smaller is better" leaves a lot to be desired.

And I don't 100% buy the premise that the Tea Party is really about small government. Seems to be a lot more at work.

Sorry if I was not clear. I believe smaller government to be a more moral choice as an expression of personal belief, reflecting my values. I did not make the claim that "smaller is better" in a general sense [few men would ;-)], nor for that matter am I asserting that only a small government is moral. For that matter, I agree with you that any organization of any size might enact good or evil. Size is not indicative of the morality OF the organization. My assertion refers to the morality of how/why/for what government is enacted -- not the morality of the government itself.

Smaller is, obviously, a relative term. Small for the sake of being small would be a.....small-minded choice [sorry, couldn't resist].

I am suggesting that government, funded of course by the governed, should be large enough to handle those concerns which individuals cannot handle for themselves in any practicable fashion. Moreover, I would extend that by saying that government functions should be controlled at the lowest possible level capable of performing that function (community by preference over municipality, municipality by preference over state, etc.) Keeping government "smaller" in relative terms is, to me, the only realist means of avoiding what Hannah Arendt termed "structural violence" wherein a bureaucratic system has become so byzantine that it discourages taking responsibility and ends up consuming more resources than it utilizes adequately. This is what undergirds my belief that smaller is a more "moral" choice in that it is a better safeguard of the public monies entrusted and more easily overseen by the governed.

[AntiDamascus]

I am suggesting that government, funded of course by the governed, should be large enough to handle those concerns which individuals cannot handle for themselves in any practicable fashion.

What level do you think this is? Or more exactly, what do you think government handles right now that it shouldn't?

Moreover, I would extend that by saying that government functions should be controlled at the lowest possible level capable of performing that function (community by preference over municipality, municipality by preference over state, etc.)

Are you not worried about basically taking one federal program and making 50 state ones? Wouldn't that increase the size of the government and it's complexity?

[Kralizec]

It's a natural phenomenon in multi-party systems that parties rise and vanish, or that smaller ones band together to stay relevant. Traditionally the Netherlands has had three main political parties*. None of them ever had an absolute majority, but a combination of 2 of 3 of them usually did in the decades following WW2.
Generally though the last few decades 2 out of these 3 were not enough; and another coalition partner was needed - a smaller "fourth party" (there has never been a grand coalition between the big three together)

Outside these big three, the "fourth parties" have come and gone over the years.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

* the big three are PvdA (Labour), VVD (right-wing liberal) and CDA (religious centrists).

Actually the CDA is a fusion of three post-war parties itself, which focused on the various christian denominations. They banded together when religious affiliation became less and less relevant as a factor for determining one's ballot choice. At their high period, these christian splinter parties could easily have formed an absolute majority with eachother.

As for them 'mericans: I'm an outsider and I don't know enough about the slavery/state rights comparison to comment on that.

The democrats and republicans are usually considered "catch-all" parties, in the sense that they cater to many different interests and opinions in order to secure an absolute majority for themselves.
I tend to think that the Tea Party (with its current attitude and views) is simply not viable on its own. It would not attract the same number of votes in a presidential election that the GOP could, the support of moderate republican voters is also needed. It might feel good to call a moderate republican a RINO, but the truth is that the GOP has always needed the votes that so-called RINO's bring in.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I think it depends. Some support the TEA party because they believe that the current coalition can no longer win major national elections. They want to see the party de-stablize, reduce and be able to form a new coalition that sucks winnable levels of support from traditional Democrats interested in things alien to the current GOP. Other people support the TEA party because they are radical anti-government opponents who believe in minimal government and detest where the modern Federal and many State governments are headed. Others fall in between those two.

Opponents of TEA party or other minarchist factions in the GOP tend to be big government statists who are relatively socially and economically "conservative", but believe in an all-powerful Federal arbiter of stupid things like loss of rights without due process or conviction, forcing cable companies to sell channels a la carte, banning guns based on what they look like.

Old people who are angry also tend to support the TEA party and insurgent factions, but don't realize that we are attempting to re-structure their pensions because they are ripping us all off.

The TEA party is a pariah with young people, but minarchist organizations and ideologies are taking off. The web site Young Americans for Liberty constantly drives membership and doesn't have a terrible presentation. It attracts social and economic libertarians as well as Orwellian socialists and people who are interested in overcoming discrimination. This is a winning coalition which will be built on. We attract young people by tearing things apart. This is what young people like; always and forever. Stodgy collectivist garbage is for old people. We want the Capitalist machine to be cogs in our wheel and we recognize that the natural enemy of the worker is the policeman.

[Xiahou]

According to Gallup, the TEA party is slightly more likely to be white, male, religious, and gainfully employed than the national average.

CBS/NYT polling also indicates that they're better educated than the national average. There's a lot of stereotyping about the TEA party... lots of it is untrue.

Sorry if I was not clear. I believe smaller government to be a more moral choice as an expression of personal belief, reflecting my values. I did not make the claim that "smaller is better" in a general sense [few men would ;-)], nor for that matter am I asserting that only a small government is moral. For that matter, I agree with you that any organization of any size might enact good or evil. Size is not indicative of the morality OF the organization. My assertion refers to the morality of how/why/for what government is enacted -- not the morality of the government itself.

I think of it in terms of the KISS principle of design.....

"KISS is an acronym for "Keep it simple, stupid" as a design principle noted by the U.S. Navy in 1960.[1][2] The KISS principle states that most systems work best if they are kept simple rather than made complex; therefore simplicity should be a key goal in design and unnecessary complexity should be avoided."

Smaller government would really be more the result than the intent- which is less complex government. Less complex and more open, as opposed to just "smaller" is generally desirable in any organization.

I think our federal government, as it exists today versus how it was originally constituted is a classic example of feature creep.

[Beskar]

"KISS" is actually a very good principle in theory. However, in power sharing arguments, it comes more complicated as getting rid of the democratic function of a government would keep it a 'lot more simple'.

But I think it comes down to having 'Independent Systems' working in a co-operation with each-other, rather than a large sprawling mass of government. Having the Post Office, NHS Police, Armed Forces and others play a separate part outside the main sphere.

[Xiahou]

"KISS" is actually a very good principle in theory. However, in power sharing arguments, it comes more complicated as getting rid of the democratic function of a government would keep it a 'lot more simple'.

True. But the "democratic function" was one of the original design requirements. So government would not be fit for purpose without that feature.

[Pannonian]

Boehner Hoping To Remain Leader Of Republican Parties

[Lemur]

Good (but incomplete) advice from NRO (boils down to "nihilism ain't attractive, and winning elections is maybe as important as ideological purity")

There is no alternative to seeking to expand the conservative base beyond its present inadequate numbers and to win the votes of people who aren’t yet conservatives or are not yet conservatives on all issues. The defunders often said that those who predicted their failure were “defeatists.” Yet it is they who have given in to despair. They are the ones who entertain the ideas that everything has gotten worse; that the last few decades of conservative thought and action have been for nothing; that engagement in politics as traditionally conceived is hopeless; that government programs, once begun, must corrupt the citizenry so that they can never be ended or reformed; that the country will soon be past the point of regeneration, if it is not there already.

Effective political movements create the conditions for their own success. Conservatism has not done enough of that, but when it has prospered it has never been moved by despair. The apocalyptic style of politics holds that the future of the country is at stake. That is true, which is why conservatives need to get to the work of persuading and electioneering — and drop the fantasy of a shortcut.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Which do you think voters will find to be a more irritating situation - higher health plan payments out of their pockets; which they will blame on Democrats, or the etherial impact of 2 weeks of lightweight shutdown?

To be honest, If you were to have asked 3 weeks ago, the ACA was the ethereal threat while the shutdown was pressing in the minds of voters (even though they felt no direct effect). The President has taken a legitimacy hit with this roll out. The emperor has shown that he is the embodiment of hype. I couldn't have expected a more awful proof that the guy is garbage and everything he has said about what to expect is bullshit. But here he is, failing entirely in a way that his enemies could have never even hoped to injure his legitimacy - and yet here we are, with bills that the voters can take with them into the polling place in frustration. The "affordable" care act being shown to be the political BS.

Maybe it will magically get better before the mid-terms.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I challenge your assertion that "most Americans want Obamacare" at this point. Most people want everything as advertised, the trouble is that some advertisements are just fantasy. Americans want less expensive healthcare, period. This doesn't give that to them and makes their health care cost more money. Barack Obama is either a liar or he is incompetent to fix our problem. If you think that Americans will blame the party that has been obsessing over how stupid this law is and trying to repeal/reform it for 5 years you have had too much kool-aid.

Americans want an Affordable health care act. They also want a Democratic People's Republic of North Korea.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Challenge away lol.

I'm not really arguing for the ACA. You know I think its a far cry from ideal. I'm just saying that most Americans want affordable healthcare for all like the rest of the first world. The specifics don't matter. The Republicans are doing absolutely nothing to convince people they are serious about healthcare reform, only that they are serious about stopping it.

Marketability issues. The TEA wing would prefer, in their ideal world, Untaxed medical savings accounts and private insurance. They would also want Medicaid reserved for the completely indigent and Medicare done away with in favor of MSAs.

"The ACA is becoming a boondoggle" is a marketable, if not sweepingly popular, stance. The TEA ideal stance would market....poorly.

[HopAlongBunny]

A way forward for the GOP?:

http://aje.me/19GDHUG

A very interesting guy

[Lemur]

Good essay in the Economist on this topic. Choice quote:

[M]any of the so-called policy planks in contemporary hard-right politics are more the product of a need to attack sitting GOP officeholders for supposed moderate treachery than they are the result of any serious or consistent conservative ideology. This is why, for example, when conservative policy wonks at the American Enterprise Institute sit down to come up with an alternative universal health-insurance plan, what they come up with shares enough features with Obamacare that GOP politicians have to reject it out of hand.

The subordination of policy to tactics is a feature of apocalyptic-extremist factional politics. It's a mistake to think that extremist parties are characterised by ideological rigidity; in fact, on any question on which there can be internal competition in such parties, there tends to be a succession of changes in position. Each shift produces apostates who can be purged on the basis of previously holding positions that have now been revealed as incorrect, and this provides opportunities for advancement to lower-ranking members. A party caught up in this dynamic can't take any policy positions on which it might be able to compromise with the opposition, or win new constituencies outside of existing insiders; the compromise would be a death sentence for the members who agree to it, and allegiance to new constituents is suspect in the eyes of existing ones.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Good essay in the Economist on this topic. Choice quote:

[M]any of the so-called policy planks in contemporary hard-right politics are more the product of a need to attack sitting GOP officeholders for supposed moderate treachery than they are the result of any serious or consistent conservative ideology. This is why, for example, when conservative policy wonks at the American Enterprise Institute sit down to come up with an alternative universal health-insurance plan, what they come up with shares enough features with Obamacare that GOP politicians have to reject it out of hand.

The subordination of policy to tactics is a feature of apocalyptic-extremist factional politics. It's a mistake to think that extremist parties are characterised by ideological rigidity; in fact, on any question on which there can be internal competition in such parties, there tends to be a succession of changes in position. Each shift produces apostates who can be purged on the basis of previously holding positions that have now been revealed as incorrect, and this provides opportunities for advancement to lower-ranking members. A party caught up in this dynamic can't take any policy positions on which it might be able to compromise with the opposition, or win new constituencies outside of existing insiders; the compromise would be a death sentence for the members who agree to it, and allegiance to new constituents is suspect in the eyes of existing ones.

Beh, this is a problem with every ideology. Look at Democrats who were in favor of civil unions a few years back. They are viewed as interminable bigots within the same party today, unless they "update" their thinking. I don't care about this and it doesn't make the GOP particularly bad. Something must be done to allow us to build a winning coalition. I would like to see certain plank purges in order to do this. Which planks? I'm not sure, but most likely the strong on national security at the expense of individual rights are in the crosshairs right now. Also, the GOP members who are overtly racist and looking to harm immigrants are being purged as well. It may not seem like this, but xenophobia and economic protectionism are much more natural bedfellows. Let the Democrats have them back

[Xiahou]

@Lemur
Which AEI plan is that?

[Lemur]

Here, let me Google that for you ...

[ICantSpellDawg]

Here, let me Google that for you ...

The plan put forward by the second link wants to do away with employer tax incentives, but proposes nothing about giving that incentive to the individuals purchasing the plan. It just talks about taking that money and using it to give it to poor people. That plan isn't going anywhere. What part of "health care/insurance is unafordable for the majority of Americans" are Democrats unable to understand. First, it was "health care is too expensive? let us fix it by making it even more expensive". I'm not against some income support, but the idea that you are going to take away employer tax benefits and then just let consumers eat the cost increase does not lower the cost of care - yet this point fails to be apparent to so many policy people.

[Lemur]

What part of "health care/insurance is unafordable for the majority of Americans" are Democrats unable to understand.

Uh, AEI is generally seen as a rightwing/libertarian thinktank. Now, your rambling syntax being what it is, it's possible you had switched subjects and were no longer talking about AEI at that point ... but that's an impossible judgment to make objectively. I'm sure you can clarify.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Uh, AEI is generally seen as a rightwing/libertarian thinktank. Now, your rambling syntax being what it is, it's possible you had switched subjects and were no longer talking about AEI at that point ... but that's an impossible judgment to make objectively. I'm sure you can clarify.

http://www.aei.org/papers/health/hea...worlds-report/

I'm possibly overlooking it, but this website seems to suggest that employer based tax benefits for health plans should be ended and the money should instead go to paying low income individual's health premiums. It says nothing about individual HSA expansion, the ability to pay premiums out of an HSA or anything that will help the majority of Americans finance their own care.
I don't know who runs AEI, I don't care. If they have a bad policy, it shouldn't be used to characterize all policies which I might support.

Maybe I'm just glossing over the part where they suggest some beneficial reform that won't just benefit the extremely wealthy or the extremely poor

[a completely inoffensive name]

"And I call upon my fellow Backroom members, to head my call, the Republicans shall rise again."

Of course, with a two party system, it is only inevitable that eventually the people you identify with will somehow stumble back into office.