Republicans in disarray
by digby
Oh my:
That Mitt Romney finds himself so imperiled by Rick Santorum—Rick Santorum!—is just the latest in a series of jaw-dropping developments in what has been the most volatile, unpredictable, and just plain wackadoodle Republican-nomination contest ever. Part of the explanation lies in Romney’s lameness as a candidate, in Santorum’s strength, and in the sudden efflorescence of social issues in what was supposed to be an all-economy-all-the-time affair. But even more important have been the seismic changes within the Republican Party.
“Compared to 2008, all the candidates are way to the right of John McCain,” says longtime conservative activist Jeff Bell. “The fact that Romney is running with basically the same views as then but is seen as too moderate tells you that the base has moved rightward and doesn’t simply want a conservative candidate—it wants a very conservative one.”
The transfiguration of the GOP isn’t only about ideology, however. It is also about demography and temperament, as the party has grown whiter, less well schooled, more blue-collar, and more hair-curlingly populist. The result has been a party divided along the lines of culture and class: Establishment versus grassroots, secular versus religious, upscale versus downscale, highfalutin versus hoi polloi. And with those divisions have arisen the competing electoral coalitions—shirts versus skins, regulars versus red-hots—represented by Romney and Santorum, which are now increasingly likely to duke it out all spring.
That's an excerpt of a fun John Heilman piece analyzing just how screwed the Republicans really are. Enjoy.
But I have to take issue with this idea that there's any real distinction between the "red hots" and the "regulars." They're pretty much all red-hots now:
If it’s Santorum who is the standard-bearer and then he suffers an epic loss, a different analogy will be apt: Goldwater in 1964. (And, given the degree of the challenges Santorum would face in attracting female voters, epic it might well be.) As Kearns Goodwin points out, the rejection of the Arizona senator’s ideology and policies led the GOP to turn back in 1968 to Nixon, “a much more moderate figure, despite the incredible corruption of his time in office.” For Republicans after 2012, a similar repudiation of the populist, culture-warrior coalition that is fueling Santorum’s surge would open the door to the many talented party leaders—Daniels, Christie, Bush, Ryan, Bobby Jindal—waiting in the wings for 2016, each offering the possibility of refashioning the GOP into a serious and forward-thinking enterprise.
That's not a list of "serious, and forward-thinking" leaders. It's a list of right wing ideologues who will dance to the same tune that Romney and Santorum are dancing to in 2012. The Republican Party isn't a normal political institution anymore, it's a fully realized ideological movement that has even captured their top intellectual, legal and financial leadership. Yes, those people all want power and they all want to win, but they have no choice but to answer to the zealots. --- after all, from the hardcore Randian Paul Ryan to John Roberts and Clarence Thomas to Foster Freiss and the Koch Brothers to the cultural leaders like Rush Limbaugh they are the red hots. Movement conservatism at this point is far more powerful to this faction of the American body politic than any identification with the institution of the Republican Party. It's going to take more than failing to unseat Obama after his first term to change that. In fact, I'm not sure what will. After all, they manage to do very well in the opposition --- in many ways, they prefer it. Since red hots are not going to be a real majority any time soon they will be content to fulfill their agenda through obstruction and destruction. They're good at it.
.