Two weeks before the Iowa caucuses, the
Republican crackup threatens the future of the Grand Old Party more
profoundly than at any time since the GOP’s eclipse in 1932. That’s bad
for America.
The crackup isn’t just Romney the smooth versus Gingrich the bomb-thrower.
Not just House Republicans who just scotched the deal to continue
payroll tax relief and extended unemployment insurance benefits beyond
the end of the year, versus Senate Republicans who voted overwhelmingly
for it.
Not just Speaker John Boehner, who keeps making agreements he can’t
keep, versus Majority Leader Eric Cantor, who keeps making trouble he
can’t control.
And not just venerable Republican senators like Indiana’s Richard
Lugar, a giant of foreign policy for more than three decades, versus
primary challenger state treasurer Richard Mourdock, who apparently
misplaced and then rediscovered $320 million in state tax revenues.
Some describe the underlying conflict as Tea Partiers versus the
Republican establishment. But this just begs the question of who the Tea
Partiers really are and where they came from.
The underlying conflict lies deep into the nature and structure of the Republican Party. And its roots are very old.
As Michael Lind has noted, today’s Tea Party is less an ideological
movement than the latest incarnation of an angry white minority –
predominantly Southern, and mainly rural – that has repeatedly attacked
American democracy in order to get its way.
It’s no mere coincidence that the states responsible for putting the
most Tea Party representatives in the House are all former members of
the Confederacy. Of the Tea Party caucus, twelve hail from Texas, seven
from Florida, five from Louisiana, and five from Georgia, and three each
from South Carolina, Tennessee, and border-state Missouri.
Others are from border states with significant Southern populations
and Southern ties. The four Californians in the caucus are from the
inland part of the state or Orange County, whose political culture has
was shaped by Oklahomans and Southerners who migrated there during the
Great Depression.
This isn’t to say all Tea Partiers are white, Southern or rural
Republicans – only that these characteristics define the epicenter of
Tea Party Land.
And the views separating these Republicans from Republicans elsewhere
mirror the split between self-described Tea Partiers and other
Republicans.
In a poll of Republicans conducted for CNN last September, nearly six
in ten who identified themselves with the Tea Party say global warming
isn’t a proven fact; most other Republicans say it is.
Six in ten Tea Partiers say evolution is wrong; other Republicans are
split on the issue. Tea Party Republicans are twice as likely as other
Republicans to say abortion should be illegal in all circumstances, and
half as likely to support gay marriage.
Tea Partiers are more vehement advocates of states’ rights than other
Republicans. Six in ten Tea Partiers want to abolish the Department of
Education; only one in five other Republicans do. And Tea Party
Republicans worry more about the federal deficit than jobs, while other
Republicans say reducing unemployment is more important than reducing
the deficit.
In other words, the radical right wing of today’s GOP isn’t that much
different from the social conservatives who began asserting themselves
in the Party during the 1990s, and, before them, the “Willie Horton”
conservatives of the 1980s, and, before them, Richard Nixon’s “silent
majority.”
Through most of these years, though, the GOP managed to contain these
white, mainly rural and mostly Southern, radicals. After all, many of
them were still Democrats. The conservative mantle of the GOP remained
in the West and Midwest – with the libertarian legacies of Ohio Senator
Robert A. Taft and Barry Goldwater, neither of whom was a barn-burner –
while the epicenter of the Party remained in New York and the East.
But after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as the South began its long
shift toward the Republican Party and New York and the East became ever
more solidly Democratic, it was only a matter of time. The GOP’s
dominant coalition of big business, Wall Street, and Midwest and Western
libertarians was losing its grip.
The watershed event was Newt Gingrich’s takeover of the House, in
1995. Suddenly, it seemed, the GOP had a personality transplant. The
gentlemanly conservatism of House Minority Leader Bob Michel was
replaced by the bomb-throwing antics of Gingrich, Dick Armey, and Tom
DeLay.
Almost overnight Washington was transformed from a place where
legislators tried to find common ground to a war zone. Compromise was
replaced by brinkmanship, bargaining by obstructionism, normal
legislative maneuvering by threats to close down government – which
occurred at the end of 1995.
Before then, when I’d testified on the Hill as Secretary of Labor, I
had come in for tough questioning from Republican senators and
representatives – which was their job. After January 1995, I was
verbally assaulted. “Mr. Secretary, are you a socialist?” I recall one
of them asking.
But the first concrete sign that white, Southern radicals might take
over the Republican Party came in the vote to impeach Bill Clinton, when
two-thirds of senators from the South voted for impeachment. (A
majority of the Senate, you may recall, voted to acquit.)
America has had a long history of white Southern radicals who will
stop at nothing to get their way – seceding from the Union in 1861,
refusing to obey Civil Rights legislation in the 1960s, shutting the
government in 1995, and risking the full faith and credit of the United
States in 2010.
Newt Gingrich’s recent assertion that public officials aren’t bound
to follow the decisions of federal courts derives from the same
tradition.
This stop-at-nothing radicalism is dangerous for the GOP because most
Americans recoil from it. Gingrich himself became an object of ridicule
in the late 1990s, and many Republicans today worry that if he heads
the ticket the Party will suffer large losses.
It’s also dangerous for America. We need two political parties
solidly grounded in the realities of governing. Our democracy can’t work
any other way.
Robert Reich is Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He writes a blog at www.robertreich.org. His most recent book is Aftershock.
0 comments :
Post a Comment