Republican Factionalism's Future
The factional infighting in the Republican Party certainly shows no signs of abating. That's the only clear message the party's electorate sent last night, on what was supposed to be the biggest primary night of the year. This fight began a few years back, when the ultra-purists in the party (the radical wing) began calling their faction the "Tea Party," and then began making lots of noise out in the street. After the 2010 elections, Tea Partiers gained an actual foothold in the House of Representatives, and have flummoxed John Boehner ever since. This tug-of-war for party control continued apace last night, and such internecine struggles will continue into the foreseeable future. Neither the radicals nor the establishmentarians in the Republican Party have truly gained full control of the party itself. The voters are divided, and the divisions are on full display in Washington as well.
Rather than micro-examine Super Tuesday's results or predict what will happen in any of the upcoming primary contests this month (you're probably already maxed out on such analysis by now, right?), instead I'd like to take a longer view, and contemplate where the Republican Party will be headed after the 2012 election. There are three major scenarios as to how this could play out, if you'll join with me in what is admittedly some way-way-too-early speculation.
Republicans win back the White House
In the first of these scenarios, either Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum wins the Republican nomination, and then goes on to beat Barack Obama in November. Assumably, the Republicans would keep their majority in the House, and might even take the Senate -- guaranteeing them the driver's seat on Capitol Hill as well as in the Oval Office for at least the next two years.
In this scenario, no matter who wins the presidency (Santorum or Romney), the divisions within the Republican Party would burst out into the open, in a big way. There would be epic battles between the Tea Partiers and the Establishmentarians in Congress -- much like the "Progressives versus Blue Dogs" squabbles Democrats had to deal with during Obama's first two years in office.
Either Santorum or Romney would be leading one faction from the White House, which might tip the scales in that faction's favor (even if that faction didn't have overwhelming numbers within the Republican caucus in Congress). Romney would likely preside over a fairly mainstream Republican Party which would concentrate more on economic issues than social hot buttons. Santorum would likely do the opposite. How successful either would be is an open question, depending on how the factional chips fell within Congress.
Either way, the factionalism battle within the party would be brutal, hard-fought, and front-and-center in the public's eye. The struggle for ultimate party control would likely go on for years.
Santorum nominated, loses to Obama
The "loses to Obama" scenarios are a lot more interesting to examine (perhaps I'm biased, since that's a fairly subjective thing to say). If the Republican nominee loses to Barack Obama, the party is going to have to do some serious self-examination, and the big question will be: "What lesson was learned in 2012?"
The answer will depend on who the nominee actually turns out to be. There are really only two viable contenders (at this point): Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney. Say Mitt stumbles badly out on the campaign trail -- says something so monumentally out of touch that it crosses the line of being downright offensive to Republican base voters. Trashing Ronald Reagan in public, say. Santorum would swoop in and start winning every state, until he grabbed enough delegates to secure the nomination.
The purists in the party would rejoice. Finally -- finally! -- they would have nominated a true-blue (true-red?) staunch social conservative who was not afraid (who actually enjoyed) fighting the culture wars. Instead of picking a moderate like John McCain (remember, he was the "moderate" in his race) who could not adequately (or "believably") defend the conservative cause -- finally the hard right and Christian right would have one of their own as the standard-bearer of the Republican Party.
Of course, in this scenario, Santorum would be absolutely crushed in the general election. The landslide would be so enormous that it would be impossible to state the magnitude of the Republican loss without a mandatory comparison to Barry Goldwater. Turns out all those moderate suburbanites and independent voters out there are really not into moving American society a half-century or more backwards in time.
The Republican Party would, at this point, either split into two splinter parties (Tea Party Republicans and Grand Old Republicans, one assumes) or go through a period of backlash. This backlash would be the Establishmentarians screaming "We told you so!" at the tops of their lungs to the Tea Party faction. "You can't get anything done in Washington unless you get elected, and the only way to get elected is to present a moderate face to the voters," would be the longer version.
The Republican Party would learn the lesson "purists aren't electable on a national scale" and would likely emerge as a much more cautious entity as a result. The Tea Party would shrink into obscurity, until the next paroxysm of hard-right indulgence, years down the road.
Romney nominated, loses to Obama
This is the likelier scenario, at least looking at the current state of the delegate count. Mitt Romney limps across the finish line in a few months' time, and secures the Republican Party nomination. Republicans will fall in line behind him once this happens, motivated by their seething hatred of the current occupant of the Oval Office. There will be no "PUMAs" at the Republican Party convention, except for a lonely crowd of Ron Paul followers, protesting vainly.
Romney then goes on to lose to Barack Obama in November (all three of these scenarios leave out the possibility that a third party makes a meaningful run, I should point out, which would complicate matters beyond such simple analysis as this column). Whatever the reason for Mitt's loss (perhaps unemployment drops to 6.9 percent, right before the election), the Republican Party again will take stock of itself, after two presidential disappointments in a row.
But the lesson they learn may be exactly the wrong one. Romney, after all, is the moderate in the race (no, really!). The purists in the party are going to scream: "This is what happens when you don't back a true conservative!" Two "moderate" candidates losing two elections in a row -- elections that Republicans were convinced were theirs for the taking -- is going to further enrage an already angry base. After all, the Tea Partiers didn't rise until after McCain lost, and the party took a very sharp turn to the right. If history repeats itself, this time the Tea Party could demand the reins of power in the Republican Party, and the establishment Republicans would be so demoralized they might just go along with such a radical idea.
How effective this gambit would be would depend heavily on the makeup of Congress after the election. If Republicans lose the House, their voice will be a lot quieter, for instance. But the real consequence of such a purist turn wouldn't be evident until the next presidential election.
Remember, Republicans almost always nominate the guy who is "next in line" from the previous contest. If Romney wins the nomination this time around (but not the White House), in 2016 the next Republican in line is going to be none other than Rick Santorum. Which would indeed be an interesting turn of events.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at Business Insider
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
If Santorum is nominated and loses, the Party won't take the message that they need to be (or rather, pretend to be) more moderate. They'll take the message that they need to avoid whatever disaster keeps Romney from being nominated, and maybe that they need to focus on different issues.
The Republican establishment is radical.
The Republican establishment is radical.
ANY political "establishment" is radical...
Any attempt to exclusively attribute this to only one Party simply proves it...
Michale.....
Chris Weigant, I appreciate your analysis. Would you mind commenting further. 1) Do you think Establishment GOP has already picked a favorite and is working to get him elected? 2) Do you think Establishment GOP will take inappropriate actions to get him elected? 3) Have you read or seen any videos documenting some of the strange happenings by GOP officials at the voting sites? 4)Is it possible that 10-15% of Disaffected Republicans and Democrats along with a large majority of Independents will create a "Legitimate 3rd party"?
Andrew Barrientos -
First off, welcome to the site. Your first comment was held for moderation, but from now on you'll be able to post comments instantly -- as long as you don't post multiple links within a single comment (which is automatically held for moderation to cut down on comment spam).
Now, as to your questions:
1. I think the GOP establishment is not unlike the GOP voters -- they're behind Romney, but reluctantly.
2. Depends what you mean by inappropriate. They'll certainly throw their weight around, as they already did when it looked like Newt had a chance.
3. Nope. Do tell!
4. Anything is possible. What I'm going to be watching closely is how the Americans Elect thing plays out. Will there be a third name on the ballot with enough heft to affect the GOP/Dem race? Could be, could be... but a lot's going to depend on who they pick.
Looking past this election, it is possible that a third party rises, but if it truly was a viable major party then (historically, at least), it would be followed by the death of one of the other parties (likely the GOP, in this scenario) -- and then we'd be back to a two-party system, with one change in party name.
-CW
It would be most interesting if Gingrich and Paul dropped out. Santorum would garner the great majority of conservative votes. He would have won Ohio. My guess is that establishment Republicans, as much as they hate the infighting, want to see the right wing splitting the vote thus allowing Romney to limp to the finish line, because Santorum would be crushed in the general election.
bob -
Welcome to the site. See comment [4] above, for info on posting comments.
You raise a good point about Gingrich, but I think if Paul dropped out it wouldn't matter much, because I think most of his voters would then just stay home on primary day.
Gingrich's last hope is MS and AL next Tuesday. I've heard rumors that if he doesn't win at least one of them, he'll likely drop out. But then I take such rumors with a grain of salt, because the real question is whether his Las Vegas Sugar Daddy will keep funding his hopeless campaign or not.
It sure would clear the field for a Romney/Santorum race, though. But you are most likely right about the establishment of the party being pretty OK with the three-way race, and the split vote right now.
-CW
3) Voter fraud is rampant in Republican election. You can find it out easily with a google/youtube search. I will not waste space here with links.
Do you think a 3 party system would be more healthy for Americans?
Andrew -
Interestingly enough, I just posted a column on the third-party theme. Go back to the main page here, and it should be visible now.
-CW
There's a world of difference between a third-party scheme and a three-party system. It's easier to get a multi-party system (which may happen to have three major parties, but doesn't have to) than a three-party system (which has three parties as its only equilibrium, just as single-seat plurality elections have two parties as their only equilibrium).
There are lots of ways of having multi-party systems. Parliamentary systems, where you form a government by assembling a majority coalition in the parliament, tend to be multi-party. My favorite idea for a multi-party system is to simply eliminate geographical districts and let people choose which House seat to vote for. Any party that can organize a decent registration drive, sufficient to get about 1% of the population to choose a particular seat as their supporters, could get a House seat from California. In other states the threshold would be higher, but nationally there would be a bunch of parties.
To get a three-party system, you could put two offices on the same ballot. Each person gets to vote for one candidate, and the top two vote-getters are elected. You could institutionalize the role of opposition leader, and elect him or her on the same ballot with the president. Legislators could be elected two to a district, on one ballot.
I favor a one/two/many party system. "Two" comes from the status quo, and "many" from a proportional scheme. For the "one" component, there's a chamber that acts as a sort of permanent constitutional convention and you need a slight supermajority to get elected as a full member. Members would be elected nation-wide. Only one party at a time can aspire to such supermajority status. Usually this role would be vacant: the standing convention would mostly have limited members, who can only introduce bills, vote either way in committee, and vote no (or abstain) on final passage.
dsws - You're talking way over my head. I've no clue what you're saying.
When I mentioned 3 party, I was referring to Repulican, Democrat, + 1 "AE".
I'm saying that as long as we elect people the way we do, we're stuck with a two-party system.
As it is, all significant offices are elected by having a list of candidates on the ballot, you vote for one, and the one with the most votes wins.* A candidate doesn't need a majority (i.e. more than half) to get elected, just a plurality (i.e. more than anyone else).
*(The electoral college in presidential elections is technically an exception. But it only makes a difference when candidates are basically tied.)
Nor is it at all proportional: in a hypothetical scenario where 20% of the voters vote Theocrat, 35% vote Plutocrat, and 45% vote Democrat, the candidates elected from that district are Theocrats 0%, Plutocrats 0%, and Democrats 100%. Of course, the voters know this in advance. So do the candidates. And the organizers, and the donors. So we don't have separate Theocratic and Plutocratic parties: they would lose every time. Likewise we don't have separate parties championing the causes of organized labor and LGBT equality.
If we changed the system, so that 35% of the votes would get you about 35% of the seats in the House instead of a big fat zero, we would have those separate parties. I think that would be a good thing, because there are more than two sides to every interesting issue.