Is the Reagan coalition coming apart?
For decades the Soviet Union was the glue that held the disparate elements of the movement together. For a brief time, it was believed that the Global War on Terrorism might take its place. That hasn’t happened. And it seems the much-needed soul-searching that occurred after Romney’s loss has resulted in a sort of tacit agreement that an amicable divorce might be preferable to the status quo.
There are too many examples of this re-ordering to include in this modest blog post. Obviously, it’s unclear what the “conservative” position will be on foreign policy. Is it Rand Paul’s more modest approach, or Marco Rubio’s more robust foreign policy?
Social issues are another conundrum. According to the three-legged-stool, social conservatives constitute a third of the conservative coalition. (Indeed, social conservatives were the last group to join the coalition, and proved to be the final ingredient for electoral success.) Yet more and more, their foundational beliefs are seen as an obstacle to the GOP’s survival (the GOProud vs. CPAC skirmish is merely a surrogate battle in a larger argument.)
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
It’s coming apart because, for decades, we’ve elected nothing but Fat Cat Republicans who only GROW government.
Everyone is pi$$ed now and depressed. The only thing that’s gonna save the coalition is to put the heads of the Ayatollahs of the Establishment on a pike (politically speaking that is). They need to be drummed out of the party.
As Soon As Possible.
HondaV65 on March 18, 2013 at 4:13 PM
Bit late to be asking this question, Matt. It started fragmenting in 2006 and by 2010 we had an intra-party civil war in full swing. You cannot have a leadership that is both fiscally and socially liberal while having a base that is fiscally and socially conservative. Politics doesn’t work that way. You can only demand party loyalty for so long before the base begins asking “Where’s the beef?” And the leadership isn’t learning from defeats. If anything, after each electoral defeat, they only seem to become more shrill and insulated from reality.
There are too many people in the GOP who basically support everything Obama does and tells us to “get on board” and that this is “the new reality.” If this is really the attitude of the leadership then they should just switch parties and stop wasting our time pretending to oppose Obama.
Doomberg on March 18, 2013 at 4:20 PM
Nailed it.
Kataklysmic on March 18, 2013 at 4:22 PM
We are seeing the same problem now that we saw in the 1960′s. Then we had the Goldwater wing and the Rockefeller wings of the Republican party at war with each other. The result was electing Democrats to office until we had Nixon, a pretty liberal Republican, elected. It wasn’t until Reagan that the Republicans were united and even then not until his second term. And even in his second term, not all Republicans were on board. Gingrich was calling Reagan’s cold war strategy “incompetent” as late as 1986.
Republicans have a history of party purity wars that ends up getting Democrats elected.
crosspatch on March 18, 2013 at 4:24 PM
The national security conservatives completely lose me when they go off on Russia.
Eurasianist traditionalism is much more appealing than the social and economic liberalism that the US establishment imposes at home and abroad.
I’m slowly understanding why so many of those on euro right actually supported the soviet union over the US.
ninjapirate on March 18, 2013 at 4:27 PM
No, Reagan’s coalition is still here. We are just waiting for a candidate who has the guts to stand on the three legged stool. Sarah Palin comes to mind.
fight like a girl on March 18, 2013 at 4:28 PM
RINOs and the establishment are the enemies of the land.
+ a few million
Schadenfreude on March 18, 2013 at 4:29 PM
the main problem I have with this argument is that there is no evidence that those that remain after social conservatives leave will be fiscally conservative.
Put another way – look at the GOP before the social conservatives (i.e., pre Reagan). Look at the GOPers that are not socially conservative and how they vote. Look at the non social conservative pundits and the things they push. Before Reagan we had Nixon (Medicare, among other liberal monstrosities). Ford was no real conservative.
Where is the evidence that absent social conservatives the GOP would be even a little conservative? Would reduce spending? Hold the line on taxes? Reform entitlements? Reduce regulations? Reduce the size and scope of gov’t?
What non-social conservative republican does one believe would be good on unions? on entitlements? on spending? Christie? Guilliani? Lindsy Graham? McCain?
Perhaps someone like Rand Paul would pull off being truly fiscally conservative while socially liberal. I don’t believe for a second the rest would do so. Let’s remember, the last “conservative” president – G.W. Bush, was pretty left on everything but abortion, taxes and the war on terror. He was for amnesty, Medicare Part D, increased spending, etc., etc.
But, the reality is, to equal the votes lost by jettisoning the social conservatives, the GOP would need to move significantly left on most fiscal / regulatory issues to pick up enough votes to replace the social cons and then add more votes to equal a majority.
There simply are not a lot of dem voters out there that are conservative “but for” social issues. There is some evidence in polling that indicates that there are a lot of religious conservatives who, absent abortion, would vote for dem fiscal policies. There is no evidence showing a large number of dems that but for abortion would vote for the GOP.
Socially liberal / fiscally conservative sounds great in theory (which is why the more immature glom onto it and call themselves liberterian) – but is a mess in reality. it doesn’t have a broad natural constituency and it is almost impossible to be consistent in practice. Because “socially liberal” policies implicate fiscal issues. Are you for a higher minimum wage? Better education? Helping the poor? Stopping aids? Giving out needles and condoms? All of those things have prices and fiscal consequences.
Defining “socially liberal” is also difficult. What does it mean. Does it only mean pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage? Or, does it include affirmative action? does it include requiring institutions to recognize and conduct gay marriage ceremonies? Does it mean you are for an “equal pay act” that requires dissimilar jobs to have the same pay (like garbage man and secretary) to ensure that women earn the same as men?
The idea that there is a simple divide between social conservatism and fiscal conservatism is wrong.
The constant hand-wringing along these lines stems from the illusory belief that the media will start to treat the GOP/conservatives fairly if we just gave up on abortion and gay marriage. That is simply not true. The media are all in for leftist fiscal policy – high taxes, high spending – wealth transfer.
They will still claim conservatives are racist – so to prove otherwise is the GOP to adopt every position that the NAACP and Black congressional caucus favors? Is “racism” a social issue?
Then, they will claim conservatives hate the poor and want the rich to get richer. Will we then abandon reality based economic theory in favor of “making the rich pay their fair share”? After all, poverty is a social issue.
It is not so simple and will never result in what the anti-social conservatives believe it will – electoral success. It will backfire badly instead.
Monkeytoe on March 18, 2013 at 4:32 PM
The GOP establishment was never part of the Reagan coalition, they fought against it the whole way and when he was out of office they reverted to business as usual as though he never existed. While they often claim the mantle of Reagan’s name on the one hand, they constantly work to undermine what he represented and make sure it somebody like Reagan never wins again. In fact the GOP establishment is so unpopular that they are an anchor around American’s neck that is preventing us from reaching the surface end gasping for air. They are so unpopular that they had to rig a vote at the Republican National Convention in Florida last year. They changed rules for picking the Republican POTUS nominee. They held a rigged vote and granted themselves the right to change the rules in the middle of future primaries, even after it’s all done, they can change the rules and thus the results. The corrupt GOP establishment granted themselves the right to veto POTUS candidates in the future, which they certainly would have done to Reagan if they had had that power at the time, IMO.
FloatingRock on March 18, 2013 at 4:33 PM
…and yet he led the first House GOP majority in 30 years. He would seem to have done something right.
People like you still think, in the face of mountains of opposing evidence, that liberal republicanism is the ticket to electoral majority. It isn’t and has never been so. Nixon had a Democrat congress and enacted Democrat policies, and only won office in the first place because of the unpopularity of the vietnam war. He’s not an example of Republican ideological success; he enacted price controls for crying out loud.
alwaysfiredup on March 18, 2013 at 4:35 PM
Only true libertarians can pull that off. Most people are not true libertarians.
alwaysfiredup on March 18, 2013 at 4:36 PM
In fact, the opposite is true – look at the black vote. blacks overwhelmingly claim to be socially conservative in poll after poll, but overwhelmingly vote for dems because of economic issues (and false scares of racism).
Hispanics also claim to be socially conservative in polls, but vote for dems because of economic issues (and false claims of racism).
How do we gain traction with blacks or Hispanics by jettisoning the one thing they allegedly agree with us on?
Monkeytoe on March 18, 2013 at 4:37 PM
The isolationist and interventionist view on foreign policy isn’t actually all that difficult to square, once you get pride and ego out of the way.
The way I see it, the sensible compromise is to have an extremely strong military, that you’re extremely reluctant to actually use. This was actually more or less the conservative consensus for a long time, so I don’t see it as being particularly difficult to return to this previous arrangement.
The more difficult task it finding a good compromise between libertarians and social conservatives.
The problem, at its core, stems back to the tactics the social right and left each chose to pursue power. It is often said that, back in the 70′s, the social right decided they needed to win politics, and the social left decided they needed to win the culture.
Thing is, in either a democracy or a republic, if you don’t have a solid cultural foot hold, you’ll never hold onto political power. The left was right to go after the culture, and the social conservatives don’t seem to realize how badly they’ve strained the relationship between themselves and more secular Americans.
Therefore, social conservatives really SHOULD be putting politics on the back burner, and going after the culture again. They should keep their political aspirations minimalistic, since, simply put the most effective defense against immorality isn’t legislation, it’s a spiritually healthy majority.
I don’t they’ll be easily convinced of this however, seeing as ego and pride are involved at this point.
WolvenOne on March 18, 2013 at 4:37 PM
As far as I’m concerned the Reagan coalition was long ago broken and taken over by the GOP establishment, which is basically neocon. Neocons are just a tiny minority of the party yet they control it? And if they won’t be allowed to control it, then the Reagan coalition is broken? I don’t think so. In order for the Reagan coalition to be whole again, the GOP establishment, the neocons, have got to go. They’re the face of the “Republican Party” that most American’s, even many Republicans, hate.
By getting rid of the unpopular, statist GOP establishment we can bring more small-gov people back into the coalition, as Reagan did and as was the case in the ’10 election, and start winning elections again!
FloatingRock on March 18, 2013 at 4:37 PM
Yes, “Reagan’s coalition” is coming apart… but that’s because the Reagan coalition blew up the Nixon coalition.
You have Reagan’s completely fail on Plyler v Doe and his Amnesty.
Look at the 3 stools of the “Reagan coalition”…
1. National Security(who are often a) outright imperialists b) concerned about a certain nations security more than the US)
2. Small government libertarian types
3. Religious Conservatives
The leaders of pretty much all of the stools are for loose immigration.
The GOP doesn’t need zombie Reagan or Goldwater… it needs Zombie Nixon… especially the guy on the tapes.
ninjapirate on March 18, 2013 at 4:40 PM
That’s kind of my point. I am not a huge social warrior at all. I don’t vote really on those issues in and of themselves. However, in my experience, Republican politicians who are openly socially conservative do not move left in office while the opposite always happens. Every non social conservative GOP politician moves left while in office. Every time an election rolls around, they will move back right a little, but then they immediately move back left. See, for instance, McCain.
I use social conservatism as a gauge to tell if the person truly believes in conservative principals or just wants to get elected.
I think it has to do with how ingrained the principals are.
If there were a true libertarian who I believed would hold true to small gov’t across the board – i would support that. I don’t believe such a creature exists in reality.
Monkeytoe on March 18, 2013 at 4:41 PM
Paul, for me, is the ultimate test of “fiscal conservatives but social moderate” types. It’s telling to me that the conservative base by and large has been very receptive to Paul’s message, while the “fiscal conservatives but social moderate” types support Rubio.
I think those who claim to be “fiscal conservatives but social moderate” are social liberals first and fiscal conservatives a distant second, if at all. A lot of the “fiscal conservatives but social moderates” supported Boehner fully on things like the debt ceiling raises and tax increases.
I think that a lot of these people are basically soft Democrats and haven’t figured it out yet. I never see them advocate for any conservative policies at all or even show willingness to compromise – it’s just “We need to cave into Obama on this,” pretty much all the time. And the cave-ins are never enough – they always just want “one more.”
Doomberg on March 18, 2013 at 4:43 PM
I really don’t think “neocon” means today what it once did or holds the influence it once held.
alwaysfiredup on March 18, 2013 at 4:43 PM
What use is Nixon’s coalition? The only Republican it elected was Nixon.
alwaysfiredup on March 18, 2013 at 4:45 PM
I’m not sure how you define “neocon” to say that neocons control the GOP. If you mean “interventionist hawk” – I think that is rapidly losing sway in the GOP.
Monkeytoe on March 18, 2013 at 4:48 PM
I agree with this. These are the type of people who claim they want fiscal responsibility but are outraged by every proposed cut or reform of any program. they can never explain what they mean by fiscal responsibility or how they would achieve it.
Monkeytoe on March 18, 2013 at 4:50 PM
But Reagan was not a liberal, interventionist neocon also working to turn American into a police state, violating our fundamental rights in the process. Reagan stood for our Constitutional rights. He would be backing Rand Paul right now, IMO, not neocon nation-builders who are also turning America into an unconstitutional police state even while they bankrupt us and enslave our progeny.
FloatingRock on March 18, 2013 at 4:52 PM
At the end of the day, conservatives lose because conservatism is a hard sell.
Liberals get to go out and promise everyone everything. We’re going to give you a great pension!! Free health care!! Great education!!
Conservatives have to convince people those things aren’t really the gov’t's job and that the gov’t can’t really afford to do those things.
The vast majority of people are always going to vote for free and easy over hard and not free.
which is why every single democracy is heading in the same direction – toward bankruptcy. Some faster than others, but they are all heading there.
Monkeytoe on March 18, 2013 at 4:52 PM
So, we need a platform of big gov’t, entitlements, price controls and terrible military decisions? What, exactly, do you believe the Nixon coalition would be?
Monkeytoe on March 18, 2013 at 4:55 PM
There is no small number of commenters at HA that purport to be conservative who I have never seen advocate for a conservative position or even take time finding fault with Obama. They’ll sure as hell mock anyone unwilling to jump on the amnesty or gay marriage bandwagons though.
Kataklysmic on March 18, 2013 at 5:00 PM
I really do think it is possible to sell conservatism, but you need good spokesmen and spokeswomen. But first you need a leadership that believes in it and can articulate it, and we by and large don’t have that. This is why I’ve decided internal reform of the GOP is useless and I’ve been pushing for a new second party.
Part of the reason you’ve seen the rise and fall of so many “flavors of the month” such as Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Ben Carson, and Gingrich is because the movement is desperate to find a popular leader who can compete with the GOP and the Democrats and sell conservatism.
Doomberg on March 18, 2013 at 5:01 PM
While I hope you are right about being able to sell conservatism – I don’t know if I believe it any longer. Obviously, a really good salesman would have a better shot than a lousy one (a la Romney or McCain – neither of whom is conservative), I’m not sold on the idea that a majority of americans would vote for truly reducing the scope and size of gov’t, or reforming entitlements significantly.
Everyone has their own gov’t program, grant, benefit, whatever that they do not want to see cut. That is the dem coalition – every person who wants to save whatever program they like (and the GOP uses this too). So, midwest farmer likes ethanoly subsidies? let’s make a deal with NY dairy producers for milk subsidies. What’s that sugar and moe-hair subsidies? You want in to? Well, let’s talk to labor about what they want out of this deal. Worried about cuts to education – throw some money in for education too!
Monkeytoe on March 18, 2013 at 5:10 PM
there are a ton of commentors – who I otherwise see arguing conservative positions on other issues – who support amnesty. I’ve never understood it. I can understand having empathy for illegals. I don’t understand how they believe it is good policy for the U.S. or good politics for the GOP to support amnesty.
Monkeytoe on March 18, 2013 at 5:12 PM
In a word: yes.
Stoic Patriot on March 18, 2013 at 5:33 PM
I think it is losing sway because we aren’t winning wars anymore…we are instead great big meddlers with awesome hardware and soldiers. If we gave our military the authority to go win a war and then come home, hawkishness wouldn’t be falling out of favor.
cptacek on March 18, 2013 at 5:37 PM
I think the way to sell it would be running on something along the lines of “reducing fraud and waste” or “cutting entitlements to the other guy” and then essentially doing big cuts once in office. Obama showed us the way with Obamacare. Yeah a lot of people complained, but in the end the country re-elected him because his opposition couldn’t offer a compelling vision. We’re now at a point where gun control – once thought to be untouchable for the libs like abortion is untouchable by us – is about to be passed.
I think if the party was willing to take risks and show leadership, a LOT more could be accomplished than most people think. It does not help to declare issues pre-emptively “off the table.” That mindset leads to defeat.
There’s a myriad of reasons. First a lot of the younger ones are convinced that opposition is just simple racism, that Hispanics are all Catholics and OF COURSE will vote for the GOP, and turn their brains off. Those are the worst. Any warnings about balkanization, the massive costs of legalization, and all the other problems are dismissed as racism. The mirror image of these people are conservatives terrified of being called “racist” and so go along with it.
The next are the soft racists who think that Hispanics can be easily bought with welfare, and that if we run Rubio they will all vote for us because Rubio is Hispanic (never mind that he is from Cuba and they are mostly from Mexico and Central America). Unfortunately, most of the types adovcating for amnesty on this site and in the pundit class in general appear to be of this type.
The last are those who are corrupt and have some sort of financial or business motivation.
Doomberg on March 18, 2013 at 5:44 PM
Matt Lewis is turning into a Cassandra.
Robert_Paulson on March 18, 2013 at 6:51 PM