The moderate middle

[Kraken]

A few days ago in another thread, I opined that the runup to 2008 (which, with lame-duck Bush in office, has already begun) will feature a struggle for the direction of the newly-dominant Republican Party. I believe that the moderates will wrest control from the right wing, expanding the party's appeal to the vast moderate middle and cementing the Republicans as the party of the majority.

Moderate voices retain sway in bolstered GOP supports my opinion. Sample quote:

They don't like runaway deficits, and some of them favor abortion rights. Most voted against a constitutional ban on gay marriage, and several withheld their support for energy and Medicare bills that the Republican leaders in Congress wanted.

Never mind the Democrats, whose diminishing power on Capitol Hill has conservatives optimistic about approving further limits on abortion, passing additional tax cuts, and confirming conservative federal judges. The real brake on an ultraconservative agenda in the Senate could be Republicans from Democratic-leaning states -- the Northeast moderates and independent thinkers whose votes will also be needed to pass contested legislation.

With a 10-vote advantage welcoming them in the next Congress, Senate Republican leaders surely will have an easier time passing legislation that has been bottled up in the current Congress, where Republicans have a bare 51-to-48 majority. But the chamber's Northeast Republicans are insisting on making their moderate and fiscally conservative voices heard, saying Bush could not have won without support from centrist Republicans.

"I think the view that moderates as a group should be jettisoned from the party wouldn't bode well for the future," said Senator Olympia Snowe, Republican of Maine and cochair of the Senate Centrist Coalition. "We should be striving to embrace anyone who wants to be a Republican and who shares some beliefs with the Republican Party."

Darrell West, a political scientist at Brown University, notes that with 55 members next year, Republicans "are not as dependent on New England. But the most ambitious parts of the Bush agenda are going to require 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. In those terms, New England still has clout."

Cultural conservatives, especially antiabortion activists, are not so inclusive. Claiming a critical role in reelecting President Bush and expanding the Republican majorities on Capitol Hill, conservatives are pressuring senators to deprive Senator Arlen Specter -- a moderate Republican who won reelection to his Pennsylvania seat despite the state going for John F. Kerry -- of the Senate Judiciary Committee chairmanship.

Keep an eye on this trend, because it's going to persist -- quietly at first, but with increasing vigor as we get closer to the next primary season. If they want to avoid being further marginailzed, Democrats would be well advised to make common cause with these centrists.[/quote]

[SuperHiro]

I see two paths for the GOP at this point.

1) They make peace with the centrists in their own party, and adopt a more or less moderate-skewing- right style policy. We don't see another Democrat president until 2016.

2) The GOP adopts a scorched earth policy, marginalizing their moderate wing and embracing a hard hard right agenda. Roe v. Wade is overturned, as Bush nominates hard core anti-abortionists to the supreme court. The Gay Marriage ban amendment doesn't pass but an ENORMOUS hubbub is made over it. Only a few states acknowledge gay civil unions (namely the west coast, anchored by the liberal hippie-dip cities Seattle, Portland, Los Angeles, and San Francisco; Northeast also). Moderates move to the democratic party, and the Clinton-style New Democrats rise to power. GOP might win the 2008 election in another squeaker (mostly because Hillary ran), but Dems retake Congress and win the presidency by a comfortable margin in 2012 (when an actual human runs). Time Magazine runs an issue with a picture of a donkey kicking an elephant in the nuts on its cover.

[jblank]

I find it hard to believe that Moderates have much sway in the party, when I see Bill Frist railroading Arlen Specter over his chairmanship of Judiciary, because of Frist's fear that Specter wont support many of the very conservative justices and judges that Frist/Bush want.

[Quipp]

It certainly appears that the far right wing of the Republican party have much more control over party direction than ever before. The Spector situation bears watching because his ouster as Judiciary head could further embolden the far right and spur them on in their quest to purge moderates from the leadership.

It will be interesting to see if Bush keeps the focus on more moderate issues like Social Security and tax reform or bows before the pressure of his far right supporters and turns his next term into a moral crusade. This choice could have serious consequences for 2008.

And was anyone else disturbed by Frist's comments about changing the Judiciary Committee rules to disallow filibusters of judicial appointees? Kind of makes the whole point of having a minority party rather moot, huh?

[Faldarian]

If they can demonstrate that they can fill the ballot boxes with neo-conservative agendas, I see no reason at all why they would make an attempt at changing that. I'd expect them to try and find a candidate who appeals to the same voters that Bush did this year in the same way.

Unless they manage to change the constitution so Schwarzenegger can run.

[Eel Snave]

Faldarian, I just noticed your tag. I love it.

[Zarathud]

It will be interesting to see if Bush keeps the focus on more moderate issues like Social Security and tax reform or bows before the pressure of his far right supporters and turns his next term into a moral crusade. This choice could have serious consequences for 2008.

Having followed the Republican theories of reforming Social Security and tax reform since 1988 (and turning it into a career choice), I would say that a number of the proposals on the table are not moderate but rather radical departures from the status quo.

Chances are high that Bush could make a major policy misstep on these moderate issues. For example, Bush has left off his agenda the serious fiscal impact of his first term tax cuts, which are serious concerns for moderate Republicans like myself (causing more than a few of us to vote Kerry who the Economist noted "his records and instincts are as a fiscal conservative" on 10/30/04). It's possible that the Republican party could begin to split at the seams on the Bush idea that there's no "bad tax cut."

Not all Democrats were unaware of the danger of the lurking "moral value" voter (whatever the hell that is). In this thread, I posted an interesting speech by former Clinton Labor Secretary Rob Reich where he suggested that the 2004 Presidental election was about "strength and toughness" and that the main issue people confronted him across America on was the perceived "immorality" of Democrats. The question is whether these voices will now be heard within the Democratic party and be able to find a convincing way to flip the issue back around on Republicans. If the conservatives push their agenda too hard while the Democrats are able to communicate their own "morality" issues, the Republicans could be the party licking its wounds in the next election in 2006 or 2008.

[Quipp]

Having followed the Republican theories of reforming Social Security and tax reform since 1988 (and turning it into a career choice), I would say that a number of the proposals on the table are not moderate but rather radical departures from the status quo....Bush has left off his agenda the serious fiscal impact of his first term tax cuts, which are serious concerns for moderate Republicans like myself (causing more than a few of us to vote Kerry who the Economist noted "his records and instincts are as a fiscal conservative" on 10/30/04).

I can't argue with this statement. I'm sure Bush's economic plans, like many positions his administration has staked out, are radical. I just think that his focus would be best kept on economic problems (some of which, as you stated, Bush has caused himself) rather than figuring out ways to butcher the Constitution to suit the far right's idea of morality. For a moderate Democrat like myself the social agenda just seems a more pressing concern.

It's possible that the Republican party could begin to split at the seams on the Bush idea that there's no "bad tax cut."

I don't see why. I didn't see an appreciable divide this election. Or did many of the Republicans who questioned Bush's economic policies still give him their vote anyway? It's not like the economy was too hot this go round, so unless it's worse in 2008 I don't expect to see a serious party split.
Not that I wouldn't like to, mind you.

...former Clinton Labor Secretary Rob Reich...suggested that the 2004 Presidental election was about "strength and toughness" and that the main issue people confronted him across America on was the perceived "immorality" of Democrats. The question is whether these voices will now be heard within the Democratic party and be able to find a convincing way to flip the issue back around on Republicans. If the conservatives push their agenda too hard while the Democrats are able to communicate their own "morality" issues, the Republicans could be the party licking its wounds in the next election in 2006 or 2008.

Well, if they can come up with a plan that will convince all my Republican acquaintances that I'm not a baby-killing, Jesus-hating, anti-family, anti-war traitor who wants to take their guns I'm all for it. I think it will be hard for Democrats to find footing in the morality debate however, as the Republican party seems to have cleverly managed to wrap abortion, gay marriage, family values and religion into one neat little bow. Untying it will be a bitch.

[Dirt]

The moderate middle will have little voice so long as Bush is President.