In late October, Michael
Tomasky wrote the following about the factions in the Republican Party and
the purported civil war between those factions:
The more I think about this
Republican “civil war,” the less it looks like war to me. It often gives the
appearance of being war because these Tea Party people march into the arena
with a lot of fire, brimstone, and kindred pyrotechnics that suggest conflict.
But what, really, in hard policy terms, are these two sides arguing about?
Practically nothing. It’s a disagreement chiefly over tactics and intensity.
That’s a crucial point, and so much of the media don’t understand it. But I’m
here to tell you, whenever you read an article that makes a lot of hay about
this “war” and then goes on to describe the Republican factions as “moderate”
and “conservative,” turn the page or click away. You are either in the hands of
an idiot or someone intentionally misleading you.
I beg to differ. There appear to me to be several areas on
which the Establishment Republicans differ with the Tea Party Republicans. My
conclusions are the result of reading two papers co-authored by Ronald Rapoport:
Rapoport, Dost, Lovell, and Stone, “Republican Factionalism and Tea Party
Activists,” and Rapoport, Dost, and Stone, “The Tea Party, Republican
Factionalism and the 2012 Election.”
First, the Tea Party Republicans are different from non-Tea
Party Republicans in terms of issues, priorities, and political style.
Percentage
Taking Most Conservative Position on Issues (CCES)
Top Priority Issues
(CCES)
The three charts demonstrate that Tea Party Republicans are
more conservative than non-Tea Party Republicans, that their issue priorities
are different from non-Tea Party Republicans, and that their willingness to
compromise is much less than non-Tea Party Republicans.
Ideologically, Tea Party Republicans are different from
non-Tea Party Republicans as the following chart demonstrates:
Rapoport, Dost, and
Stone conclude:
Our analysis points to a party divided, but one with a Tea
Party majority among rank and file identifiers.
Approval of the Tea Party, although down from its high point (of 29
percent), has remained stable over the past year and, is still as high, or
higher than that of the Republican Party.
Under these circumstances attempts by established leaders of the
Republican Party to shed or tame the Tea Party are unlikely to succeed.
Instead, the chasm in issue positions and priorities presage
continued conflict, particularly as the party moves towards 2016. The bitter factional conflict over the
government shutdown, the debt limit, and the budget all present serious
difficulties for a party trying to gain power, particularly when, for a
significant part of the party ideological purity trumps electability. [Emphasis added]
Interestingly, this same
conflict within the Republican Party of Texas existed for many years until the
more ideologically conservative faction won control and began electing their
members to public office in Texas. The conflict exists, but it is muted by the
electoral success of the ideologically motivated Texas Republicans in winning
office. To understand the conflict, compare the moderate positions of George W.
Bush as governor of Texas with the more ideologically motivated positions of
Rick Perry, who succeeded Bush when he resigned in 2000 after winning the
presidential election. Purportedly, Bush and Perry are not close, based largely
on Perry’s comment that Bush was not a real conservative.
No comments:
Post a Comment