![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
redneckgaijinI keep hearing people crow about Tea Party victories in Republican primaries. "The Republican Party is going to split!" they say. "Those wingnuts are driving out the moderates, who will HAVE to vote Democratic!"
I'm not buying that. This sort of talk has been going on, now and again, since 1995, when so many people were crowing that Newt Gingrich's Contract With America purge of the Republicans would "split the party," etc. I suspect it goes even further back, to Reagan's 1976 run, but I was only two at that time so I can't speak to that. We've been watching for a split, or some sign that the party structure is going to break, ever since. All the time, through victories and losses, the Republican Party as a whole has become more and more right-wing, to the point that it now resembles a theocratic fascist party rather than a conservative party.
And over the same period of time, talking heads aside, the Democratic Party, especially its leadership, has become more and more conservative as well.
That's right, NOT more liberal, more CONSERVATIVE. The whole political spectrum has shifted to the right.
And why is that? Because the conservative Republican base does not allow its party to take it for granted. Conservative leaders, mostly with deep, deep pockets, organize opposition to elected Republicans who stray from conservative orthodoxy. They find candidates who are more conservative to replace them, run them in primaries, and then stay home if the more moderate candidate wins. The net result is, even if the moderate wins the primary, they tend to lose the general election, leaving the conservatives a clear field the next time the office comes up for election. Over the long term, Republican conservatives win and Republican moderates lose.
The Democratic Party system could not be more different. With the Democrats there is no ideological orthodoxy; the sole goal is power for its own sake. To gain this power the Democrats continually seek to recruit moderates from the Republican party, which requires their political positions to shift ever onward to the right as the pool being ejected from the GOP ranks. Liberals are told, point blank, to sit down and shut up- because the ONLY alternative to Democrats is the evil, insane Republican Party.
And what would happen, if a Tea Party like organization tried to take over the Democratic Party? The Democrats have that covered. All candidates for the Democratic nomination have to swear an oath to support the eventual nominee- no matter who, no matter what. That means candidates who are running specifically to oust a conservative Democratic incumbent are not allowed to run as Democrats unless they basically endorse that incumbent beforehand.
If the GOP has a similar rule, it certainly isn't enforced.
Thus liberals are told, again and again, that the Democratic Party OWNS their vote, that they have no choice but to support the Democrats... while, more and more, the Democratic Party completely fails to support them.
The most current example of the results is the Texas race for Senate. Rick Perry's hand-picked choice, Lt. Governor David Dewhurst, just lost the nomination overwhelmingly to a nut of massive proportions, Ted Cruz. (Think about that for a minute: the Republican Party of Texas now thinks Perry & Co. are insufficiently conservative.) To oppose him, the Democrats nominated... Paul Sadler, whose campaign has two messages: "Vote for me- I'm good at working with Republicans," and, "Oh, how sad it is that Republicans will outspend me 100-1."
Republicans, demanding obedience, orthodoxy and accountability of their candidates, picked a radical, fire-breathing wingnut. Democrats, seeking a middle that keeps shifting, nominated an inoffensive empty suit.
Until liberals start demanding accountability from Democratic politicians, things will continue to get worse.
And, I admit, it might already be too late...
I'm not buying that. This sort of talk has been going on, now and again, since 1995, when so many people were crowing that Newt Gingrich's Contract With America purge of the Republicans would "split the party," etc. I suspect it goes even further back, to Reagan's 1976 run, but I was only two at that time so I can't speak to that. We've been watching for a split, or some sign that the party structure is going to break, ever since. All the time, through victories and losses, the Republican Party as a whole has become more and more right-wing, to the point that it now resembles a theocratic fascist party rather than a conservative party.
And over the same period of time, talking heads aside, the Democratic Party, especially its leadership, has become more and more conservative as well.
That's right, NOT more liberal, more CONSERVATIVE. The whole political spectrum has shifted to the right.
And why is that? Because the conservative Republican base does not allow its party to take it for granted. Conservative leaders, mostly with deep, deep pockets, organize opposition to elected Republicans who stray from conservative orthodoxy. They find candidates who are more conservative to replace them, run them in primaries, and then stay home if the more moderate candidate wins. The net result is, even if the moderate wins the primary, they tend to lose the general election, leaving the conservatives a clear field the next time the office comes up for election. Over the long term, Republican conservatives win and Republican moderates lose.
The Democratic Party system could not be more different. With the Democrats there is no ideological orthodoxy; the sole goal is power for its own sake. To gain this power the Democrats continually seek to recruit moderates from the Republican party, which requires their political positions to shift ever onward to the right as the pool being ejected from the GOP ranks. Liberals are told, point blank, to sit down and shut up- because the ONLY alternative to Democrats is the evil, insane Republican Party.
And what would happen, if a Tea Party like organization tried to take over the Democratic Party? The Democrats have that covered. All candidates for the Democratic nomination have to swear an oath to support the eventual nominee- no matter who, no matter what. That means candidates who are running specifically to oust a conservative Democratic incumbent are not allowed to run as Democrats unless they basically endorse that incumbent beforehand.
If the GOP has a similar rule, it certainly isn't enforced.
Thus liberals are told, again and again, that the Democratic Party OWNS their vote, that they have no choice but to support the Democrats... while, more and more, the Democratic Party completely fails to support them.
The most current example of the results is the Texas race for Senate. Rick Perry's hand-picked choice, Lt. Governor David Dewhurst, just lost the nomination overwhelmingly to a nut of massive proportions, Ted Cruz. (Think about that for a minute: the Republican Party of Texas now thinks Perry & Co. are insufficiently conservative.) To oppose him, the Democrats nominated... Paul Sadler, whose campaign has two messages: "Vote for me- I'm good at working with Republicans," and, "Oh, how sad it is that Republicans will outspend me 100-1."
Republicans, demanding obedience, orthodoxy and accountability of their candidates, picked a radical, fire-breathing wingnut. Democrats, seeking a middle that keeps shifting, nominated an inoffensive empty suit.
Until liberals start demanding accountability from Democratic politicians, things will continue to get worse.
And, I admit, it might already be too late...
