The GOP's, uh, flexibility

Charlie Cook takes the long view:

[C]ould the Republicans’ arguably rigged House majority actually be a curse disguised as a blessing?... [I]n the process of quarantining Democrats, Republicans effectively purged millions of minority voters from their own districts, and that should raise a warning flag. By drawing themselves into safe, lily-white strongholds, have Republicans inadvertently boxed themselves into an alternate universe that bears little resemblance to the rest of the country?

That, I assume, is a rhetorical question. So on to answering some others.

The GOP is in a desperate scramble to survive, which is hardly anything new. The party repudiated its own long views of Eisenhower Republicanism once it decided, in the late 1950s and early 1960s, to strategically "fuse" intolerant Christianists and libertarian Goldwaterites under the GOP's ideological umbrella of rabid anti-communism (now rabid anti-Islamism or an aggressive anti-"Red" China stance or, heaven forfend, there's our Number One geopolitical foe, Russia!)--and thus win more elections.

Electoral politics assumed a vast, unlofty superiority over policy concerns and political consistency; hence the party's ease, for example, in denouncing Democratic deficits but unashamedly embracing its own, or in coddling religious fanatics through stridently anti-women's rights rhetoric while preaching civil liberties to the libertarians. Such were nimble acts of select demagoguery, but also politically practical and absolutely necessary if the chief objective was to be gained: more elections won and more power grabbed. (It can be conceded without contradiction that the point of politics is, naturally, to win elections; but generally some underlying, essentially immutable philosophy of governance is assumed by outsiders. With the modern GOP, we cannot assume any such thing.) 

This is, admittedly, a broad stroke. But it's also broadly true: Since, roughly, Goldwater's presidential campaign, Republicans have pledged to themselves that whatever it takes to win the next election is what they're for. Long, principled views? Pshaw. Those are for candyass philosophers, not tough, triumphant, working politicians.

So whenever strategists and pollsters indirectly ask Republicans if by creating "safe, lily-white strongholds" they have only "inadvertently boxed themselves into an alternate universe," Republicans don't really give a damn. They're now thinking only of 2014, the next election. What of 2016, or 2018, or 2020 or ...? They'll think about that in 2016, and in 2018, and ...

And their thinking won't be too tasking. Because for Republicans, principles are both fungible and cheap.

Comments

[Jason]

Actually, their Number One geopolitical foe is Obama, but point well taken.

[Robert Lipscomb]

We are approaching a through-the-looking-glass moment when Republicans become "the other". As much as I hate it, they have been able for most of my lifetime to get most people to accept them as the typical Americans. Even I bought into this as a progressive who was quick to embrace being part of an enlightened minority when I was younger.

Now, all the beliefs that used to render me as enlightened are embraced my my dear old rural Southern Baptists parents. Tell them that gay mariage will be legalized, and they shrug. actually, they are for it. Medicare for everyone - uh OK. Kind of obvious, really. Women in the work place? My 80 year old mother still has a parttime job - and definitely believes in pay equity. raise minimum wage and automate inflation-based increase? Well, of course.

And the list goes on.

We have all had friends or family members for whom we awke one day and realized, "He is not just difficult or odd or quirky. He's fucking nuts."

The GOP is at that point.

[Peter G]

The only thing I have to say about this post is that those who assume "generally some underlying, essentially immutable philosophy of governance" seem to be missing the essential point of these conservatives. Their policy is clearly anti-governance. Anti-regulation of any and every type. Anti-science and anti-economics. Anti-human rights. They are, as I have observed before, a big tent of people who share a non-belief in something. The worse part is their philosophy of governance in action is the same as the theory, block everything.

[japa21]

Peter, may I use some of that in a tweet?

[Peter G]

Be my guest Japa.

[Jim Milstein]

I beg to differ.

The GOP's axioms of governance are these:

i. Wealth ennobles the rich, and wealth degrades the poor.

ii. Poverty ennobles the poor, and poverty degrades the rich.

Everything else either follows from these axioms or is epiphenomenal. Being human and error prone the GOP's policies are not always efficient, but they tend asymptotically toward the goals implied above.