Friday, November 04, 2005
Further Thoughts
(Whoops, saved as draft and didn't publish ...)
To build on my thoughts from the other day, what I've particularly noticed in the internal conservative dialogue (largely from blogs, forums, and talk radio) is an increasing tension between a large segment of the "Activist / GOTV" base and the, for lack of a better term, "intelligentsia" of the movement. Most of it is (Republican) party driven. From my interpretations and anecdotal discussions, a good number of evangelical Christians are disaffected by the Republican Party and the conservative establishment in general. Most of their grievances boil down to that their issues are not really addressed post-election, nor are they addressed in a very serious manner. In some sense, I think they have a point. The GOP plays to the religious vote, relies heavily on the organized evangelicals for their grassroots organizations, but once the election is over, we really don't hear too much about the morality issues except on a local level.
What to make of all this? On a surface level, it shows that the Republican Party is just as factionalized as the Democrats have been in the past and, indeed, as all big political parties are. Big, successful parties have to act as a coalition of different interest groups which may or may not have much common philosophical background. All Republicans are not created equal. All Republicans are not conservatives. And I think we're seeing a break between the conservative establishment that has been at the forefront of the party since Goldwater, and the evangelical Christian voters who have fueled much of the party's electoral success.
What particularly intrigues me is how poorly represented the latter group is in the serious, conservative intellectual circles of writing, punditry, and academia. Far from being well represented, they are overshadowed by overtly Catholic and Jewish writers, as well as more mainline Protestants. Why? I have no clue. But unless I'm missing someone obvious, I cannot think of a single major conservative pundit, writer, or academic who professes to be an evangelical Christian; I can name many who profess the Catholic and Jewish faiths.
The break really came to the fore during the Miers nomination. When the White House's best argument for Ms. Miers was that she belonged to a particular church outside Dallas, this was a not-so-subtle wink and nod to the evangelicals that she was one of them and would likely vote in a manner they found pleasing. As the movement conservative pundits came down hard on Miers (especially on the paucity of the pro-Miers arguments), the refrain of "trust the President" and "she's one of us" rang louder and louder. In many instances, the"trust the President" case came with a serious subtext: Those who have done the legwork to put Bush in office deserve one of their own on the Court, and if you don't agree, well, you just don't trust the President who trusts God. After Miers withdrawl, the backlash against the establishment who helped doom the nomination was in full swing, as I saw and heard many comments effectively saying that evangelicals get no respect in the party, and their continued participation as the party's main activists is doubtful. That the next nominee was another Roman Catholic has only served to rub salt into that wound.
How deep does the rift go, and how will it translate in the next few election cycles? As with most things in politics, it will depend on what the issues of the day in 2006 and 2008 are. I'm not terribly bullish on Republican GOTV in 2006 or 2008, and I think the evangelical disaffection will play a significant role in that. The 2008 nominees will be very telling -- should the Republican candidate be Gov. Romney or Sen. Allen, I'd be wary. Though if the Democrats nominate Sen. Clinton, all bets are off.
To build on my thoughts from the other day, what I've particularly noticed in the internal conservative dialogue (largely from blogs, forums, and talk radio) is an increasing tension between a large segment of the "Activist / GOTV" base and the, for lack of a better term, "intelligentsia" of the movement. Most of it is (Republican) party driven. From my interpretations and anecdotal discussions, a good number of evangelical Christians are disaffected by the Republican Party and the conservative establishment in general. Most of their grievances boil down to that their issues are not really addressed post-election, nor are they addressed in a very serious manner. In some sense, I think they have a point. The GOP plays to the religious vote, relies heavily on the organized evangelicals for their grassroots organizations, but once the election is over, we really don't hear too much about the morality issues except on a local level.
What to make of all this? On a surface level, it shows that the Republican Party is just as factionalized as the Democrats have been in the past and, indeed, as all big political parties are. Big, successful parties have to act as a coalition of different interest groups which may or may not have much common philosophical background. All Republicans are not created equal. All Republicans are not conservatives. And I think we're seeing a break between the conservative establishment that has been at the forefront of the party since Goldwater, and the evangelical Christian voters who have fueled much of the party's electoral success.
What particularly intrigues me is how poorly represented the latter group is in the serious, conservative intellectual circles of writing, punditry, and academia. Far from being well represented, they are overshadowed by overtly Catholic and Jewish writers, as well as more mainline Protestants. Why? I have no clue. But unless I'm missing someone obvious, I cannot think of a single major conservative pundit, writer, or academic who professes to be an evangelical Christian; I can name many who profess the Catholic and Jewish faiths.
The break really came to the fore during the Miers nomination. When the White House's best argument for Ms. Miers was that she belonged to a particular church outside Dallas, this was a not-so-subtle wink and nod to the evangelicals that she was one of them and would likely vote in a manner they found pleasing. As the movement conservative pundits came down hard on Miers (especially on the paucity of the pro-Miers arguments), the refrain of "trust the President" and "she's one of us" rang louder and louder. In many instances, the"trust the President" case came with a serious subtext: Those who have done the legwork to put Bush in office deserve one of their own on the Court, and if you don't agree, well, you just don't trust the President who trusts God. After Miers withdrawl, the backlash against the establishment who helped doom the nomination was in full swing, as I saw and heard many comments effectively saying that evangelicals get no respect in the party, and their continued participation as the party's main activists is doubtful. That the next nominee was another Roman Catholic has only served to rub salt into that wound.
How deep does the rift go, and how will it translate in the next few election cycles? As with most things in politics, it will depend on what the issues of the day in 2006 and 2008 are. I'm not terribly bullish on Republican GOTV in 2006 or 2008, and I think the evangelical disaffection will play a significant role in that. The 2008 nominees will be very telling -- should the Republican candidate be Gov. Romney or Sen. Allen, I'd be wary. Though if the Democrats nominate Sen. Clinton, all bets are off.
# posted by Eric @ 12:31 AM 
