EDMUND BURKEEveryone’s talking about how – unless it changes – the Republican Party is doomed by demographics. Much attention is focusing on Hispanics and Asians. They are the fastest growing ethnic groups in the country, and 70% of them voted for President Obama. This is leading many Republicans to suggest that their party needs a different approach on the immigration issue. Although that’s certainly true, it is even more significant that 60% of voters under thirty supported the Obama-Biden ticket. If there is any group that is going to grow year by year, it’s the one composed of all voters born after 1982 – and the GOP is not going to win them over by repositioning itself on an issue or two.
A far more fundamental change is necessary.
Let’s focus on a few facts that illustrate the deep core of the problem: According to the Gallup poll, 67% of Republicans believe that claims about climate change are exaggerated (compared to 20% of Democrats), notwithstanding that climate change has been established to a reasonable scientific certainty. This is but one illustration that Republicans have become accustomed to denying reality when it clashes with their ideological preferences. Clinging to a belief in trickle-down economics – that cutting taxes on the wealthy, regardless of how low their taxes may currently be, stimulates economic growth, benefits everyone, and ultimately increases government revenues – is another example of ignoring unpleasant facts, e.g., the exploding deficits that followed the Reagan and Bush tax cuts.
Some of the party’s denials of reality are even starker. Gallup reports that a majority of Republicans believe that “God created humans in present form within the past 10,000 years.” Other surveys show that most Republicans still believe that President Obama was not born in the United States, notwithstanding that all facts are to the contrary – not only his birth certificate but birth announcements published at the time by both of Honolulu’s major newspapers.
The problems within the party have been getting worse. As previously mentioned, two-thirds of Republicans now believe that claims about climate change are exaggerated – but eight years ago, it was 35%. Political scientists have shown that the Republican Party has moved much further to the right than the Democratic Party has moved to the left. (See, e.g., Jacob S. Hacker & Paul Pierson, Winner-Take-All Politics 159 (2010). And yes, I consider moving extremely far to the right part and parcel of the Republican problem.)
This is a political party with far deeper problems than its position on immigration.
Those problems are not going to disappear because President Obama just won reelection. They have festered for a long time, and are now deeply ingrained within both the Republican leadership and rank-and-file. This year, five of the eight candidates for GOP presidential nomination said that they don’t believe in climate change, and four said they don’t believe in evolution. Within Republican circles, these are mainstream views. A political party doesn’t change because tacticians decide that its ideology isn’t selling. Political parties are not selling commodities. They are selling ideas – and they sell particular ideas not because they consider them to be saleable but because they consider them to be right.
Should Democrats like me be pleased that the Republican Party’s right-wing ideology has become so extreme and detached from reality – not to mention inflexible, intolerant, and mean-spirited – that the party is doomed in the long run? No, we should not be pleased. The present state of the Republican Party is not just bad for the party; it’s bad for the nation. Our democracy cannot function well without two sound political parties. The governing party needs to be balanced by a loyal opposition that provides intelligent criticism and offers sound alternatives. In addition, when one of the two national parties and many of its prominent leaders advocate particular positions – even demonstrably flawed positions – it gives those positions some aura of respectability beyond the confines of the party. Over the past eight years, for example, the percentage of independents who believe that claims of climate change are exaggerated has risen from 35% to 42%. Republican problems make it difficult to solve national and global problems.
While the Republican Party may be fated to change or die in the long run, it may remain politically viable – more or less as is – for quite a while. After all, the Republican presidential candidate just captured nearly 48% of the popular vote, and the party holds 45% of the incoming Senate, a majority of the House, and 60% of the nation’s governorships.
What’s required to bring the Republican Party back to health? (By the way, is it presumptuous for a Democrat to talk about GOP reform? Because we are all Americans first and foremost, and all Americans have good reason to want two healthy national parties, I think that even a Democrat like me can offer views and prayers for Republican reform.)
David Brooks has suggested that what’s necessary – and, in fact, already happening – is a debate about how conservatism should be redirected. This is surely one of the things that are necessary. I hope that one group of theorists – the Burkean Revivalists – will be particularly influential in the debate. We are also now witnessing some moves toward moderation by a number of Republican leaders, such as denouncing Romney’s statement that President Obama won reelection by giving “extraordinary financial gifts” to various groups, or expressing a willingness to abandon the Grover Norquist pledge to never raise taxes. But I do not believe that these developments, by themselves, are sufficient to the task.
What’s required is an organized movement – or, more probably, organized movements – dedicated to reform. One thing I learned from studying the creation of the modern conservative movement for my book Buckley is that individuals who build a community prevail over individuals who act independently. The Burkeans, for example, need to get together regularly in conferences or seminars to discuss and debate their ideas. They need an opinion journal, a website, and a blog to provide them with a dedicated soapbox and link them with an audience interested in those ideas. They need public relations to help find ways to project their ideas widely and expand their community. They need an organization to accomplish – and raise funds for – those things.
But I doubt that efforts to revise conservatism are enough. The Republican Party needs to rebuild a moderate wing. This too probably requires a formal organization. There was a time when the Ripon Society – which started as an organization of progressive Republicans – may have provided that vehicle; but the words “moderate” and “moderation” have become so disgraced within Republican circles that the Ripon Society appears to eschew them.
Finally, the task of reforming the Republican Party might be advanced by a reality-based pragmatist following Ron Paul’s model. Ron Paul ran a successful campaign in the GOP presidential primaries. His goal was not to win the nomination but to promote the libertarian wing within the party. He obtained visibility through the debates, and he drew enormous crowds on college campuses. Libertarianism is stronger for his efforts. What this model requires, however, is a candidate who advocates a defined cause – perhaps moderate Republicanism – and makes that cause the principal objective. This is what Ron Paul did; although he may never have said he was running, not to win, but to advance libertarianism, his objective was clear. A Republican reform candidate might concentrate on open-primary states, where independents can vote in party primaries, as well as college campuses. The objective would be to bring new people into the Republican Party. For this effort to be successful, however, the cause would have to be clearly defined and have its own organization, which would last beyond the candidate’s campaign.
However it’s accomplished, a reform effort is necessary for the good of the nation.