The Tectonic Plates of the Republican Party

For years Republican spin doctors and national political commentators have talked compared the Republican Party monolith to the Democratic Party's rampant fragmentation. It has been argued that the GOP maintains a strong coalition of Evangelical Social Conservaties and ardent Fiscal Conservative/Libertarian-leaning Free Marketers, while the Democrats have relied on often opposing constituencies to for their electoral success: Latinos, African-Americans, Gays, Women, Unions, Jews, and others.

Indeed, if elections were held only amongst white males, or even amongst whites, the Republicans would have a permanent and sustainable electoral majority. The converse of this reality is a phenomenon Dick Morris frequently refers to as the "browning of America," which he says indicates the Republican Party's long-term inability to win national elections. However, I would contend that there is a great underlying rift brewing within the Republican Party. The Bush Administration has brought to a boil the waters of discord between the factions of the GOP, and Bush Policy coupled with the emerging hot-button issues of the day, are about to set off a massive earthquake in Republican politics.

In order to understand the dynamics of the upcoming 2008 presidential election, and what is likely to ensue in its aftermath, we must first look at three factors: the existing GOP factions and their divergent ideologies, the policies of the George W. Bush Administration and how they relate to the constituencies who elected him, and the emergent issues of the day and how they create factional rifts within the GOP. Once we have looked at these three topics, we can better understand the future of the Republican Party and of two party system in the United States as a whole.

Dogmatics vs. Dollars
Without doubt, there are overlaps between the two primary factions of the American Republican Party, those being the Social Conservative wing and the Fiscal Conservative/Pseudo-Libertarian wing. And, of course, there are gradations of beliefs across the factions, and people who sit idly moderate on all of the issues as well, but we will not focus so much on those individuals since the Democratic Party has its equivalents, they end up cancelling each other out and merely serve as a limiting influence on the more fervent of the primary factions. In fact, many Social Conservatives are also Fiscal Conservatives, at least on certain issues, and in many cases, there are Fiscal Conservatives who are also Social Conservatives, again, on certain issues. The media, and the TV talking heads, frequently oversimplify the dichtomy of the intra-party politics of Republicans by talking about the "far right" and the "moderates." The divisions go far deeper than that.

The M.O. of the Social Conservative (in most cases) is to champion policies that are in line with his set of overarching religious and moral convictions. Laws against abortion and gay rights are not, to them, an imposition of their morality on somebody else, but an enforcement of the only morality on people who are grievously in error. To not legislate such morality would be to allow, and even promote, "moral decline," which is a particularly frightening notion for the Evangelical as it inheres in the concept a coming judgment from God. For the non-Evangelical social conservative, there is still a sense that the country cannot survive without the maintenance of centuries-old status quo on everything from the traditional role of women to gay rights. Because their primary motivation is fear, they find themselves unable to make policy concessions and compromises on any subject at any time. This has positioned them to be the squeaky wheel of the Republican Party, and Bush-Cheney-Rove has made sure to oil it frequently.

Social Conservatives, do not, however, limit their moral impositions to domestic social policy. They demand to meddle in foreign affairs as well. The Evangelical love affair with Israel is perhaps te most startling example of a completely non-pragmatic approach to foreign policy. To the social conservative, Israel can never be in the wrong, unless it pursues a policy of peace with Palestine, and Israel must be supported in all cases of military or diplomatic conflict regardless of its position on whatever matter is at-hand. This reality stems from the Evangelical's theological belief in the doctrine of Dispensationalist Pre-Millennialism, which tells of the imminent "rapture" of all Christian souls and an ensuing massive war of seven years amongst the nations of the earth before the ultimate War of Wars, the Apocalypse, catylized by the Anti-Christ, Jesus's physical return to Earth and reign from Jerusalem for a Thousand Years before God ultimately ends the Earth and starts all things anew. This fantasy interpretation of the Revelation of St. John is the intrinsic motivation of Evangelical foreign policy towards the Middle East, and is the ultimate root of the hatred of Muslims that has spiraled out of control in the conservative Christian community, exacerbated by 9/11.

The War on Terror is an outgrowth of the Evangelical view of Israel, and the threat American Evangelicals feel from Islam itself. Much like the great satan of the atheistic Soviet Union, Evangelicals have a common cause to rally against what they see as a challenge to Christendom, except that Islam's equivalent fundamentalism even more frightens the conservative Christian than the atheistic movement of Soviet Russia. The only thing worse than stamping out religion is promoting another one. Social Conservatives are amongst the most vitriolic warmongers of today, who, while spouting "pro-life" rhetoric on abortion out of one side of their mouths, promote full-scale wars on half the countries in the Middle East, and often going so far as to encourage bombing the entire region.

Conservative Evangelicals further desire interference in foreign policy on the subjects of immigration and trade. Because they view America as God's chosen people of today (resulting in quite un-Biblical notions of "America First"), Evangelicals oppose any measure that respects or accounts for the existence of competing cultural values, religious beliefs, or economic interests. Since all things to them are "black or white" and "right or wrong," they view all foreign matters through that dubious and narrow lense of the Zero Sum Game.

If Latino immigrants come to the United States, then the current people of the U.S. must lose something, jobs, seats in classrooms, etc. Like the Xenophobic racists of old who preached the impending doom of the country in the wake of massive Irish immigration and Italian immigration, the new xenophobes of the current Conservative Evangelical political movement use poor economics to justify their policies of hate. Similarly, when it comes to foreign trade, the leaders of the Social Conservative wing are skeptical of Free Trade Agreements and international trade organizations. Pat Buchanan, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Duncan Hunter, and Tom Tancredo play Chicken Little with American Trade policies, excoriating massively beneficial trade accords like NAFTA, GATT (and its successor, the WTO), FTAA, Most Favored Nation Status for China, and others. They fail to see, or perhaps refuse to see, the tremendous economic benefits gained from such free trade policies that have been long-established by the economic profession since the Ricardian Model of Comparative Advantage.

The Social Conservative wing is to be contrasted with the Economic Conservative wing of the Republican party, which itself is broken down into two sub-categories: the Libertarian/Free Market Republicans and the pro-Big Business Republicans. Many people think these two are identical, but that is far from the truth. Amongst those within the GOP whose agenda is primarily economic, there are those (the Big Business folks) who advocate such anti-free market policies as corporate welfare, massive tax breaks for large businesses, economic regulations favoring those who already control the markets, industry-specific protectionism, etc. On the other side are the Free Market/libertarian Republicans who favor across-the-board tax cuts, elimination of the Internal Revenue Code with the intent of replacing it with either a flat tax or national sales tax, the streamlining of government bureaucracy, elimination of waste and excess spending of any kind, reduction of economic and trade regulations, etc.

The Big Business Republicans are those whose elections are owed to their large donors, the owners of the big businesses who benefit directly from the massive and convoluted regulatory policies that shut competition out of the marketplace. They are the ones most vulnerable, however, in elections, because their policies do not support a massive number of voters. This is why Big Business Republicans often adopt a strong tinge of Social Conservatism to motivate the masses to vote for them at the polls. The overlap is due not to agreement on those issues but political convenience and opportunism.

Free Market advocates, typified by organizations like the CATO Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, the Hoover Institute, Ludwig Von Mises Institute, the Institute for Humane Studies, the Independent Institute, and the Ayn Rand Institute, have the benefit of a substantial following in the grassroots, but without the same kind of financial support gained by the Social Conservatives (who tap their financing from churchgoers who think that a political donation is as morally important as their tithe) and the Big Business Republicans (who obviously draw their funds from mammoth corporations and their PACs). They base their political arguments in economic analysis that is often subsumed by the mantras and dogmatics of the Social Conservative on the Right, and the Populist/Socialist on the Left. Consequently, Free Market Republicans have been the ones most marginalized in the public discourse. They are the ones that have been most ignored by the Republican Party's leaders in Congress, and by the Reagan-Bush-Bush Administrations. Although Ronald Reagan was one the most Free Market Presidents of post-World War II era, his fiscal policy was driven primarily by his desire to bring an end to the Cold War, and consequently is known for massive deficits and military expenditure. Bush 41 and Bush 43 have even worse records with the Free Market/libertarian economic movement, the former raising taxes and the latter unwilling to control deficit spending (as well as enacting more social welfare spending than FDR and LBJ combined).

The enmity between these factions has been compounded by the policies of the Bush Administration, which brings us to our second topic.

George W. Bush and the End of Republican Dominance

One could quite successfully argue that in a certain sense, the Republican Agenda dominated the American political discourse from 1968 through 2006, nearly forty years. From the time of Richard Nixon, the Republican Ideal was established to challenge America's slide towards socialism. The purely Socialist policies of the Democrats in the post-World War II timeframe, combined with the rise of pacifism and appeasement in the Democratic Party beginning with George McGovern's 1972 Presidential Campaign against incumbent Richard Nixon. Although the Republicans went through brief periods of darkness (the aftermath of Watergate and Bill Clinton's first two years in office), and although they did not have an iron grip on the White House and Congress until 2000, the discourse has revolved around the question "The Republican Agenda or Not The Republican Agenda?"

The five most powerful and important elected personalities during this golden era of conservatism were Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, Ronald Regan, Newt Gingrich, and George W. Bush. Goldwater was an ardent libertarian on economic policies and a hawk on foreign policy. Nixon was the archetype of pragmatism and diplomacy. Enough of a hawk to not seem weak, but the greatest diplomat to hold the White House in the 20th Century (it did not hurt that Henry Kissinger was his National Security Advisor and later Secretary of State). Reagan was part-free market, part-hawk, and supreme inspirer and communicator. Whether or not he knew of Napoleon's observation "a leader is a dealer in hope," he dealt in hope, and he sold a lot of it. It is no wonder that for this reasons he is ranked amongst Lincoln as the greatest and most admired President in American History. Newt Gingrich is by far the most brilliant of the bunch, and without doubt one of the best strategists in modern American politics. He is additionally the most articulate contemporary Conservative on policy issues, and engineered the most difficult electoral success the Republican Party has ever achieved. Finally, we have George W. Bush. It is likely that history will view him as the Czar Nicholas II of the Republican Party as we know it today.

The Bush Administration has not only divided the United States as a whole over issues like the Iraq War, but has also created deep chasms in the Republican Party concerning a series of policy decisions. The Farm Bill, an almost $200 Billion venture into failed agricultural socialism, No Child Left Behind, which further nationalizes the education bureaucracy and was co-sponsored by Ted Kennedy, the Prescription Drug Bill, a half-trillion dollar expenditure on socialized medicine, the 2002 Steel Tariffs, his response to Hurricane Katrina, Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants, and many other policies, have driven sizeable wedges between the factions of the Republican Party. His cavalier approach, and lack of diplomatic acumen have further compounded the problem.

In 2006, for the first time since 1964, the national debate ceased to be around the Republican Agenda and became purely a referendum on the Bush Administration and in favor of the undefined Democrat Agenda, centered around a withdrawl from the Iraq War. This was caused in part by President Bush's division of the Republican Party faithful. Republicans stayed home en masse, Independent and Moderate voters broke heavily for Democratic candidates, and Karl Rove's grand strategy failed miserably for the first in his career. The President had relied to heavily on the faithfulness of the Christian Right and Evangelical movement to carry the day. No matter how loudly Republicans screamed about gay marriage, they simply could not get enough people to the polls to stop Rahm Emmanuel's juggernaut. Now, with Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House, Harry Reid as Majority Leader of the Senate, and the likes of Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama, and Al Gore in the spotlight of the national political scene, President Bush is scrambling to play defense for the first time of his tenure. If he had played a little defense 2 years ago, he might not be having to play it so heavily today.

With Republicans now distancing themselves from the President, we see the charade of the GOP Monolith. The aftermath of 2006 has exposed to the blinding light of day the inherent divisions inside the Republican Party. The factions have symbiotically co-habitated for the better part of four decades, but will the trend continue? Were George Bush the only element at play, it might be a possibility, but there is more to the equation as we approach the 2008 elections.

The Emergent Issues of the 21st Century

There are several issues appearing on the national and global scenes that will define the future of partisan politics in the United States. They are issues that challenge the traditional fracture of political ideology in America, and test whether the coalitions of the last forty years can continue to hold. The primary issues at-hand are: Climate Change, Immigration, the Rise of China as a Superpower and America's loss of Hyperpower Status, the Economic Influence of Europe, and the coming Balance of Payments/Unfunded Liabilities Crisis caused by the bankruptcy of Medicare and Social Security.

These issues will drive a wedge inside the Republican Party. The Evangelical Republicans' Sinophobia is already emerging, and their longstanding opposition to Immigration will provide a continued xenophobic and racist bullwark for their positions, while ignoring the truly important problems of the day, such as the impending collapse of the U.S. monetary system absent massive action to decrease future unfunded liabilities, either through tax increases or substantial benefit reductions. Furthermore, the Evangelical wing of the Republican Party (the likes of Pat Robertson) have joined the radical Environmental Lobby on the issue of Climate Change, and they, like the Chicken Littles of the Left, are proclaiming that the earth will be flooded inside of a century, and the only way to stop it is radical reduction of carbon emissions. This will push the Evangelical Republicans farther and farther away from both the Big Business Republicans and the Free Market/libertarian Republicans.

The Future of the Republican party is pretty grim. The party is going to face increasing fracture as these emergent issues come to a head. The party will have to survive the 2008 primary without ripping itself apart, and if it loses, must somehow band together to defeat the legislative agenda of the Hillary Clinton juggernaut. It likely will not. I predict that within a decade the Republican Party will splinter...but it may not be the only one. It could be the greatest realignment in a hundred years, and hopefully it will not come too late for the sake of the US Economy.