The political landscape

[unixronin]

I've come across a variety of articles across the Web talking about how the Republican Party is melting down as moderate Republicans, feeling marginalized by their own party, are abandoning it to run as independents.  (Here's an example from the Boston Globe.)

My intent here is not to argue about whether or not the Republican Party is in fact falling apart.  Rather, I have a larger question:  Assume for the moment that the speculation is true.  If the Republican Party falls apart, what happens to the Democratic Party?

The way I see it, there's a variety of ways it could go.  If enough moderate Republicans cross over to the Democratic side of the aisle, we could end up with a de-facto one-party system, with a Congress all but completely controlled by the Democratic Party and no other faction powerful enough to seriously challenge it at the Federal level.  Or, one or more of the third parties could pick up enough support to challenge the Democratic Party.  The Democratic Party itself could move back towards the center, influenced by former moderate Republicans and no longer needing to cater to its more radical left-wingers; or, no longer needing support from the center to defeat the Republican Party, it could move further left.  Or, it could even melt down itself, lacking the Republican party to balance it.

[Note:  I don't claim this is an exhaustive list, or that any of them is a sure thing.  I'm not predicting, I'm speculating.]

So, what do all you zombies think?

Comments

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

The Democrats are a loose coalition of interests that have learned to play nice with each other and not step too hard on each other's toes. In total, they are not nearly as polarized as most of their supporters and their blogs. Obama is really about as far left as they have dared nominate in my memory.

The Republicans were a fractious collection of interests that had a common enemy, the Democrats. Reagan gave them voice and cohesion two decades back. There has always been a suppression of dissent within the Republican ranks. (An example is Romney's withdrawal from the presidential campaign as soon as he was eliminated.)

King George has splintered the Republican coalition and broken their united voice. With the Democrats pandering farther to the left, and the Republicans in disarray, I see the formation of a new party that will tend to capture the center of the political spectrum. I figure a decade or so out. The current Republican party came from just such turmoil as we are seeing now. The new party will capture many Republicans and a lot of Democrats, though I expect the Democrats to survive as a party. This is a optimistic view.

[cipherpunk.livejournal.com]

I would disagree that the Republican Party has always suppressed dissent. William Safire and Milt Friedman were both quite welcome within the Republican Party of old, despite the fact they were Libertarians. I used to feel welcome in the Republican Party, too, despite my heavy Libertarian leaning.

What Reagan gave to the party was a code of conduct. The Republican Eleventh Commandment, as issued by Reagan, is "thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican." It was very much party above self, but honest and courteous dissent was always tolerated.

That all changed when Bush II was elected, and is the reason I left the Republican Party. Overnight, I found myself left out in the cold. In 2003, Bush II made some overtures to the Libertarian wing, in a "let's all pitch in together to beat Kerry, and oh, I promise we'll start paying attention to you guys again." I didn't buy it and I ended my affiliation with the GOP after having been a member for all my adult life.

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

Perhaps suppression is too strong a word. I agree with your point.

What I tried to say was that King George has broken the unity that Reagan created within the Republican ranks. He squandered a vibrant and re-energized party.

My experience mirrors yours. The GOP has moved decisively away from my politics in the last eight years. The only thing that keeps me attached in any way, is the good people operating the party and running in the local elections.

I hope for a new third party that will capture more of the center of political thought. I think the environment is right, it just needs the right spokesman.

[mzmadmike.livejournal.com]

My experience does not support this. There are plenty of elements of my writing that should, and I expected, to incense both right and left.

I get screeching, irrational hate mail from the left. From the right, about the worst I get is, "Well, I didn't care for the amount of sex, and I find some of the political positions to be objectionable, but it's certainly an interesting study."

And I KNOW some of the people saying that are Evangelicals.

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

What part did I get wrong? (I am always capable of making an error, especially when opinion is asked for.)

I find any cogent argument attractive and engaging, even if I do not agree with it. Poor logic is about the only thing the really incenses me. Then I tend not to engage at all. (For obvious reasons.)

[mzmadmike.livejournal.com]

The suppression of dissent. There is far more of it on the left. A few examples from memory:

Tipper Gore and the "Parents Music Resource Center"

Obama kicking the conservative press off his tour three days ago.

The feminist attacks on Palin. She may be a woman, but she's the WRONG TYPE of woman, and that's worse.

Do a test for yourself. Go to democraticunderground.com and attempt to dissent. You'll be booted and all posts erased within literal seconds. Go to freerepublic.com and do the same. They'll argue with you. At length, and often stupidly, but they won't suppress you.