Why Moderate Republicans Suck
Note: The following is a blog post written in 2009 for the Moderate Voice. I’ve brought it over to Medium and Ordinary Times for archival purposes, but the message is still a valuable read today in the age of MAGA and NeverTrump. Be aware that because of the age of the post, many of the links used no longer work.
Okay, the above title might be a bit harsh. But even so, we moderates really are in a world of hurt.
The moderate/liberal movement in the GOP that once had the likes of Thomas Dewey and Dwight Eisenhower is barely alive these days. Some of that is due to the fact that social conservatives have driven moderates out of the party with their emphasis on issues like abortion and gay rights as litmus tests. As David Jenkins has reported, hard-right conservatives have done what they can to get rid of GOP leaders that are deemed not Republican enough.
So, one important reason that there is not a thriving moderate movement in the GOP is that the party has done a good job at trying to purge us from the party.
Many a writer tends to stop at that point and not ask any more questions. The belief is that the current Republican leadership, which tends to be made up of hard-right conservatives, needs to be more open to moderates. Of course, this is true. Even though the current leadership is far more conservative, they need to be willing to bend on certain issues, especially in those swing districts. What works in a Republican-dominated area, doesn’t work in all areas. This is what helped bring Democrats back into dominance: they ran more conservative Democrats in areas that were swing districts. It tended to work swimmingly for them.
But this is only part of the story. Bloggers and journalists tend to write what is the easy story: narrow-minded Republicans harassing their more moderate brethren. But there is another part of the story that tends to be missing, though some people do catch it now and then.
The missing story is the lack of a credible countermovement within the GOP, a movement for change. When one talks of Moderate Republicans, we talk of a loose group of individuals who are basically on their own. For example, take Senator Arlen Specter, who until recently was a moderate Republican. After he voted for the stimulus package, he received a fair amount of protests from Republican groups.
The image in the media was of a lone Republican Senator against a phalanx of hard-right groups. In the end, Specter decided to leave.
This image has been seen again and again. A lone, moderate Republican legislator is attacked, not by a collection of cranks, but by organized groups that have the money, and more importantly, the people to take down those who are not pure.
The lesson here is simple: the hard right is a movement. There are groups of like-minded individuals that come together and are able to force change in the party. A single person realizes they are part of a larger movement and that gives them the strength to march forward.
On the other side, moderates are at best a collection of individuals. We tend to feel lost and alone and don’t feel a connection to anything greater than us. Because we are isolated, we don’t feel as empowered and tend to give up easily.
If the GOP is to moderate, then there needs to be an effective moderate movement within the GOP forcing change. Nothing will ever happen unless these collections of frustrated individuals come together and organize.
Hence, why we moderates suck.
What conservatives in the Republican party have done over time is to create a culture that could sustain them. Think tanks, magazines, organizations, and blogs have all been developed to foster this culture. Yes, it has been inward-focused and it does have its weaknesses, but what this conservative culture is good at is empowering people, making them believe that it is in their power to change things.
The reason moderates do not feel so empowered is that we have no discernable culture or movement to back us up and give us meaning. The result is that we feel adrift and powerless to make a difference.
There are many ways to help build a credible movement of moderate to liberal Republicans. I want to focus on a few areas where there is a weakness.
Blogs. There are many blogs on the far left (ie: Daily Kos, Huffington Post) and on the far right (ie: RedState, Hot Air) that cater to those parts of the political spectrum. Some have many readers, some have a few. But all of them have something in common: they reinforce a person’s political viewpoint. Now, many of these partisan blogs are more heat than light on the political issues of the day. They are more cheerleaders than they are trying to think about issues. In the past, I would have said that being a cheerleader is of little value, and to some extent, I still believe that. However, there is also a case to be made that a little cheerleading for your side can make one feel that they are part of a greater movement; that they are not alone in how they feel of think.
When one goes to look for blogs of moderate/liberal/progressive Republicans, you will tend to find a graveyard of blogs that were started with good intentions, but then died for various reasons. Take, for example, the Lincoln Coalition, a blog that states its goal as “a grassroots organization of current and former Republicans that is dedicated to building a party based on traditional Republican principles.” It has not published a new post in over two months. They had a wonderful description that talked about wanting to return the party back to its principles. They had a few months of posts and then…nothing.
It’s hard to try to rebuild a party when you aren’t trying to disseminate ideas.
There are other bloggers that have also stopped for various reasons. Go to Charging RINO, or Plain Talk GOP or the Liberal Republican (which has since been removed), and you will find blogs that are basically dead. Now, the internet is full of blogs that are no longer in use, and there are probably a good number of conservative and liberal blogs that are also on life support, but for some reason, the ones that I see that have become ghost towns tend to be moderate Republican blogs.
I’ve been blogging on politics in one form or another for a few years now. I don’t know how many people see my blog, but I do know it is important to keep blogging on the events of the day. And I do know that over time people do see your work and take notice. Blogging can be about yelling, but it can also be about sharing and presenting ideas to people. It can be about getting out a message and letting others know they are not alone in the political world. An active blog can also help grow a living movement. A dead blog can’t do that.
Lack of Strong Institutions. One of the glaring problems among moderates in the GOP is the lack of a counterpart to the Democratic Leadership Council. The DLC describes itself as an organization that started to bring Democrats out of the “political wilderness. ” The goal was to moderate the Democratic Party and wrest it from the hands of the liberals who controlled the party and brought it to defeat. If you go to the DLC website, you find papers on various issues from immigration to health care, all placing a centrist Democratic spin on things.
There really isn’t a counterpart among Republicans. Yes, there is the Republican Leadership Council, and it has done some good by supporting moderate candidates. That said, it doesn’t seem to offer ideas in the way that the DLC does. The RLC does have state chapter, but the site doesn’t say a whole lot about what is going on.
That doesn’t mean that groups like RLC or Republican Mainstreet Partnership are somehow wastes of time. I think both groups have good and grand intentions, but they lack the people to help promote and fuel their agendas. If moderates feel disenfranchised and isolated, then trying to buck up worthy groups like these seem pointless.
Weak Web Presence. If you check out the website of Republican Youth Majority, you will notice that it hasn’t been updated in a long while. Go to their Facebook Page and you will find the same thing. If IanTanner is correct and the GOP needs to reach out to younger populations that are more moderate on social issues, this group should have a live page showing what they are doing. But instead, we find a very old website and Facebook page. I have no idea what they are doing.
Take a look at the California Republican League, a state moderate organization. Again, the website has not been updated since at least 2004. It does look like the group is still in existence because of it’s Facebook page, but other than that, I have no idea what they are doing and how they plan to help moderate the California GOP.
If an organization doesn’t bother to update its website, then it might as well not exist. The only way for a group to thrive is to have an active web presence getting its message out. Some groups like Log Cabin Republicans and Republicans for Environmental Protection get it, use blogs, and social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook and update their webpage.
Individualism. Maybe the thing that is most destructive to creating a moderate movement is that most moderates tend to see themselves as individuals and not part of a movement. Moderates are not one to just follow someone and while that can be commendable, it can also breed a sense of isolation, so that when the cold winds of extremism blow, they are easily knocked down and they leave the party.
There is an old saying from the civil rights movement that goes, “Walk Together Children, Don’t You Get Weary.” Maybe if we learned to walk together, to support each other in the hard times then we would see a stronger movement. Trying to change a party takes stamina and fortitude, but it also takes numbers and as they say, there is strength in numbers.
These are only a few observations. If people want the GOP to be a center-right party again, then it is up to moderates to make it happen. But we have to be able to do it as a team and make the long slog to change. We have to be willing to blog, create strong organizations, and use the web to get out the message of change within the GOP.
Then, Moderate Republicans won’t suck.
I can’t believe I missed this essay.
The main thing I kept thinking was a variant of whataboutism, though.
We have moderate republicans who don’t suck. They’re just running as Democrats and winning elections. Who’s in charge of the government in Portland? In Seattle? In Minneapolis? In Chicago? In Baltimore?
How many Republicans are on these city councils? How many in charge of talking to the Police Chief about what could be done to address police excesses?
Heck, look at California in general. The Republicans have all but disappeared. The only ones left are the nuts.
I submit to you: those places have just as much of a Republican-temperment percentage of folks in the government as anyplace else.
If you want evidence, look at the school districts. Look at the policing. Look at the taxes.Report
Someone else makes the point better than I could:
Report
Saying that mainstream Democrats are essentially moderate Republicans seems to correlate with my observations.
Which is to say, the Democratic Party in places like California represent, not the extreme end of the Overton window, but the center of the spectrum. They represent the business interests, the mainstream churches, the nonpartisan institutions like universities and civic organizations.
So its fair to say that the failure to learn from past police abuses and implement reforms lies with the preferred policies of the center of the political spectrum.
Like I asked the other day, the very same shopkeepers who are so shocked and alarmed at their looted stores, are the very ones who for decades groomed and elected these Democrats, and who set the agenda of issues, and determined the course that lead us to this point.
Which is just a restatement of MLKs observation that the impediment to progress are the moderates, not the fascists since the moderates prefer to accommodate fascism rather than suppress it.Report
Those danged shopkeepers, grooming Democrats.Report
Do you think the Democrats in power were created by some other group, or by some other means?Report
The city councils of NYC, LA, Chicago, Philly, Seattle & Portland? Yeah, I’m not seeing how the shop keepers are the ones in charge here.
Get down to levels found in, say, Council Bluffs Iowa? Sure. That’s the Chamber of Commerce’s city, no doubt.
Philly? NYC? Portland?Report
Who do you think controls the City Council races in these cities?
Who funds them, provides networking and access?Report
Don’t you think that businessmen, instead of funding a city council race, would just get themselves on the city council, like they do in red cities? Instead we see many blue cities where business owners are giving up in despair. In Seattle, for example, Amazon seems ready to pick up stakes and leave, rather than foot the bill for the Marxist utopia the city council is determined to create.
One of the obvious reasons is math. The Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue area has about 4 million people, but only 97,000 businesses. Even if all those businesses were individually owned by locals, they would amount to only 2.5% of the electorate.Report
In Council Bluffs? Sure.
In Chicago? It ain’t the owner of Rocket Candy, the guy who runs the McDonald’s at 3rd and Elm, and the guy who has the U-Wash-It carwash next to the national chain grocery store. Even by their powers combined.Report
Aren’t small shops like this exactly who are members of the Chamber of Commerce?
Like, if you do a search for the member directory on almost any CoC you will get a list of hundreds of small mom and pop shops?
Why wouldn’t you think a McDonalds franchisee or car wash would belong?Report
Chip, you’re arguing against me as if I’m saying “Chicago doesn’t and Council Bluffs doesn’t.”
I’m, instead, arguing “Council Bluffs does work like that. Big cities don’t work like that. Chicago doesn’t work like that.”Report
How then do you think these large cities like Los Angeles and Chicago work?
Who or what is funding and supporting and electing all these moderate Republicans who are called Democrats?Report
Differently than Council Bluffs, that’s for sure.
If you’d like to read about how Rahm Emanuel became mayor of Chicago, the Wikipedia has a nice section on the 2011 election here.
The main thing that I noticed is that “The Media” was involved and this section here:
He had 75 contributors give more than $50,000, twenty-five of which were from out of state. Among these high-dollar contributors were Steven Spielberg, Donald Trump, and Steve Jobs.
(I suppose you could point out that Steven Spielberg, Donald Trump, and Steve Jobs are all businessmen and, therefore, your point is made.)Report
Oh you’re right that very large cities attract interested parties from beyond the local CoC.
But that only explains so much. It doesn’t explain all the City Council races, Planning Board races, Police commissions, etc that make up the muscle and structure of city government.
Policing is usually a very local issue; Tech billionaires can’t explain why so many of these Moderate Republi-crats have so consistently turned a blind eye to abuse.
And it definitely can’t explain why the local business and property groups never seem to make it an issue.
Like for instance, my councilman, Jose Huizar is going on trial for taking bribes from local real estate developers in exchange for favors.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-08-03/jose-huizar-los-angeles-city-councilman-plea-corruption-case
The people who were (literally) his paymasters had an agenda of issues they wanted addressed, and none of them involved police reform.
I wonder how many of these real estate developers owned properties that were looted.
And if they are now making the connection between their political power and the consequences of ignoring this issue.Report
Tech billionaires can’t explain why so many of these Moderate Republi-crats have so consistently turned a blind eye to abuse.
Not even in Portland, Seattle, or San Francisco?
Like for instance, my councilman, Jose Huizar is going on trial for taking bribes from local real estate developers in exchange for favors.
Well, let’s read the article…
I’m not getting a big “Chamber of Commerce” feel from this part of the story.
I guess I’d need to know more about the “businessman”.Report
Aside from the Chinese guy, they were all local developers. Rich, but still part of the local scene.
It is literally impossible to develop any property in LA without the approval of the local Councilmember.
So what is your theory?
That large cities are entirely beholden to transnational elite, while the local CoC gets ignored?
Once again, this theory doesn’t explain any of the facts on the ground.
Like if the local CoC didn’t want the form of policing we have, why haven’t they made an issue of it?
For years the head of our local Police Commission was Rick Caruso, a local real estate developer, who built The Grove, where some of the riots took place.
I don’t recall him ever making police abuse a priority.
And I come back to why, if the local CoC took police abuse seriously, didn’t they take action?
They certainly aren’t shy about announcing their support or opposition to any and all land use issues.
Because the CoC and the shopkeepers they represent, never cared about police abuse.
Until their windows started getting broken.Report
How are Democratic politicians supposed to get rich off of police issues? There’s no money there, much less the millions that they can make through massive bribes over real estate projects, environmental projects, and every other loony project California implements. Do you think they pass all those insane leftist laws for nothing? No. They get rich off of it.
You see, under socialism, the powerful get extremely rich, just like Diane Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, and the other California Congressmen, who have a combined net worth of about $440 million dollars. The average net worth of a Congressmen is only $500K, so California’s 55 Congressmen should be expected to only have $27.5 million, just one sixteenth as much.Report
Chip, it’s the example that *YOU* gave.
If you want me to look at an example that does better at making the point that life in The Big City maps pretty much to life in Council Bluffs, give examples that don’t involve international billionaires engaging in large-scale corruption that would be unheard of in Council Bluffs.Report
I did, right in my comment.
And if you have a counter theory, you haven’t explained or supported it.
You started by saying that moderate Republicans were actually Democrats and wondered why the Democrats weren’t doing anything about police reform.
And I explained why, that the constituencies they represent don’t care about police reform.
You haven’t offered any other theory.
Transnational billionaires don’t really figure into this equation, local forces do.Report
I think that pointing out that LA works differently than Council Bluffs doesn’t require me to be able to detail out how LA works. Just to point out that Council Bluffs has fewer Billionaires engaging in corruption with the city council.
I mean, let’s ask you the question that was brought up in the tweet I mentioned:
Why is police reform so difficult even in cities where Democrats have a strangehold on the city council?
You’re saying that it’s the Chamber of Commerce types mucking everything about. I disagree. In the big cities, it looks like the Chamber of Commerce types are barely showing on the radar. They’ve been pushed out by the billionaires.
And I provided an example of that (Chicago).
And you provided an examples of that.Report
I gave you an example of a local CoC type sitting on the Police Commission, overseeing one of the most out of control forces in the country.
If your theory is true, we would expect police reform to be more successful in smaller cities where billionaires don’t have much influence.
Is this generally true, such that it demonstrates a convincing pattern in support of your theory?Report
Why would small cities need police reform? Their cops get along with everybody. It’s pretty much just large Democrat cities that seem to have a problem.
Those are also the cities that have often gone to a catch-and-release, revolving door, no bail system of law enforcement, designed to maximize the number of violent criminals roaming the streets.Report
If your theory is true, we would expect police reform to be more successful in smaller cities where billionaires don’t have much influence.
Only if you assume that the rot goes as deep.
Is this generally a good assumption?Report
We started with a question: Why are Democratic establishments so reluctant to pursue police reform?
You’re trying to advance a conclusion (Billionaires are influencing the candidates).
Yet your conclusion doesn’t have a hypothesis or logical theory- Why would billionaires want to do this?
Worse, you don’t have a series of data points that can form a pattern which supports the hypothesis. You have two data points, but there are thousands of other elected Democrats- in big cities, small cities, and in between- who have no connection to billionaires.
So you can understand why I find my theory of the local gentry as the more plausible, right?Report
No, my argument is not “billionaires are influencing the candidates!”
My argument is that the Big Cities work differently than life in, say, Council Bluffs.
My evidence for that being the case is the billionaires.
As for the cops not being reformed, I’d probably just say that the politicians aren’t interested in reforming the cops.
And what conclusion should you reach about that?
Well, the easiest one to get to from here seems to be something like “the cops don’t work for *YOU*.”
You have two data points, but there are thousands of other elected Democrats- in big cities, small cities, and in between- who have no connection to billionaires.
Yes, but the ones where the cops need the *MOST* reform? Those appear to be a handful of cities.
Here, let me post the tweet again:
“So you can understand why I find my theory of the local gentry as the more plausible, right?”
It certainly seems to let “the democrats” off the hook and put it in the mouth of the small business owners.
Even as we point to examples of billionaires from outside of the area engaging in corruption. Doesn’t matter. It’s that darn guy who owns the self-serve car wash!
Why, look at how it’s done in Council Bluffs.Report
And here’s one of the responses to the above:
Look at the date. August 25th. Making reference to the Mayor doing the veto on August 24th.
Is the argument that the Mayor is in the pocket of the Chamber of Commerce and that’s why he did the veto?
What the heck is going on?Report
Again, you don’t seem to be advancing any hypothesis.
Why are big city Democrats not pushing for police reform?
“They do things different in the big city” isn’t a hypothesis. It isn’t even demonstrably true with regard to policing.
There are plenty of small cities like Ferguson or Kenosha where the cops are also out of control. Some are Democratic, some are Republican.
What force is causing the Democrats to be so lukewarm on police reform?
My hypothesis is that it is the local Democratic constituency, which as you noted way back at the beginning, consists of political centrists.
Not JUST the shopkeeper class, but also the middle class white suburbanites, the professional class who are liberal, but have a very weak and conditional support for civil rights.Report
Do we agree that they’re not pushing for reform?
If so, we then get to ask why. Your hypothesis seems to be that they’re in the pocket of the various Chamber of Commerce types.
My argument is that that hypothesis is falsified upon cursory review.
Not JUST the shopkeeper class, but also the middle class white suburbanites, the professional class who are liberal, but have a very weak and conditional support for civil rights.
Now we seem to be getting somewhere! But your definition of “liberal” doesn’t match mine.
I’m back to what I said in my first comment.
It’s not the shop keepers, though.
It’s the people who found a way to vote, functionally, Republican despite it being unfashionable to vote anything but for Democrats.Report
I think we are both agreeing that the white middle class professional Democratic base has a very weak support for police reform.
I guess the only place where we differ is with respect to the shopkeepers, the landlords and small business owners.
Do they support police reform?
I don’t think so, at least not until around June of this year.Report
I think we are both agreeing that the white middle class professional Democratic base has a very weak support for police reform.
You say “very weak support” where I say “opposition to”.
What’s weird is that there’s, ostensibly, a great deal of support for Police Reform In Theory. Oh, we should have police Do Fewer Bad Things. “Should we touch the budget?” “Only to make it bigger.”
See again what happened in Seattle.
What’s up with that?Report
Whether it is shopkeepers in the urban core or homeowners in the suburbs, white fear of black violence is a potent weapon.
Whether this series of riots will get these people to recognize that police reform is in their best long term interests, is an open question.Report
Whether this series of riots will get these people to recognize that police reform is in their best long term interests, is an open question.
And then they’ll start doing what? Finally start voting for Democrats?Report
We’ll know that the base is serious when police reform becomes a winning primary issue.
The prospect of being unemployed focuses a politician’s mind wonderfully.Report
So, at this point, we can say that the Democrats don’t care about police reform because their base doesn’t care about police reform.
It’s probably safe to say that police reform isn’t on the ballot in November.Report
Not “Democrats”;
“White Democrats.”
There is a significant faction of Democrats for whom reform IS a powerful issue, and from what I can see they are making an impact.
The fact that reform got far enough to be vetoed by the mayor is something that wouldn’t have happened only a year or two ago.
But its entirely possible that as soon as the protests die down, white people will go back to sleep like they did every other time.
Until the fire next time.Report
There is a significant faction of Democrats for whom reform IS a powerful issue, and from what I can see they are making an impact.
The Mostly Peaceful Protesters?
Those appear to be predominantly White too. I can find you examples of people saying that the Mostly Peaceful Protestors who visited their area were from Out Of Town and, yes, Mostly White.
But as someone who argued for Police Reform with White People and got a huge amount of pushback, I do see something of a point in there…
Except I’d also say that this doesn’t seem to be something that we can vote our way out of.Report
I think the jury is still out on whether voting will bring reform.
But feel free to bookmark my comments, so that in a couple years if we have yet another post on yet another riot after yet another police murder, I can comment yet again on my lack of sympathy for yet another shopkeeper blubbering over their loss or yet another pundit demanding that people “work within the system”.
No one can say we haven’t been warned.Report
Oh, it just hasn’t worked *YET*?
The problem with that is that there doesn’t seem to be any way to falsify it.
Like, is there a point at which you’ll ever say “okay, it’s time to start trying something else”?Report
They are going to put the cure for racism in the Biden-Vaccine… the one that will be safe to take now that the election is over.
Won’t change anything, mind you, but the statistical analysis will look much more encouraging and much less structural.Report
How are the police in Kenosha or Ferguson out of control? The police in both of those shootings were justified. In Ferguson, the black guy grabbed the officers gun and fired it in his patrol car, then moved off, then charged at him again.
In Kenosha, the rapist and domestic abuser who was violating a restraining order and trying to steal a car, with kids in it, resisted arrest, sloughed off two taser attempts, had a knife in his hand, and was desperately trying to get something in the vehicle.Report
“Again, you don’t seem to be advancing any hypothesis.”
Chip, “you’re wrong” neither implies an alternate theory nor obligates the speaker to present one. And “your theory is wrong therefore mine is right because I Was First” is not how logic works.Report
“I submit to you: those places have just as much of a Republican-temperment percentage of folks in the government as anyplace else.”
It’s the mid-to-late 2000s again, with talk of DINOs and Blue Dog Democrats…Report