Republican Civil War

Published in Minerva
(Norway) on 2 December 2008
by Torbjorn Roe Isaksen (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Lars Erik Schou. Edited by Bridgette Blight.
Interview: In the Republican Party, there is a storm rising in the shadow of Barack Obama. The editor of Minerva has interviewed two key people in Washington, D.C.

There are only seven weeks until Obama is sworn in as the new President of the United States. In the aftermath of his historic win, a fight is brewing in the Republican party.

In 2002 the party beat the Democrats by a virtual knock-out in the mid-term elections, and two years later President Bush was re-elected. The columnists wrote and Karl Rove dreamed of a permanent Republican majority, an alliance of Christian conservatives, friends of the military, economic liberalists, and a large portion of America's Latino population.

Today the dream is shattered and the party is trying to find out where to go next. Everyone seems to agree on just one thing: George W. Bush has been a disaster. Even the presidents closest friends has turned their backs on him.

"McCain lost because of George W. Bush," said Matthew Continetti to the Weekly Standard, a magazine known as being very favorable towards the administration. When Bush leaves office in January 2009 the party is left with no power, in the White House or Congress.

Back to basics

Edwin Meese III is a rock in the Republican establishment after four decades in politics. First as Gov. Ronald Reagan's chief of staff in California, later as counselor to the President, member of his cabinet, and US Attorney General. Today Meese is associated with the largest of the conservative think tanks, The Heritage Foundation. I'm meeting him in his office in Washington, where he tells me that Republicans must go back to their basic, conservative principles.

Many Republicans and conservatives voted for Obama because the party had left its conservative principles and became a party for more federal spending, especially after the financial bail-out. And we also lacked leadership in both houses in Congress the last eight years.

At the other side of Washington are the offices of the Weekly Standard, the magazine that, amongst other things, is famous for its long campaign supporting the invasion of Iraq. In domestic affairs, they have a more moderate profile. One of its contributors, the former speech writer for George W. Bush, David Frum, recently called for a more pragmatic, solution-oriented and socially liberal Republican party that can appeal to young, urban voters. Associate editor of the Weekly Standard, Matthew Continetti, largely agrees.

- I think the administration has tackled this financial crisis pretty well, he told me, and said the Republican party must widen.

- When we won elections, we weren't a solely conservative party. Reagan's coalition was not based on rural voters, but the Reagan-democrats were urban working class voters. We used to have politicians like Governor George Pataki of New York, Mayor Rudy Giuliani of New York City, and Governor Mitt Romney in Massachusetts. They were conservative on some issues, but not part of the establishment. That was seen as a sign of strength. Now the party is more conservative, but also powerless, Continetti says.

In 2003, Sen. Zell Miller wrote a book on the Democrats called "A National Party No More". Today that description suits the Republicans better. The voters are to a larger extent white, older and rural, while America is more diverse, urban and educated. Reagan's old Attorney General thinks its the current situation.

- I believe the Republican tough stance on immigration was the deciding factor for the Latinos. The urban and rural votes were mostly influenced by the economy. The cities felt the recession quicker than in the rural areas.

Higher temperature in the culture wars

The American parties are coalitions of groups of voters and special interest groups. Their standpoints internally can be very diverse.

The Democratic party's strongest coalitions are the unions, minority groups (especially African-Americans), and liberal activist groups. The Reagan coalition was mostly made up of Christian conservatives, friends of the military, economic liberalists, and certain moderate elements. Now the coalition is falling apart. Meese believes the coalitions can be brought back together to win elections again.

- The McCain campaign disappointed almost all the coalitions at the same time. There was not enough focus on family values, the economic conservatives were disillusioned by the stimulus-package and Iraq is doing so well it no longer moves the electorate.

- Some claim the so-called "culture wars," the debates about abortion, guns and gay rights alienate many young voters, especially in the cities.

- I think that's wrong. Today people are more skeptical to abortion than any time earlier. People can disagree whether abortion should be illegal or not, but more and more people agree that Roe vs Wade was a mistake. The question should not be decided by the courts, but by individual states like we do with euthanasia. When gay marriage is concerned, California, one of the most liberal states in the union, voted to ban gay marriage. These issues are crucial, but they cannot be our only focus. We must address what people think is most important: health, economy, the public sector, and we must find market based solutions to the problems, Meese says.

A more moderate profile

Meese thinks the Republicans must fine tune their conservative profile, but many disagree. Republican columnist David Brooks endorsed Obama in the election and thinks the Republicans must move towards the center. He pictures a more intense struggle between traditionalists like Meese and moderate reformers like himself. The problem is that all the power is in the hands of the traditionalists.

- Over the past 40 years, the Conservative Old Guard has built up a movement of activist groups, donor networks, think tanks and publicity arms. The reformists, on the other hand, have no institutions, Brooks writes in his New York Times column.

Brooks has also called vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, a fatal cancer to the Republican party. Continetti at the Weekly Standard likes Sarah Palin, but agrees with Brooks' diagnosis.

- The party must have a more moderate face. The trend the last few years is that the two parties are becoming more ideological, liberal Republicans moves to the Democrats, and conservative Democrats are changing to the Republicans. That is why we have no Republican representatives left from liberal New England. That's a huge problem!

Continetti says that the party is more rural, whiter, less educated and more religious than the center of American politics.

- The party is perfect for Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee, but not for John McCain or Mitt Romney. To win a majority in the elections we must find room for candidates even if they do not necessarily pass the conservative litmus test. That is how the Democrats thought in 2006 when they recruited moderate and conservative candidates to run in strong, Republican areas. But maybe the party does not want to be the biggest? Maybe the would rather be ideologically pure?

- If the Republicans are to change into a more modern party, where will they find their base?

- (Laughter) If you ask me, I'll ask you. That's a good question. There is no base like that. There are rumors going around that Newt Gingrich will run in 2012. He is very popular among conservatives, but with him as a candidate we'll win four states. Tops.

- How can the Republican win back the young voters?

By not having George Bush as president, or an old presidential candidate. Young people went 2-1 for Obama. If his presidency is successful the Democrats can win this entire group in the future.


Obama decides.

One factor is probably more important for the future of the Republican party than any other: Barack Obama. Matthew Continetti puts it like this:

- If Barack Obama governs well, the Republicans are in trouble. If he governs badly, the party will be back.

Edwin Meese III is more strict. He thinks Barack Obama is a wolf in sheep's clothing, who partially won the election by talking like a Republican.

- Was that a bluff?

- We'll find out... It will be very interesting.


Republikansk borgerkrig

INTERVJU: I skyggen av Barack Obama bl�ser det opp til bikkjeslagsm�l i det republikanske partiet. Minervas redakt�r har intervjuet to sentrale akt�rer i Washington DC.
Publisert av: Torbj�rn R�e Isaksen Skriv ut side Tips en venn
Tirsdag 2. desember 2008
Tips en venn

Det er bare syv uker til Barack Obama tas i ed som USAs nye president. I kj�lvannet av den historiske valgseieren brygger det opp til bikkjeslagsm�l hos valgtaperne i det republikanske partiet.

I 2002 slo partiet regelrett knock-out p� sine demokratiske motstandere i Kongressvalget og to �r etter ble president Bush gjenvalgt. Kommentatorene skrev - og Karl Rove dr�mte - om en permanent republikansk majoritet, en allianse av kristenkonservative, forsvarsvenner, �konomiske liberalister og en stor andel av USAs latinamerikanske befolkning.

I dag ligger dr�mmen knust og partiet fors�ker � samle seg om en vei fremover. Bare en ting synes alle � v�re enige om: George W. Bush har v�rt en katastrofe. Selv presidentens n�rmeste venner har n� snudd ham ryggen. "McCain tapte p� grunn av George W. Bush", sier Matthew Continetti i magasinet Weekly Standard, som er kjent for � st� administrasjonen sv�rt n�r. N�r Bush g�r av i januar neste �r st�r partiet ribbet tilbake, uten makt verken i Det hvite hus eller Kongressen.

Tilbake til grunnverdiene
Edwin Meese III er en bauta i det republikanske etablissementet etter fire ti�r som politiker. F�rst som guvern�r Ronald Reagans stabssjef i California, siden som president Reagans sikkerhetsr�dgiver og justisminister. Meese er i dag tilknyttet den st�rste av de konservative tenketankene, Heritage Foundation. Jeg m�ter ham p� hans kontor i Washington DC, der jeg f�r h�re hvordan republikanerne m� finne tilbake til sine grunnleggende, konservative prinsipper etter nederlaget.

- Mange republikanere og konservative stemte p� Obama fordi partiet hadde forlatt konservative prinsipper og blitt et parti for h�yere offentlige utgifter, s�rlig etter den finansielle redningspakken. Dessuten har vi manglet lederskap i begge husene i Kongressen de siste �tte �rene.

P� andre siden av Washington DC holder magasinet Weekly Standard til, publikasjonen som blant annet er ber�mt og beryktet for sin lange kampanje til st�tte for invasjonen i Irak. Samtidig dyrker de en mer moderat profil i mange innenrikspolitiske saker. En av bidragsyterne, tidligere taleskriver for George W. Bush, David Frum, har nylig tatt til orde for et mer pragmatisk, l�sningsorientert og sosialt liberalt republikansk parti som kan appellere til unge og urbane velgere. Assisterende redakt�r i Weekly Standard, Matthew Continetti, er i stor grad enig.

- Jeg synes administrasjonen har taklet finanskrisen ganske bra, forteller han meg, og hevder det Republikanske partiet m� bredde seg.

- N�r vi har vunnet valg har vi ikke kun v�rt et konservativt parti. Reagans koalisjon var ikke basert p� rurale velgere, snarere var Reagan-demokratene urbane arbeiderklassevelgere. Tidligere hadde vi politikere som guvern�r George Pataki i New York, borgermester Rudy Giuliani i New York City og guvern�r Mitt Romney i Massachusetts. De var konservative i noen saker, men ikke en del av "menigheten". Det ble sett som et tegn p� styrke. N� er partiet mer konservativt, men ogs� uten makt, sier Continetti.

Reagans koalisjon var ikke basert p� rurale velgere, snarere
var Reagan-demokratene urbane arbeiderklassevelgere.

I 2003 skrev senator Zell Miller om Demokratene i boken "A National Party No More". I dag passer beskrivelsen bedre for republikanerne. Velgerne er i st�rre grad hvite, eldre og fra utkantstr�k, mens USA er mer mangfoldig, urbant og velutdannet. Reagans gamle justisminister tror det hele er situasjonsbestemt.

- Jeg tror republikanernes strenge linje mot innvandring var det avgj�rende for latinoene. Stemmetallet i by og land ble i stor grad avgjort av forholdet til �konomien. Byene fikk f�le nedgangstidene raskere enn p� landsbygden.

H�yere temperatur i kulturkrigene
De amerikanske partiene er koalisjoner av velgergrupper og interesseorganisasjoner. Standpunktene internt kan sprike i mange retninger, som undertegnede har skrevet om tidligere.

Det demokratiske partiets sterkeste koalisjoner er fagbevegelser, minoritetsgrupper (s�rlig afro-amerikanere) og liberale aktivistgrupper. Reagan-koalisjonen har best�tt av kristenkonservative, forsvarsvenner, �konomiske liberalister og enkelte moderate elementer. N� sl�r koalisjonen sprekker. Meese tror koalisjonen kan bringes sammen igjen til nye valgseire.

- McCain-kampanjen skuffet nesten samtlige koalisjoner samtidig. Det var ikke tilstrekkelig fokus p� familieverdier, de �konomiske konservative ble desillusjonert av stimuluspakken og det g�r s� godt i Irak at saken ikke lenger beveger velgermassen.

- Noen hevder at de s�kalte "kulturkrigene", debattene om abort, v�pen og homofili, st�ter bort mange unge velgere, s�rlig i byene?

- Jeg tror det er feil. I dag er skepsisen til abort mer utbredt enn noen gang tidligere. Folk kan v�re uenig om abort b�r v�re ulovlig eller ikke, men stadig flere er enige om at Roe v. Wade var et feilsteg (det er ikke sikkert Meese har rett her, se her journ.anm.). Sp�rsm�let b�r ikke avgj�res av domstolene, men i den enkelte stat slik vi gj�r med aktiv d�dshjelp. Hva gjelder ekteskap mellom homofile, s� stemte California, en av USAs mest liberale stater, ned et forslag om felles ekteskapslov. Disse sakene er avgj�rende, men de kan ikke v�re de eneste vi fokuserer p�. Vi m� adressere det folk mener er viktigst: helse, �konomi og offentlig sektor, og vi m� finne markedsbaserte l�sninger p� problemene, sier Meese.

Mer moderat profil
Meese mener republikanerne m� finpusse sin h�yreprofil, men mange er uenige. Den republikanske kommentatoren David Brooks st�ttet Barack Obama i valget og mener republikanerne m� legge seg mot sentrum. Han ser for seg en stadig mer intens kamp mellom tradisjonalister som Meese og moderate reformatorer som han selv. Problemet er at all makten ligger i tradisjonalistenes hender.

- De siste 40 �rene har den gamle garden bygget opp en bevegelse av aktivistgrupper, �konomiske st�ttespillere, tenketanker og PR-byr�er. Reformatorene p� sin side har ingen institusjoner, skriver Brooks i sin spalte i New York Times.

Brooks har ogs� kalt visepresidentkandidat Sarah Palin "en kreftsvulst for partiet". Continetti i Weekly Standard liker Palin, men er enig i Brooks diagnose.

- Partiet m� presentere et mer moderat ansikt. Trenden de siste �rene er at de to partiene blir mer ideologiske, liberale republikanere g�r til demokratene og konservative demokrater g�r til republikanerne. Derfor har vi per i dag ingen republikanske representanter igjen fra liberale New England. Det er et enormt problem!

Continetti sier at partiet er mer ruralt, hvitere, mindre utdannet og mer religi�st enn sentrum i amerikansk politikk.

- Partiet skreddersydd for Sarah Palin og Mike Huckabee, ikke for John McCain eller Mitt Romney. For � vinne flertall i valg m� vi finne plass til kandidater selv om de ikke n�dvendigvis kan passere den konservative lakmustesten. Det var slik demokratene tenkte i 2006 da de rekrutterte moderate og konservative kandidater til � stille i sterke, republikanske omr�der. Men kanskje �nsker ikke partiet � bli st�rst igjen? Kanskje de heller vil v�re ideologisk rene?

- Hvis republikanerne skal dyrke frem et moderat ansikt, hvor skal vedkommende finne sin maktbase?

- (latter) Sp�r du meg s� sp�r jeg deg. Det er et godt sp�rsm�l. Det finnes ingen slik maktbase. Det g�r rykter om at Newt Gingrich vil stille ved valget i 2012. Han er sv�rt popul�r blant mange konservative, men med ham som kandidat vinner vi fire stater. Maks.

- Hvordan kan republikanerne vinne unge velgere tilbake?

- Ved � ikke ha George Bush som president eller en gammel presidentkandidat. Unge gikk for Obama 2-1. Hvis hans presidentperiode er vellykket kan Demokratene vinne hele denne gruppen i overskuelig fremtid.

Obama avgj�r
Sannsynligvis er en faktor viktigere enn noen andre for det republikanske partiets fremtid: Barack Obama. Matthew Continetti sier det slik:

- Hvis Barack Obama styrer bra er republikanerne i tr�bbel. Hvis han styrer d�rlig, kommer partiet tilbake.

Edwin Meese III er strengere. Han mener Barack Obama er en ulv i f�rekl�r, som delvis vant valget ved � snakke som en republikaner.

- Var det en bl�ff?

- Det finner vi ut...det vil bli veldig interessant � se.
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Germany: Trump’s Words and Putin’s Calculus

Australia: Donald Trump Just Won the Fight To Remake America in 3 Big Ways

Germany: Europe Bending the Knee to Trump

Malta: The Arrogance of Power

Topics

Australia: Donald Trump Is Not the Only Moving Part When It Comes to Global Trade

Ireland: As Genocide Proceeds, Netanyahu Is Yet Again Being Feted in Washington

Canada: Canada’s Retaliatory Tariffs Hurt Canadians

Spain: A NATO Tailor-Made for Trump

OPD 26th June 2025, edited by Michelle Bisson Proofer: See...

Germany: Trump’s Words and Putin’s Calculus

Palestine: Ceasefire Not Peace: How Netanyahu and AIPAC Outsourced Israel’s War To Trump

Mauritius: The US-Israel-Iran Triangle: from Obliteration to Mediation

Related Articles

Norway: Assange Can Be Extradited to the United States, Risks 175 Years in Prison

Norway: Ziwe Fumudoh Has Based Career on Making White Interview Subjects Uncomfortable*

Norway: Could Latin America Be the Winner of the New Cold War?

Norway: Oscar Worthy Portrayal in ‘Passing’

Norway: Facebook’s Metaverse Will Make Us Even More Vulnerable

Previous article
Next article