New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | July 25, 2005

Jonathan Rauch suggests that too much success has set Republicans adrift.

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

← The Roots of Tropical Rage | Main | Roberts' Rules of Order →

See all 33 comments | Leave a comment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

|7.25.05 @ 10:06AM|#

I guess what they are worried about are the mid-term elections and Bush having no coattails. The problem for Democrats is that House and Senate races seem to be much more about local crap than they are about national issues (generally). Of course we've had some unusual elections of late, so just about anything could happen.

Also, wasn't that last paragraph in the article a bit, well, long? :)

|7.25.05 @ 10:16AM|#

I recall the administration's supporters making the "He's NOT a lame duck" argument a month ago. The formulation was, they called Reagan a lame duck, and he won the Cold War.

Which is terribly inapt. To the extent that Reagan did anything to win the Cold War in his second term, he pursued initiatives that had broad bipartisan backing. The argument about Bush is that he's too much of a lame duck to win domestic, partisan policy fights. This comparison was always underwhelming, and it's no surpirse it didn't get any traction.

Also, Rauch raises the possibility of a major legislative victory helping Bush, but the only way he could get a major victory on a controversial item would be yet anothter example of ramming some meat for his base through the Senate at 52/48. That wouldnl't help him politically, but it might lose his party the Senate.

|7.25.05 @ 10:19AM|#

I think, deep down, the Republican arrogance is a turn off to non-republicans. There did seem to be a lot of gloating when the GOP backhanded Kerry in the last election. Nobody likes a sore winner. Or, maybe I too just don't like Bush's smirk and Cheney's side talking mouth.

|7.25.05 @ 10:25AM|#

"If they lose it, or if terrorism loses salience, then the life preserver is gone, and Republicans sink."

The war on terror is every bit as insane as the war on drugs.
Fortunately for Repugnants, voters ARE insane.

|7.25.05 @ 10:38AM|#

Great article and as a "self-described independent" I'd say you hit the thing right on the nose.

Got just one problem with a bizarre non-sequiter...

On some of the country's most pressing problems...they see a Republican establishment that seems to relish teeing up confrontations over social issues while North Korea builds nukes and gasoline prices rise. On issue after issue, in short, independents look like Democrats.

Here you line up a perfect summation of independent complaints...and then backhand us with the insult of "looking like Democrats."

Overall, that's a bit of mis-characterization.

You hit the nail dead smack center with...

"From independents' point of view, the problem is not the process ("getting things done"). The problem is getting things solved. Independents are pragmatists. They want to see results, or else they want to see Plan B."

This articulates beautifully the complaint of the Independent. But it's hardly the motivation for the simple obstructionism that has been the Democrat stock-in-trade.

|7.25.05 @ 10:43AM|#

I agree with Hakluyt. All politics is local. Think about it; there are only two national-level offices in the US: president and vice-president. Thus, national-level polls are very very poor indicators of what will happen in individual congressional elections.

|7.25.05 @ 10:55AM|#

Is it not a bit early to worry about the mid-term elections some 15 months in advance? Seems to me that quite a lot can happen in these months, and as someone (Harold Wilson?) once said, "in politics, even a week is quite a long time."

|7.25.05 @ 10:59AM|#

"Is it not a bit early to worry about the mid-term elections some 15 months in advance?"

In a sane world, yes. However, because of the need for fundraising and the fact that for many House seats the primaries are the real battleground, the results of the final elections are determined in large part (and arguably for the most part) 8 to 12 months in advance.

|7.25.05 @ 11:05AM|#

I think a seat in Congress is worth a long fight. The rarer the jewel, the more precious it becomes. Has anyone ever thought of increasing the number of seats in Congress? By comparison to most other republics, Americans are grossly under-represented in our national legislature.

|7.25.05 @ 11:36AM|#

"Has anyone ever thought of increasing the number of seats in Congress?"

I've seen proposals to fix the House membership at a 1 to 250,000 constituent ratio, which would increase the size of the House to approximately 1200 members, but I don't think anyone has introduced a bill to that effect.

|7.25.05 @ 11:39AM|#

As an anarchistic atheist, I continually see the similarity between faith in god and faith in government.
Government exists. Granted. But it doesn't work, as Harry Browne has pointed out.
It only answers the prayers of those using it as a tool to embezzle their fellow citizens.

Tom Parmenter|7.25.05 @ 11:39AM|#

I looked for, but did not find, the following ideas, words, or phrases in this article:

hubris
arrogance of power
Lord Acton
too big for britches
can't fool all the people
bit off more than can chew
eyes bigger than stomach
in over their heads
there is some sh*t the people will not eat
a complete lack of success in every venture the administration has undertaken, with the exception of reducing taxes on the rich

I'm sure everyone can think of a few more.

|7.25.05 @ 11:42AM|#

SR,

Who (in congress) wants their own power diluted?

Who (in congress) wants to risk having the pork and big lobby money spread out over a larger group of people thus decreasing their largess?

Who (in congress) wants to be MORE in touch with their constituents rather than less?

Who (in congress) want to risk a bigger batch of upstarts coming in and rocking the boat?

Congress USED to be set with those kinds of limits and they voted them out. They of course claimed a host of ridiculous arguments for the move but the incentive was simply to consolidate power.

|7.25.05 @ 11:44AM|#

Tom P.

Well said. Looks like a pretty comprehensive list to me.

|7.25.05 @ 11:45AM|#

Tom, I too was pleased with the lack of cliches in the article, but I didn't think of actually listing them.

Tom Parmenter|7.25.05 @ 12:03PM|#

Ever notice how there aren't any cliches about things that never happen? All the cliches are about things that happen over and over.

|7.25.05 @ 12:07PM|#

Jane Fonda is about to launch a bus tour opposing the Iraq War.
There goes the Repugnant life preserver!
Good!

|7.25.05 @ 12:25PM|#

Maybe people are simply growing disenchanted with "the party of larger, more intrusive government."

|7.25.05 @ 12:34PM|#

madpad, I understand the logic as to why Congress won't voluntarily change the size of the House. I was simply answering the inquiry about whether anyone had considered increasing the House membership. The interesting question is whether the Supreme Court will at some point down the road (not in the near future certainly, but maybe in 20 or 30 years) find the size of 435-seat House unconstitutional in the same manner they found states were obliged to reapportion their House seats.

|7.25.05 @ 1:17PM|#

"Jane Fonda is about to launch a bus tour opposing the Iraq War.
There goes the Repugnant life preserver!
Good!"

I picture you as being like Gary Busey's character in "Black Sheep"; crazy vet, living in a van, spouting bizarre theories. Am I close?

|7.25.05 @ 3:48PM|#

jf,
If you are Jane, I love you.
Especially loved you in Barbarella. Watched it while drawing combat pay in 'Nam.

If you are not Jane, don't look now but a seven-foot-tall turd is ogling you.

|7.25.05 @ 4:34PM|#

The article misses the same point that I think many people (and news orgainziations/pollsters) missed in the November election: when both parties run aggressive base-activation strategies, the GOP wins. This is especially true given the GOP's additional excellent micro-local wooing of voters it thinks are vulnerable in battleground races. The simple fact is this: the two bases are roughly the same size, but the Democratic base is more offensive to slightly more swing voters than the GOP base.

It's true that few swing voters like or appreciate the social conservativism of the religious right. But they know in their hearts that a Taliban-America isn't coming any time soon. The Kelo decision, along with the attendant to-be-expected Democratic support, is perfectly real. The things the Democrats want to do in government happen quickly and directly affect all of us.

Sit down with a religious Republican to discuss taxes, buisness law, property rights, schooling etc. and lots of swing voters will find they have much in common to agree about. Sex is another matter of course, but try the same thing with Michael Moore or any member of MoveOn.org and see how far you get.

So while the polls cited in the article *may* say that swing voters (i.e. independents) don't like what Bush and the GOP are doing, that doesn't mean they would perfer what the Democrats are offering instead.

|7.25.05 @ 4:47PM|#

Maybe people are simply growing disenchanted with "the party of larger, more intrusive government."

That would explain the Democratic defeats.

But not the Republican victories.

Its a puzzler.

|7.25.05 @ 4:48PM|#

mewsifer,

If you normalize for Republican's incumbancy last fall, you get a tie. We were a 50/50 nation before 9/11, we went to 52/48 immediately after, but we seem to be back to 50/50.

|7.25.05 @ 4:52PM|#

RC-
BOTH parties want bigger, more intrusive government. The only difference between Republicans and Democrats is which specific aspects of your life they want to stick their nose into.

|7.25.05 @ 5:10PM|#

Joe,

Actually, I would suggest you look less at incumbency and more at demographics to see why what I'm saying is true. Some of the stongest GOP support comes from exurb counties with aggressive population growth. You not only do not have a tie, but as time goes on, you'll have less of one.

In '06 the GOP will not only not lose, but will gain seats in both houses of Congress, barring some amazing disaster.

jadagul|7.25.05 @ 6:08PM|#

Jennifer: I assume that's why RC Dean thinks that "disenchantment with the party of larger, more intrusive government" explains Democratic defeats, but does not explain Republican victories.

|7.25.05 @ 6:34PM|#

Those polls may sound like horrible news for Bush and the Repubs, but IIRC, there were similar poll results in September/October 2004. You know, right before Bush was reelected and his party gained in Congress.

Yes, moderates are disenchanted with Bush and the GOP, as am I. But these polls don't ask what their opinions about the Democrats are. Bush and the GOP won in 2004 not because they were popular, but because their opponents had so little to offer in the way of an alternative.

|7.25.05 @ 7:24PM|#

Follow up to jf, cross-dressing as Jane Fonda:
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -- Krishnamerda

|7.26.05 @ 1:12AM|#

bon voyage!

M. Simon|7.26.05 @ 3:39AM|#

The American people trust the Rs more on national security. Evidence of the last election says that national securiity trumps all other issues.

I'm hoping Ruthless remains the Libertarian national security advisor.

Not to worry. There are enough Islamic Nazis in Europe to keep America focused on national security. With or without Iraq.

If the Iraqi Army is strong enough by next year to be the most active force in Iraq the issue of American troops will become less relevant.

M. Simon|7.26.05 @ 3:46AM|#

Jane Fonda is a Rove plant.

The Republicans I know are cheering her tour. The pro-fascist crowd couldn't have a better cheerleader. Jane has always loved mass murderers. Now the Islamic Nazis don't hold a candle to the communists in terms of mass slaughter (they are working on it). But, given the demise of communism I guess Jane will just have to work with what this age provides.

Go Jane.

|7.26.05 @ 9:48AM|#

There are enough Islamic Nazis in Europe

OK, I know we're not so hot on Godwin's law right now, but it's seriously messed up to call people whom the Nazis would have exterminated "Nazis". IIRC, Arabs and Turks would also have been death-camp fodder had Hitler taken control of the Mideast.