The GOP Shall Rise Again! (Or Not)

A few weeks ago, I made mention of how in 1964, Lyndon Johnson defeated Republican Barry Goldwater in a landslide defeat, so crushing that articles questioned if this meant the death of the Republican Party. Yet only four years later, the GOP captured the White House with Richard Nixon, who subsequently won re-election, as well.

My point was to make clear that predicting political demise is a risky business, and parties have a way of resurrecting themselves - either through their own regeneration, or though the collapse of their opponents. So, while Democrats should be pleased by the current state of political affairs, they should by no means fall asleep at the wheel.

That said, Republicans should take even less comfort. For as consoling as it might be to look at 1968 and see their party rise to victory after near-total demise, it would be the wrong lesson to take as a precursor to events today.

In fact, the lesson of 1964-1968 for Republicans is the exact opposite of what they seem to be teaching themselves.

Let's look back a moment.

In 1964, Barry Goldwater represented the most conservative wing of the Republican Party. The slogan Democrats used about him was, "Goldwater is right. Far right." President Lyndon Johnson received 61.1% of the votes, Goldwater only 38.5% - the fifth largest margin in U.S. history. Further, Johnson won the Electoral College vote by 486-52.

The Republican Party was in total disarray. Party leaders realized they had to change focus to win back the country. As a result, within four years, the GOP candidates in the running for the presidential nomination were moderates and liberals Nelson Rockefeller, George Romney (father of Mitt), and Harold Stassen. (Ronald Reagan made his first entry into national politics, but wasn't a factor.) The remaining candidate was Richard Nixon - but not the old, bitter conservative - he was marketed as "The New Nixon." Warmer, kindler, gentler. (This, of course, before most Americans learned of Watergate and then his ultimate resignation.) His being successfully marketed as "The New Nixon" was so legendary that it spawned a best-seller analyzing the whole effort, The Selling of the President by Joe McGinniss. And the moderate "New Nixon" won the nomination.

With the Democratic Party falling apart after the disastrous Chicago convention riots, and the party painted as the home of left radicals - and with a third-party candidate, George Wallace, running a far-right campaign on race, and taking 13.5% of the vote, most of it from the Deep South, then a Democratic stronghold - the Republican Party sat in the middle and sneaked to victory over Hubert Humphrey by seven-tenths of a percent.

The point here is this:

In 1964, the Republican Party lost in a landslide when it ran a far-right candidate. It moved to the middle with moderates and liberals, put up a "new" moderate, and won the White House back.

That is the exact opposite of what the Republican Party is doing today.

Today, after winning the White House in 2000 by running towards the middle as new and "compassionate," the Republican Party has moved farther right than Barry Goldwater ever was.

Only 21% of Americans call themselves Republicans. There are zero GOP representatives from New England in the House. It's had two sitting senators bolt the party. Moderate is seen as un-Republican. It is a party solely of the right. And the result is that the Republican Party has lost the White House and last two elections in Congress.

Because Republicans today are lead by neocons - who believe in ignoring reality and creating their own - they have forgotten history and therefore its lessons. They are actively doing the very things that caused them to lose in a landslide and face party death. Rejecting what brought the party back. They are living life in reverse, the Benjamin Buttons of politics.

If Republicans think they can take comfort from the lessons of 1964-1968, they are living in a Fool's Paradise. They are recreating the very conditions of their own landslide defeat. The difference is that 35 years ago, the GOP quickly attempted to reverse this. Today, the party is enthusiastically embracing it..

I want to see the Republican Party strong - because a strong two-party system means a strong America. A strong two-party system pushes each party to their best, to serve the public the most. And a strong Republican Party means strong Republican conservatives, moderates and liberals - which means that even should a Republican win an election, it will be someone who has the breadth of the nation in mind, not a political ideologue of limited scope.

But for a strong party, Republicans must understand history. Must learn the lessons. Must realize that chopping away moderates and liberals from their own party and purifying it with far-right religious zealot conservatives is the very reason they last lost in a landslide - and will do so again and again and again, every time they try it.

Republicans must not take comfort from 1968. They must take it as a warning sign.

Comments

[pwiecek]

Frankly, I'm very worried about the trend of moderate Republicans losing their seats to conservative Democrats.

[forprogress]

The "Benjamin Button" F. Scott Fitzgerald story analogy is brilliant as to how the Republican party might become extinct by aging backwards, taking the opposite lesson of 1964-68, by going hard right, when they should be going moderate,

[BlackJAC]

The only history gops study is the revisionist one they wrote in which the Confederacy was the good guys.

[Oldsop]

Getting back to the article; the republicans did not lose because they swung to the right. McCain is considered by most republicans to be a liberal, or even a rino, but being the most aggressive he got the nomination and was the candidate.
You may recall hearing some conservatives say they will “hold their nose” and vote for McCain mainly because they did not think BO would protect them from the idiot terrorists. This is looking more and more like it will turn out to be true than anyone could have imagined. I pray I am wrong on this but if I realize BO is a diplomatic appeaser-pushover then for sure the terrorist jerks know it too.
I suspect that BO may be the first one to resign the presidency in shame because he allowed us to get attacked; sort of like “Nero fiddled while Rome burned.” I genuinely think that Biden would do a far better job of keeping us safe. Joe may be a bit skewed on many things but he is not confused about his pride in our country and he knows who the enemy is.
In summary, yes indeed the loyal opposition is coming back together but at the grass roots level. No obvious leader has emerged yet but there is plenty of time for that. The political winds are swinging back in the other direction: like the leaves changing in the fall from green to many colors; one leaf at a time.

[sd4david]

Mccain is to the right of many Americans.
Did YOU suggest Bush resign when HE failed to protect America from the worst attack on the continental US in American history? An attack which the President had received NUMEROUS PDB's titled the likes of "Bin Laden Determined to attack". "Attack Imminent". etc
Now lets not foerget we were attacked by people who HATED us. If Obama is soothing some of that hate, he IS keeping us safer.
As for Nero "fiddling while Rome burned", let us not forget Bush took more vacations than any other president, including the month before 9/11.
You are SIMPLY following the mantra of DICK CHENEY, so that IF we are attacked you can blame Obama. But IF we are, corrolation does not mean causation.

[flatus]

I hope those leaves changing to green aren't shaking in the wind as badly as you seem to be, Oldsop.

Firm up, man. An adult is finally at the helm.

[argyle]

The core policy beliefs of the Republican party proved themselves disastrously wrong when applied to real life. Thirty years of Republican dominated economic direction have impoverished this country, just as they intended. The stated goal of those like Grover Norquist is to drown the federal government in its own debt. They want to create massive federal deficits that they could then use to radically cut social spending. They did most of this intentionally, but aren't smart enough to be correct in their underlying understanding of the forces they were manipulating: so you get what we have here today.

Republicans talked a big game for many years and the people bought it. They won. They implemented their policies and they caused the greatest economic recession in 70 years.

[WellTickleMeWillie]

The only thing I can agree on here from the article is that we need a strong two party system. And the two parties should be the moderate Democratic party and the replacement for the current Rethug party being a strong Progressive party of forward looking ideas. Look let's face the facts, both the Dems and GOP have won the WH based on running moderate and centrist candidates. Obama is not that much different coupled with the utter diasater of teh Bush-Cheney failed presidency. As long as the presidential candiate are marketed and sold as centrists, they win. So what are the real differences between Dems and Rethugs? Only shades of gray. For a real choice we should have a true genuine alternative being a Progressive party. And if we really want more choices, let the GOP move further right than they are now so we would have a three party ssytem to choose from. That would be real choice not disguised Dems in GOP clothing or vice versa. I am sick of the current two party NON choice system.

[rbenjamin]

Friday, June 5, 2009 and window dressing aside, Republicans are a White, Protestant, racial identity party. Leaderless and rudderless. Only Michael Steele takes Michael Steel seriously. The world is trying to work out if he is: a) in way over his head, b) a distraction, c) slightly unhinged or d) the boldest comedy experiment since Andy Kaufman. Republicans suffered leadership crop failure in 2008. McCain wasn't Party Leader, just last guy standing after the primary process. Sarah Palin turned into a fund raising machine for the Democratic Party. I'm pretty sure Bobby Jindal only managed 14 minutes of fame. Boehner & McConnell look like the two old Muppet guys. The metaphor is over-used, but the Republican Party has been battered by a perfect storm of political incompetence, corruption, changing demographics and Obama. The worst is probably over and most GOP incumbents can retire from their gerrymandered bastions when they choose. Long term, the party is wasting away. Google "Wake of The Medusa" for an illustrative tableaux (be sure and set the image tab). The Republican Party is an unworkable contrivance of Establishment, Libertarian and Social Values wings. Party resurgence hinges on successful amputation of the Social Values Wing, an operation which must be performed without anesthesia and from which the patient seems unlikely to survive. Balance of power will almost certainly keep the Democrats from retaining a permanent majority, but Conventional Wisdom is beginning to entertain the notion that the opposition party may not have the label Republican.

[Pyrum]

Oh, no, no, no, no, no. If the republican party could win by running a moderate, we'd have President McCain right now, not President Obama. Barry Goldwater may not have done well in his presidential race, but it was his conservatism and grassroots following that eventually led to the election of Ronald Reagan.

And neo-cons are not the far right. "Big government" conservati­sm,massive budget deficits, civil liberty limiting legislation such as the Patriot Act and interventionist foreign policies are left wing, not right wing. The best example of a far right republican in the party is Ron Paul, who gets marginalized by his own party.

I agree the republican party leaders are doing the wrong thing, but that's because they are embracing a moderate position, not right wing conservatism. The republican party is in trouble because it didn't deliver on it's core conservative values: small government, low taxes, fiscal responsibility, balanced budgets, noninterventionism, civil liberties with personal responsibility and running the country according to the constitution.

[LUE42]

Why do people persist in calling John McCain a moderate?

[Pyrum]

What term would you prefer? Centrist?

[DiogenesOfAlaska]

Good to know that republicans can't even get their vocabulary right.

Should be easy to apply the word-tainting strategy now to the republicans. If they don't even know what moderate, conservative and right wing means - it's almost like liberals struggling for their word.

And what if McCain had nominated Lieberman, Pawlenty or Romney? Please go right ahead with your strategy. If you are looking forward to a 16 year build-up phase, nobody is going to stop you.

[Pyrum]

McCain's nomination of Sarah Palin re-energized the conservative base, winning him more votes than he would otherwise have gotten if he'd picked a different veep. Despite what you've read in the media, she did more to help his campaign than hurt it.

[Ppossom]

The MYTH that Republican Party has "core values" other than the lust for political power never ceases to shock me. What "principles" has the GOP not betrayed?

Once a civil rights party, responsible for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, they are now the party of white power. Once the party of conservation that created the National Parks, GOP is now the party of environmental degradation. Once an anti-militarist party, unwilling to embroil America in WWII, the GOP is now a party that trumpets American empire.

Fiscal restraint? - Deficits don't matter.

Apart from uncontrolled lust for absolute power, what "core value" does the GOP have?

[Pyrum]

The GOP leaders may have abandoned their core values, but the grassroots didn't. The only thing the GOP leaders can do to save their party is get rid of their top down structure and let it be rebuilt from the bottom up.

[DanBest]

"I agree the republican party leaders are doing the wrong thing, but that's because they are embracing a moderate position, not right wing conservatism."

Elections aren't won by the left or the right, but by moderates who usually hate one party less than the other. Right now the moderates hate the republican party more. How will going further to the right attract moderates to the GOP?

[SonofLiberty1]

The seeds of the next campaign and the one after (for president at least) have already been sown.

By rights, President Obama, will probably be able to get re-elected but the forces to unravel democratic majorities are already here and working.

In 2004 Bush beat Kerry. Shouldn't have but he did. Just before the election there was one last push....and he lost...

Due to the push back against Pro Choice and Gay Marriage Activists.

Today 6 states have said they will allow Gay Marriage and about 30 have said that Marriage is between a man and woman.

Some say that the fight is over....

I say it hasn't really begun yet especially when you consider whose not talking....

Most Americans are not gay and most don't agree with the idea of Gay Marriage.
Maybe a civil union but not marriage.

[Disuberence]

Most of older Americans don't agree with the idea of Gay Marriage.
Maybe a civil union but not marriage.

True, but they're all dying out so...

[SonofLiberty1]

As Americans are living longer and older Americans seem to vote more consistenlty as they age...I wouldn't count on it happening anytime soon.

And being that many are Christian and Christ said that marriage is between a man and woman, you won't be changing that at all.

[kjstjohn]

We need to get away from the idea that the state has anything to do with "marriage" in the sacred sense. Administrative convenience allows a a religious ceremony to double as the state procedure. This is a huge mistake. We need to have the French system where everybody has a civil marriage. Then those that wish may opt for a religious ceremony.

[SonofLiberty1]

I have to say this again and again and again.

First, governments by their very nature must have control over everything.
Our Constitution tell us that there are powers reserved to the Federal Govt, some to the state and to the individual.

Marriage is something reserved to the state.

Now listen up....

EVERY MARRIAGE IS CIVIL IN THAT EACH COUPLE MUST APPLY FOR A MARRIAGE LICENSE.

IF ONE WANTS TO BE MARRIED WITHOUT A RELIGIOUS CEREMONY HE OR SHE SEES A JUDGE.

IF ONE WANTS A RELIGIOUS CEREMONY HE OR SHE PICKS WHATEVER FAITH THEY BELIEVE IN AND THEY ACT ACCORDINGLY.

WE TERM MARRIAGE EITHER CIVIL OR RELIGIOUS BUT IN TRUTH EACH COUPLE MUST HAVE THAT MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE STATE.

SORRY, BUT THIS IS HOW IT WORKS PERIOD.

[DanBest]

"Most Americans are not gay and most don't agree with the idea of Gay Marriage.
Maybe a civil union but not marriage."

Sorry but that really doesn't matter. Why? Because Churches don't issue licenses to marry. They only officiate the ceremonies. The county issues marriage licenses and there is no secular reason for not letting gays marry. It is unconstitutional for a county, a secular agency, to deny a marriage license based on any religious precept. And that is the only reason given. And we can't make laws respecting the establishment of religion. The country and the courts will get there. It's only a matter of time.

[Shieldmaiden]

I do agree that we need a strong two party system. It's just that the current Republican party deserves to rot in the wilderness.

[pup sydney]

I don't agree with a strong two party system, I agree with a strong democratic system and 2 parties are the closest thing to a single party. We need more parties and smaller tents to see what people really want, 2 parties have choked democracy, they can both die -for this writer- as long they are replaced with new ones (>2).

[Fez]

Why do people think there is something sacred about a two-party system? We need a parliamentary form of government, with multiple parties to represent the full range of political opinions in this country. And proportional representation in Congress. We need to hear every point of view, from extreme right-wing through extreme left-wing, and all of the positions in between. The notion that there is something wonderful about a "centrist" government is laughable. In the words of Jim Hightower, "The only things in the middle of the road are dead armadillos and yellow stripes."

[adelita01]

Yawn!

Every time I hear these stories about one party or the other going down in flames I feel like I'm in Groundhog Day.

Wasn't it just 4 years ago that Democrats had lost 99 of the 100 fastest growing counties in America?

LOL!!! There is only ONE predictor of a party's success ... WAIT UNTIL THE ONE IN POWER F'S UP!!!

[realpolitic]

This time I really think the changing demographics will be hard for Republicans to overcome. Let's face it, they have a obvious chauvinism and their anti-illegal immigrant rhetoric often borders on outright bigotry. I think with the changing of America into a black and brown society, with a world more integrated than ever, Republicans will have a hard time finding their footing. They also need an enemy. In the 70's and 80's, they had communism. With no enemy, they staggered until 9-11 came along. If Obama can unite the world and the terrorist threat eases, without an enemy and with changing demographics conservativism will wither. It also does not offer solution to our problems which often now involve government such as economic stimulus and climate change.

[Cc Goldwater]

The idea that there is a right and left view is old and out of date. Sure there is a right and left , but now a far right has come into the picture. Robert story is interesting and I love his views on Goldwater, but the Republican party has to grow up and start a reality check on what it really wants to accomplish. It's lost it's way from what Goldwater has envisioned. Get a good look at who he really was and watch Mr. Conservative Goldwater on Goldwater. We all have our different ideas of who he was. This documentary should help you out.

[brt929]

I've seen snippets of the documentary. I don't suppose it is available on the web?

[Cc Goldwater]

www.mrconservativegoldwaterongoldwater.com or go to HBO under doc.s and look up the film there is a clip. It's available on Amazon or Netfliks

[escorpion]

I agree that a strong two-party system is vital, but that doesn't mean that one of those parties has to be the Republican party. They deserve to disappear for all the harm they've done to this country and the world.

[RickyPoo]

Robert, you just fell into the same trap that Arianna warned us about in a post just a few days ago: Looking @ politics in a right/left prism.

I think that view is falling by the wayside and political debate in America is coming down to corporatists v populists with most Americans weary of continuing the old battles on wedge social issues, especially in a down, mutating economy. Indeed, many Dems at the grass roots level are finally waking up to the idea that there are corporatists within their own party and are giving enormous grief to the likes of Nelson, Baucus, Bayh and others on a host of issues.

You also didn't touch on the fact that Repubs are losing every major growing demographic from young people to women to Latinos, a far different situation demographically than where the country was in the late 60s where the electorate was still largely white and male.

The Repubs are a dead party walking. Who will replace them? Well, that's the interesting part, isn't it? With the rise of the internet, it will be far easier to form new political coalitions whether within the Democratic Party itself or perhaps a new party made up of Greens, Libertarians and disaffected Democrats.

There is a huge wave causing a political sea change in this country and it is sweeping Repubs out to sea permanently. Which can't happen fast enough for me.