
Portrait of Theodore Roosevelt by John Singer Sargent
Photo of Robert M. LaFollette from Wikipedia
Of late on the GOP campaign trail talk among the leading contenders has been all about who can best lay claim to being the true heir of the most beloved Republican president in history since the Great Emancipator namely – Ronald Wilson Reagan. And one of the leading Democratic candidates, Barack Obama, has gotten himself into some tepid water within his own party by citing Reagan as a president who changed history. Frank Rich, always a reliable barometer for the state of snarkiness in liberal ranks, was moved Sunday to snort that Ronald Reagan Is Still Dead. Now I've been reading Frank Rich since the early '70s when I was an undergraduate at William & Mary and Frank was a young writer for the raffish Richmond Mercury which he started along with Harvard chums Garrett Epps and Harry Stein (the latter having since become an apostate from the church of modern American liberalism).
But Mr. Rich is on to something here. The old Reagan coalition of national defense hawks, social values conservatives, and anti-tax, pro-growth business advocates, never an easy alliance to begin with, is rent and probably cannot be reconfigured as before. Some of the reasons for this are demographic as outlined in my earlier piece The Coming Democratic Majority? but others have much to do with the party itself as typified by the last eight years come to fruition in the intellectual exhaustion and corruption of the 109th Congress made large by the Abramoff scandal and the rent-seeking of Grover Norquist's K Street Project. Throw in a dramatically worsening economic outlook and the likely prospect of a recession and the future for the GOP this year looks as chilly as today's weather.
But need this all come to pass for the GOP both next year and down the road? The answer is yes if the party buries its head like an ostrich and tries to coast along as the Democrats did until Bill Clinton's leading them from the presidential political barrens with the DLC-inspired "Third Way" in the early '90s. But with John McCain the party has a chance to begin to reconfigure itself and set the underpinnings of what could be a Republican comeback. For guidance as to light the way McCain should, when he gets the nomination as I believe he will, look back a century and take as his sherpas two giants of American political history Republicans Theodore Roosevelt and Senator Robert M. "Fighting Bob" LaFollette of Wisconsin.
Both TR and LaFollette made their political bones challenging the entrenched interests of their times namely the railroad trusts and the other monopolies of America's Gilded Age (does the Justice Department's antitrust division even exist within the Bush DOJ). Their efforts gave us the precursor to the Interstate Commerce Commission and what now is known as the FDA and the Progressive Party founded by TR and later carried on by his sometimes enemy LaFollete remains the most successful in US history although it carries a cautionary tale for today since most of the Roosevelt men later returned to the GOP when the more progressive Charles Evans Hughes was nominated for president in 1916 and later would find themselves in the political wilderness before signing on to the New Deal coalition that would elect FDR in 1932.
The challenge for McCain, as a noted contrarian when it comes to recent GOP orthodoxy, will be to unite the party in the coming election and avoid the fratricide which doomed the original Progressives. He can certainly do this with the defense hawks and his social values stances are squarely within the party for the most part. Where the rub will come, aside from the idiocy of the "build the fence and kick them out" crowd on immigration which recent elections in Virginia proved cannot possibly make a difference on a larger stage, is with the corporate wing of the GOP. But here too he can make his appeal over their heads (where else are they going to go – the Democrats?) with a smart play against larger monopolies that are anti-competitive (witness Bank of America's recent announcement of a bargain basement buy of troubled mortgage lender Countrywide and of course the laughable Telecommunications Act of 1996 which has only fostered noncompetitiveness in the information age) and making an appeal to the Main St. versus Wall St. part of the GOP which Reagan courted and wed so successfully. To prove his bona fides on taxes and spending he should appeal to former GOP Congressman John Kasich, always a reliable fighter against corporate welfare, and Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn who has joined him in the anti-pork barreling coalition which reached its zenith under the 109th Congress. On taxes he should propose a broad-based carbon tax as a full or partial replacement for the current FICA tax on wage-earners as outlined by Tufts University economist Gilbert Metcalf but stay away from the "cap and trade" part of such a tax proposed by the Democrats which promises only more favor-seeking on K Street.
In summary, Karl Rove thought he was going to rebuild a GOP majority for a generation in taking as his model his hero William McKinley and McKinley's "brain" Mark Hanna. It would highly ironic, to say the least, if instead the new Republican standard bearer looked back not to McKinley but to his heterodox vice president Theodore Roosevelt as the beacon to light the way.
I'm sure I'm no different than many who dislike McCain's liberal tendencies, but who'll vote for him if that's what we end up with.
But....-'the idiocy of the "build the fence and kick them out"'-crowd sounds like an easy pot shot, like the many taken by Bush to McCain, when a majority of Americans finally screamed out enough. Illegal immigration is a major issue that impacts the lives of millions of citizens. In the argument, as in most, two extremes are the ones that get air time. But I could certainly mention the idiocy of leaving our borders open, granting blanket amnesty to the millions of illegals here, setting up the next 10-20 years for a new wave of 20-30 million more {or more} illegals flooding our country, transforming more jobs into ones "Americans refuse to do", overwhelming our social services, educational institutions, and a taboo mention here...changing the fabric of America.
There's seems to be a sense among our elite that whatever comes down the road, we the people are expected to eat it. All things, all concerns, get sacrificed at the alter of "free market forces" or "Globalization". If we become alarmed that 1 in 7 born in Mexico are now living here, we're called racists, not because we are, but simply because the standard lines politicians and business interests have relied on for years doesn't wash anymore. Picking tomatoes may be a job "Americans refuse to do". I "assure" you that millions of construction, mechanical, factory, mining, and other blue collar categories are jobs that citizens want. What's been happening at the "street level" is that millions of illegals have been transforming normal career paths for uneducated/undereducated citizens into opportunities for illegals. Anyone is free to consider this a good thing. But it ignores Supply and Demand, within legal confines. Last time I checked, it's illegal for illegals to take a job, or be hired in the States. Obviously if we rely on an inexhaustible supply of dirt cheap labor, the cost of that labor goes down. This MAY have the effect of short term gain in somewhat lower prices on things that utilize illegal workers. The longer term harm, destroying whole industries that used to employ citizens, and the mushrooming burden on tax-payer financed services. And what of the many more millions to come here illegally if we don't get a handle on it now? I'm convinced that what we've seen to date in numbers will look like a trickle 10-20 years from now. Mexico is one country south of the border. We've currently got illegals entering from many Latin-American countries.
From the start of this nation we've controlled our destiny, or made the attempt. It's a natural thing countries do. There's nothing inherently evil or racist in it. If you or anyone else knows of a precedent where we've allowed a carte blanche illegal immigration of millions entering the U.S., while doing next to nothing about it, I'd like to know.
Personally I don't believe we're going to kick anyone out, other than perhaps the worst of the criminal element. I'm not looking for that and I don't believe most "anti-amnesty" folks are. What we want and demand is that we treat this as the severe problem it is, that we stop the invasion, and force those wishing to immigrate to do so legally.
Actually, BC, I agree with most of what you say in this comment! I am against amnesty except with respect to individually identifiable issues that makes deportation inappropriate.
I have the same view regarding immigration as I have for all of our laws. If they are not there to be enforced, then they should not be there. We should pursue an immigration policy consistent with the way it has been enforced for everyone for decades. No more and no less.
Bill - so you're a McCain guy, eh? I despise McCain based on his performance for umpteen years in the senate----He's nothing more than a career politician - and his voting record speaks for itself. If he gets the GOP nomination it will be ONLY due to his appeal to independent voters and the media. He has done far far to much in the past 8 years alone to leave a very bad taste in the mouth of conservatives. The Reagan co-alition has been splintered ----but I believe that there are others still in the field who would do better trying to put back together the house that Reagan built. McCain is wrong on taxes, he is wrong on immigration, he is only PARTLY right on the war, he is wrong on freedom of speech/campaign finance reform and the list goes on and on and on. NO WAY, John McCain....no way!
lisaed - Is your best anti-McCain argument that I might vote for him over Obama in November?
Cliff - I don't know you that well - but I'm doubtful that you would vote for any GOP nominee over the dem nominee in 08....am I right? And also - this is primary season---I'm not too focused on who you are going to vote for in November.....
The Republican Party has badly lost its way, but more importantly, it has backed its way into the clearly marked minefield. In their search to regain the lost "greatness" of Reagan, they seek an illusion. It was never as good as it seemed under Reagan, and the Republicans mourn him overmuch. They thought they had another Reagan in Bush the Dumber. Boy were they wrong.
Conservatives and Republicans no longer overlap to the degree they once did. McCain won't unite the Conservatives, he can't: he's not exactly a Conservative. He's exhibited too much bipartisanship, and his honesty is repellent in some quarters, especially the corporate executive suites. Where TR and LaFollette championed the common man, the current Republican looks far more like a Tory.
The suits in the executive suites have had their day in the sun with Bushco, Inc. As these suits represent their stockholders, they may be a bit busy 'splainin' away the fall in the stock prices. I do not feel sorry for their exile to the wilderness.
The Progressives of today have little in common with TR and those of his day. There's a tale of John D Rockefeller playing golf with his buddies. As they bemoaned the breakup of Standard Oil, Rockefeller cheerfully advised them to buy all the Standard Oil stock they could. When Standard Oil was split up, Rockefeller's already stupendous wealth was multiplied several times, I think by four or five.
I'm not sure the Rangel proposal has legs. I read the link provided, and it seems several steps are missing, or perhaps I'm expected to understand certain givens. The AMT is a nightmare, I'm punished by it. I don't mind paying taxes, but the AMT is an onerous system.
I'm so disappointed that McCain is even a possibility. The guy is a jerk who wouldn't even support the people of Arizona when he was the Governor. I see McCain as 3 Dubyas.
The guy is a jerk who wouldn't even support the people of Arizona when he was the Governor.
That could be because he never was governor...
I was wondering when I'd missed that particular election.
Ah, 86. A fine year. I was sweating Linear Algebra and pretty much dead to the world. I think I might have missed a global thermonuclear war if one had occurred then.
My apologies, I meant Senator from Arizona. I guess I was confused with his evil twin Gov. Owens. Point is the same, he is a representative of a free state threatening the people of his own state with Federal rule. There is NO PLACE for someone like that in the Whitehouse.
I am listening to Fox and Friends where McCain is a guest in few minutes and he already called Jerks to the anchors.
Good article Bill.
I enjoyed your insights.
As to where corporate America will cast their votes could get very interesting if Bloomberg gets in the race. Sure, he's a former Dem, but I think they'd (the CEOs) feel that he at least understands them.
Do you think Micheal B. will jump in the race?
Do you personally know anybody that would vote for McCain? He's such a pathetic boob. Kind of like voting for Bill O or Rush L for president...might fool some of the people some of the time. Bill, you seem intelligent, tell me you're not a McCain fan? Tell me that you think having a federal government tyrant at the helm could somehow be a good thing for this country?
TBone - I ruled McCain out in 2000 -and for the same reasons (and more) as then I'm not about to embrace him now.
Bill - I refuse to look toward the general as yet.....to me, it's what the GOP voters do right NOW that matters.
Bill-I'm trying very hard in general not just with you here to withhold any further judgments until after FLA/Super Tuesday on the GOP race---think I can do it?
Bill - I appreciate your point of view I really do.....and I agree with the points you posted above about Reagan----but when Barack Obama can compare himself to Reagan you can bet the members of the GOP field will do same. I'm not saying it's right---just the way it is. Bill, frankly I'm surprised to see you supporting McCain ---surely you are not being swayed by those pesky national polls? I believe it's way too soon for any of us to be looking at them seriously.
Bill - I think the Clintons and the media are all too anxious to be able to say "It's the economy, stupid"......that one little line that so helped whisk Bill into the white house. I'm certainly no expert but the so called expert I heard this morning (and I know everyone has a different opinion on this) on some CNBC financial spot said he did not believe we are in a free fall to recession. PS -I've known you all this time and didn't know you supported McCain in 00....how is that possible? And now this all makes sense.....
Bill, nicely put together article, but I would hate to see you jump, spur of the moment into a McCain future when he has several things going against him. As we can see the newest topic is the economy, and it will continue to be, and McCain's ability to understand the economy in any reasonable fashion simply leads him into S&L mistaken support he's already given.
In my opinion he will stick to his security is everything rant until he's passed by Mitt and crushed by his well paid and run election team that puts forth the best Republican product you will see this year. The Republicans will be swayed by his money and his business acumen, which will be the best chance the Republican party will have this year.
It's all about the money, we saw Thompson drop out, thank god, as he has no money. We see Giuliani in desperate straits in Florida, currently running third and soon to be out, the rest will see their fates written on the strings of money that will dry up.
Personally I thought McCain had the best speech after his win in New Hampshire and the best I've heard so far. Super Tuesday is on it's way and the political machine that is Mitt's candidacy will give him many results like he had in Nevada where he will be able to afford to compete throughout all the states, most of his competitors will fall by the wayside long before he runs out of money.
I'm surprised that you support McCain when clearly he's still muddled up with the rest of them.
Forest
Frankly it's the best chance they have especially with the economy going in the tank...something to believe in pal. In the end it won't be enough as the dems will most assuredly get out the vote. It does come down to the rah rah's in the end...who gets to the polls in a general election and things would have to get pretty dicey before the public will accept it.
Let's not forget Bush I's legacy on his failed election..."It's the economy stupid"....and it's the only chance they'll have because no one is going to let Bush attack Iran without a significant blowback with impeachment not being beyond the pale for retribution. Amazing how fast they can put those things together when there seems to be partisan support and there will be.
We could always wager though, and I'm probably right when it comes to Clinton at the same time....great money great organization probably means victory. Check out Nevada again where she beat Obama solidly by 6%.
I don't know if you watched the debate last night but I believe if these three are what the Dem's a stuck with there was no doubt about who won and who was smarter. The fact that we can't elect a real candidate for change is indicative of how lost we have become.
Forest
Seriously. These career politicians. This is the best America can produce? Where's Perot when you need him?
I remember the Reagan amnesty bill, meant to correct the problem from that time forward. The one in 07 was meant to do the same thing, from 07 onward. If McCain and Dems or Hillary or Obama and Dems push one through we'll be looking at the next one in 10-20 years.
The American people have generally been asleep on this problem, except that as more and more citizens are impacted by it one way or the other they've been waking up.
By the way, I'm not into guaranteed wage, minimum wage, "equal" pay for "equal" work, or unions {except in some types of work like coal mining where lives can be risked a little to easily at times}. I don't believe in keeping all industries afloat, but do believe some are critical to our long term security, NOT for the purpose of keeping "well-paying" jobs around.
Probably when the late President Reagan gave amnesty to the illegals they were the hard working class, now we have gangs and criminals growing up in this country and taking a lot of the free services.
As a life-long democrat, this has been an interesting look at the other side. I agree with you that McCain will be the nominee. And I also believe that he could win.
Bill, I've made a decision. I'm going to stop reading your comments and start reading your articles. On my watch list. Nice job.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |