From: sunder@gershwin.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Sixteen more years
Date: 15 Oct 92 21:37:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: roundup.1bkoa7INN1s9
Distribution: world
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
NNTP-Posting-Host: gershwin.crhc.uiuc.edu


|In article <YAMAUCHI.92Oct12183845@sartre.ces.cwru.edu> yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
|]
|]If Bush wins the election, I expect to see business as usual in '96
|]election, with the GOP nominating another moderate conservative like
|]Bush with few if any defining principles (e.g. Baker, Dole).

I doubt that that will happen. No matter who wins, there is going to be
a re-alignment after the close call they had. Any sensible person can see
that the factions that should get the blame are the religious conservatives 
and the economic moderates. If Bush wins, he's a lame duck from day one.
What he thinks or does will mean nothing to anyone. There will probably be
a natural inclination for the party to lean towards someone who gave them
their '80's winning formula of fiscal conservatism and reductions in rate
of spending increases, and that person is likely to be Jack Kemp, or one
of the other stars on the GOP firmament like Weld (he doesn't have a base
though, except probably the Log-Cabin Republicans).

]If Bush loses this election -- especially if he loses big, consider
]the effect on the various groups mentioned above:
]
]The Moderates:  Lose credibility.  Bush was a moderate before he was
]nominated, and this has forever associated him with the centrist wing
]in Republican minds.  Even when he spouts ultraconservative rhetoric,
]he doesn't seem to believe it.

Which will become apparent by his moving Dick Darman from OMB and appointing
him as Treasury Secy,. which while provoking howls of outrage from 
conservatives, will also bolster their will to get a Kemp (or clone) as their 
next boss.

]The Anti-Communists:  Are already largely irrelevant.  Who do they
]have left to fight?  Cuba?  China?  Albania?

True. I predict that there will be a tendency towards isolationism
in the GOP in the post-Cold War era. I am not sure who or how it will
be countered since the foreign-policy and international engagement
wonks are now largely irrelevant after the cold war.

]This sets the stage for a major power struggle between the Social
]Conservatives (Pat Buchanan, Jesse Helms, Jerry Fallwell) and the
]Economic Conservatives (Jack Kemp, Milton Friedman, William Weld).
]How this conflict is resolved could determine the political landscape
]for the next decade or two.  I can think of a number of potential
]outcomes:
]
]1) The Economic Conservatives win.
]
]If a Clinton administration provides widespread prosperity over the
]next four years, then the Democrats are likely to hold the White House
]anyway.  If, as I think is more likely, the economic recovery remains
]weak (or even reverses), then I think a Kemp/Weld '96 campaign has a
]very good chance of retaking the Presidency with an economic plan
]based on *real* measures to cut spending and revitalize the economy
]through free market initiatives (as opposed to Reagan/Bush
]borrow-and-spend economics).
True.

Also, what Kemp will have going for him in a big way is something that no
GOP leader has ever had in the past quarter century, and that is
a decent black following, giving the GOP a way to cut into the big
black percentages that the Dems. normally get, while still being
conservative enough on non-racial issues to retain the South. No one
else, not Buchanan or even Bennett, with his non-threatening ability to
philosophically rationalize every radical-sounding proposal, has that
chance of breaking the stranglehold that the Dems. have on the black vote.
Given that a recent poll by the Jt. Center for Political Studies found that
a higher percentage of black Americans (33) think themselves to be conservative
rather than liberal (28%), this is a vote bank just waiting to be tapped by
someone who does not try any naked race-baiting like some Republicans have been
wont to do (e.g. Jesse Helms in his Senate race in 1990. IMHO, he had a perfect 
right to do so, given that Harvey Gantt tried to make an issue of his opposition 
to the "Civil Rights" quota bill, but he still should not have)

]2) The Social Conservatives win.
]
]Again, if the Days of Wine and Roses return by 1996, the Democrats
]will likely hold onto the White House.  If not, I can imagine a number
]of possible outcomes:
]
]2a) The economic conservatives grimace and bear it, remaining within
]the GOP and casting their votes for Buchanan/Bennett in '96.  In that
]case, I think there is good chance of an extremely conservative
]president being elected, if he can *effectively* use issues such as
]"welfare mothers" and "family values" to focus voter discontentment
]and anger against the Democrats and their beneficiaries.  

I don't see how you could possibly place Bennett and Buchanan on the
same ticket, after the latter called Bennett by name and all neo-cons
in general, "... fleas riding on a dog that were now trying to steer the
dog itself..." (or sump'n similar); and the later responded by saying
that Buchanan was veering dangerously towards fascism. Besides, Bennett
is a thinking social conservative, who is more likely to be tolerant but
not permissive on social issues (except abortion) than Buchanan is likely
to be. Besides, most press-folx love Bennett, but detest Buchanan.
Buchanan will **NEVER** be on ANY winning ticket, or even any ticket at
all, if the GOP has any sense left in its head. Depending on which faction
wins (econ or social), a ticket like Bennett/Kemp, Bennett/Weber or 
vice-versa is more likely to be nominated with the winning faction's
man at the head. And, in the unlikely event that California's Bruce
Herschenson wins his Senate race, he will be my pick for Star 
of the GOP Senate battalion for the next decade, and a surprise pick 
for the Veep-ship sometime in the future, effectively sidelining Pete
WIlson as the GOP's hope to recapture California after the looming debacle this
November (interested readers might want to read today's WSJ's op-ed Counterpoint
oiece attacking Pete Wilson). IF Herschenson wins...
(remember you heard it here first)

](Bush fails when using these tactics, at least partly because he is
]unconvincing and uninspiring.  Buchanan, on the other hand, is a
]*much* more effective speaker who *does* believe in what he is saying,
]and may be able to make these charges stick.)

Nope, he doesn't. People recoil instinctively from too much radicalism.
Bennett, by being more non-threatening gets my vote to be the head of
the socially conservative faction of the party.

]I consider the concept of President Patrick Buchanan more than a
]little unappealing, but social conservatives may disagree...

I bet you'll find enough of them who think he's intolerant, as
opposed to the tolerant-but-not-permissive attitude that other
conservatives (like Buckley) advocate. Heck, He wouldn't even get the
endorsement of National Review and the American Spectator. Possibly Human
Events though.


]2b) The economic conservatives defect to the Democratic Party.  This
]would likely give the Democrats long-term control of both the Congress
]and the White House.  Before liberals get too excited, though, they
]should remember that a large influx of ex-Republicans into their party
]will shift the center of the party substantially to the right (at
]least on economic issues).  In this case, I would expect to see
]Democrats such as Paul Tsongas or Bill Bradley in the White House --
]and unrepentant left-liberals such as Harkin and Simon left out in the
]cold...

Clinton's plans will have to succeed beyond the wildest expectations for
that. And I seriously doubt that they will. Too many loonies in his own
circle for that to happen. And count me as one who wouldn't be sorry to see
Tsongas in the White House. Possibly as a Republican. But as a Democrat?

To quote Nixon: "Tsongas is much too responsible for the Democrats to
nominate him." If the Dems. can undergo a radical change in 4 years, sure.
Of course, the leap from Tsongas the Dem. to Tsongas the Repub. is just as
huge, given the current state of the party. But if the GOP loses and the
social conservatives get the blame, the party might reform enough for
Tsongas to feel comfortable there. After all, if Weld can be a Republican
(and the most pro-Gay governor in the nation), so can Tsongas.

]2c) The economic conservatives decide to either form their own party
]or defect to the Libertarian Party.  If this occurs, it will
]permanently alter the American political landscape.  An economically
]conservative, socially liberal party will likely attract some voters
](e.g.  pro-choice businesswomen, minority small-business owners,
]entertainment executives, etc.) from the the Democratic Party as well.

Not likely. Third-party initiatives more often than not fail. What will
happen is that if the econ. conservatives lose, they will just wait and
reform the party to suit their beliefs or simply defect to the Dems. as
the better of two evils. 

]If this new party (call it the Libertarian Party) attracts enough
]voters from both parties, it may well supplant the Republican Party.
]In this case, the two-party system may remain intact, but with the
]Democrats and the Libertarians as the major parties and the
]Republicans relegated to minor party status.

]If the new party attracts enough voters to reach relative parity with
]the other parties, but not enough to eclipse either, then this will
]result in a radically different political environment.  With three
]major parties, we will have a de facto pseudo-parliamentary system
]where coalitions will need to be built (either on long-term or an
]issue-by-issue basis).  Suppose the Congressional breakdown is 1/3

Ain't gonna happen. What MIGHT happen is that in one year, the Libertarians
have a huge surge (by their standards, a 1% to 4% jump is HUGE) in the
nos. of votes they get, and the GOP wises up and gets the message. Then, they
conduct a purge of the loonies who are told to sit in a corner and twiddle
their thumbs while the fiscal conservatives take over.

]In any case, it should be interesting to see what happens...

You bet it will. I for one, am glad to be around while all this stuff is
happening.

-srinivas

-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------