From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Republican Civil War (was Re: Sixteen more years)
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 18:42:06 GMT

Keywords: 

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 don't think so. In the off chance that Bush wins, the Republican party
is still going to have to reconfigure, and I think someone like Kemp has
a better chance.

]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.

That's right, and furthermore the moderates have already lost all their
credibility in the party. It has been made clear that attempting to
compromise with a democrat controlled congress is a disaster.

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

There are plenty of serious threats left in the world, and it is very
frightening to me to see the press and the democrats ignore them
so much. The nuclear weapons all still exist in the xUSSR. They
are still pointed at us. The political systems there are in terrible
turmoil. Anything could arise, from communism to fascism. The anti-communists
are really anti-isolationists.... and they (we) would certainly gain
new interest from any turmoil abroad. Since I think there is a substantial
chance of another mideast war, with Iran and possibly Azerbaijan or
(shudder) Kazakstahn involved, foreign threats are going to be very
much a feature of the next four years. I shudder at the idea
of Bill Clinton having to learn by experience during a nuclear confrontation
with Iran over the gulf oil supplies! [Hint: credible reports have
been emerging, over that last many months, that Iran has purchased
four nuclear warheads from Khazakstan (alright, I CAN'T spell it and
I don't have time to look it up :-).

]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).

I agree.
]
]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 think that is possible with today's liberal press, unless we
get a true leader like Ronald Reagan. Buchanan and Bennett do not
fit that category.

](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.)

Some of the charges are true. The problem with the social conservatives
is their strident pro-life stance and their tendency to want to push
religion down people's throats. In that regard, Bennett is likely
to be more successful than Buchanan, because he seems to be less
of a religious fanatic.

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

I cannot imagine that this would happen. The Democratic Party is
currently seriously antithetical to everything economic conservatives
believe, inspite of its attempts to paper over its economic liberalism
or socialism. This will be more clear after 4 years of Clinton.

]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.

The best outcome for economic conservatives is to become more socially
liberal, but not too far.... the extreme social liberals today cannot
be separated from economic liberals, because their cause is full of
government favoritism for various groups (achieved by regulation)
and government handouts. This will not wash with economic conservatives.
Many of us believe that the government should stay out of our morals
(except for actual crimes, such as murder - which raises the abortion
issue in some quarters - no flames PLEASE) but that it should also stop 
telling us how to interact with other people. Social liberalism is too 
closely associated with Political Correctness today, and too far from 
libertarianism.

]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.

More likely (I hope) is that the economic and foreign policy conservatives
will take over the republican party, with a moderate social view (ie,
no group favoritism, but also no group attacks; tolerance of homosexuals;
moderation on abortion; expecting and empowering responsibility on the
part of individuals rather than paternalism).

I notice that you have completely left foreign policy out of your analysis.
This is a shame... the world has NOT gone away, and it has not become
a nice place. We will still face serious foreign challenges, including
military and ideological ones, but no one wants to talk about it this
year. This scares the hell out of me! Bill Clinton is going to face
some very serious challenges from the militant moslems - especially
in Iran; he is likely to face grave danger from one or more of the
four former Soviet states that still have strategic nuclear weaponry;
China is still a nuclear armed wild card which could explode when
the old guard finally dies.

The foreign policy conservatives (of which I am one) are trying to warn
of these threats, but no one wants to listen. This is not a partisan
issue, but it is a damned important one!
]
]If the new party fails to attract sufficient voters, it may end up
]fading into obscurity, leaving the American voters faced with the
]choice of voting for economically liberal Democrats or socially
]conservative Republicans for a long time to come.

Not likely. The most likely way for us to be stuck with socially conservative
Republicans is if the Clinton administration caters too much to the more
offensive social leftists - the gay radicals; the feminist radicals; the
racist black "leaders"; the culture war crowd. A backlash against that
could be scary indeed.

]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. Too many structural reasons will present a significant
third party from forming. One way or another, it's ideals would be
absorbed by the two major parties, along with the supporters of those
ideas. 

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

Indeed it should. Unfortunately it is likely to be unpleasant
and dangerous because of foreign policy threats and potential
economic disasters.

PS, isn't this a lot more interesting than these huge flame wars
that we have been having? I wonder how long this thread will go before
it also degenerates into name calling and character assassination?
-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
 - - Definition: invertebrate ::= George Bush - -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc