(This post has been edited and expanded from a previous version.)
Powerline and Hugh Hewitt have been discussing the possibility of a breakup of the conservative coalition, where the religious right and the non-religious right (and possibly libertarians and other groups) would each go their separate ways. Instapundit seems to think this a likely scenario, while Hugh Hewitt seems to think such a split unlikely.
(As an aside, I'm sure that many of Moore's moonbats would like to part ways with the less radical democrats like Lieberman, and vice versa.)
I would suggest that if such a schism does come about, it would not really be about the Republican party, but in fact be a harbinger of the breakup of the two-party system - or at least a definite weakening of their stranglehold on the issues.
Not to be a blog triumphalist, but I think the blogging phenomenon will be a major factor in such a shakeup, since it allows a completely open forum of discussion (and argument, yelling, histrionic name-calling...) with the entire spectrum of voters. That would be a welcome alternative to the polarizing effect that the two party system has, and the old guard of beltway punditry yelling 'talking points' past each other.
What say ye?
3 comments:
I think there might be a reallignment, but there will be no lasting interruption to the two party system.
Two parties just make the most sense. Example: suppose 17% of people want a 10% taxcut; 13% want a 15% taxcut; 30% want a 30% tax cut; and 40% want a tax hike of 80%. If each of those groups were represented by an individual party, the 40% wanting the large tax hike would win. Obviously, the others would all be much better in getting what they want even agreeing to lowest proposal of 10% cut, i.e, they should consolidate into one opposition party and compromise.
Personally, I would be greatly in favor of some kind of Republican schism and consequent reallignment. I presently vote Republican because abortion seems to dwarf all other issues for me, but as a fiscal conservative, the Republican party no longer represents me.
you bring up a valid point against the idea of a total breakup of the two party system, but a similar example could bolster the idea of returning control of the issues to the people:
as it stands now, both party machines are for bigger government, they just differ on which bureaucracies are more important. power being the way it is, the democratic machine ignores the pro-life minority in their ranks, and the republican machine ignores the small-government and libertarian
members of their ranks.
if a substantial bloc of voters in both parties believe in smaller government, they are now more empowered (via the net) to make an ad-hoc coalition to force the issue into the national spotlight, rather than hope in vain that their party even acknowledges the issue. while that coalition agrees on that particular issue, they are free to disagree on other issues, and could ally with coalitions for other causes as they personally saw fit.
so even if the two party system stays as is, let's hope they begin to be more responsive to what their members are saying.
Well, I hate to admit it, but I think the biggest obstacle to that is people like me, who are voting party-line on a single issue.
A great way to get elected is as a socialist Republican. Take the pro-life and pro-family values vote as a given, and then try to win over the moderate lib vote on other issues.
Post a Comment