A Republican Meltdown?
by Ryan Sager
Wed, 7 Mar 2007 at 12:17 PM
updated Wed, 7 Mar 2007 at 12:19 PM
One great rule of journalism is that any headline that ends in a question mark has as its answer: no. Such is the case, I believe, with recent talk of a Republican meltdown. Jonathan Martin over at Politico makes the case for Republican gloom here. I'm a bit more interested at present, however, in the case made by Andrew Sullivan here.
At one level, of course, the case is convincing. The Iraq war, the Walter Reed scandal, the Libby conviction ... all add up to an administration that has lost its grip on the public's support and sympathy, that appears hapless and incompetent, and that appears beset with scandal and decay. President Bush is likely to leave office as an extremely unpopular figure. And, in many ways, he's earned that unpopularity — by forfeiting the Republican Party's role as the home of fiscal responsibility, by presiding over a party determined to demonize gay people, and by failing to prepare for the aftermath of the liberation of Iraq from Saddam Hussein.
However — what a great word — it's still an open question to what extent the candidates for the Republican nomination will tie themselves to, or transcend, the legacy of the Bush administration. Senator McCain took a gamble between 2002 and today that his most sure path to the presidency was through an embrace of Mr. Bush. He must not be feeling good about that bet right about now. He'll surely feel worse about it in the event he secures the Republican Party's nomination next winter.
Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, however, have a chance to change what a Republican Party under their leadership would look like. Both men have gone to great (maybe even comical) lengths in their stump speeches to differentiate themselves from Mr. Bush on the issue that is at the heart of so much of the negative opinion that dogs the current president: competence. Mr. Romney highlights his business experience and his "saving" of the Salt Lake City Olympics. Mr. Giuliani, of course, touts his record in "saving" New York City and owes his national image to his performance on September 11, 2001.
Now, despite the similar ways these two candidates are trying to define themselves as leaders, there is a big difference in how the Republican Party would look under either man. Mr. Romney, despite a socially liberal past, is following in the Bush tradition of letting "family values" issues dominate the definition of the Republican Party — marriage, abortion, stem cells, etc. Mr. Giuliani, on the other hand, has essentially said: We agree on most things (the War on Terror, taxes), but we're going to disagree on some others (i.e. social issues) ... and that's OK.
Essentially, then, Mr. Romney's campaign represents: Bush, but better. Better meaning more competent and more willing to bend to the social-conservative base on issues such as gay marriage and immigration. Mr. Giuliani, on the other hand, represents a radical departure from the past. He would put national security, low taxes, and small government (except, notably, in the area of civil liberties) at the forefront of the Republican Party.
Now, how popular a Giuliani-style Republican Party would prove with the electorate in general, I wouldn't speculate right here and now. But it wouldn't be defined nearly as much by the turmoil of the Bush years as would be the candidacies of Messrs. McCain and Romney.
These are gloomy times to be a Republican, to be sure. But that doesn't mean the party doesn't have a path back to victory. That path, however — whoever is traveling it — will lead through a repudiation, not an affirmation, of the Bush legacy. That seems more certain after yesterday and, indeed, with each passing day.
Latest Politics Homepage
|
Print
Send
RSS
