Republican splits

I've written before about the republican parties lack of a mission, and it has become extremely evident as of very recently. For starters, the right's gloating at Chicago's (and, in their eyes, Obama's), failure to land the Olympics. [Never-mind that the primary reason the US lost the olympics was because of the draconian immigration laws instituted by the Bush Administration.] As the always lovely Rachel Maddow pointed out, this celebration at the right wing AFP confrence, caught on video, is something that will hang as an albatross around the neck of the Republican party for a long time.

So where does the Republican party go from here? Well, I am postulating here and now that I really don't see the modern Republican party existing past the next ten years. I'm not saying they'll all move to Vancouver or anything, but that the schisms that are forming won't be healed.

A bit of background on the roots of the Republican party is in order. There are three distinct factions within the party, and success in winning Republican elections depends entirely on ones ability to placate all three. They are:

A)The Neoconservatives: These are folks like Bill Kristol. Primarily foreign policy oriented, these are the folks you see on the news who advocate solving every problem with military means. Iran? Bomb them. Pakistan? Invade them. Iraq? Conquer them. Again. They don't care if your cousin is gay, or if the punitive tax rate is 100%, just as long as that tax money is used to send your cousin to invade Iran.

B) The Social Conservatives: These are folks like Bill Donahue. Primarily the evangelical arm of the Republican party, these are the folks you see on the news proclaiming gay marriage and access to family planning services to be the biggest threat to democracy in history. They want the government in the bedroom and the church pew. Famous for, despite being the staggering majority, constantly claiming to be oppressed and victimized. Cares about foreign policy only insofar as they believe the purpose of the military is to spread Christianity at the barrel of a gun. Usually utterly indifferent to tax policy.

C) The Economic Conservatives: These are folks like Ron Paul. Primarily the business arm of the Republican party. This is the traditional, tax-less, libertarian arm of the party. Not even remotely concerned with what you do in your own bedroom, or anywhere else for that matter. Views foreign policy from the opposite end of the spectrum from the neo-cons. Don't believe the military should be used for anything but continental defense. Favor total military withdrawal from every base and conflict around the world.

Now that we're familiar with the factions, the problems with the republican party should come into focus. The recent 2008 Republican primary had representatives of all three factions, and they split the vote three ways. The Republican primaries are winner take all, but had they been proportional, like the democrats, they probably would have gone even longer than the democratic primaries did. Mitt Rommney represented the economics, McCain the neoconservatives, and Mike Huckabee the social conservatives.

Success in Republican politics is the ability to juggle and placate all the factions, and there have really only been two politicians that have ever been able to do it: Regan and GW. Bush. But even these men, were, at heart, traditional economic conservatives that were able to put on a really good face for the other two factions.

So what now for the party? Well, it looks to be that Sarah Palin, of all people, represents the source of the original schism. This extreme social conservative is viewed by many serious people in the beltway as the reason for the Republican loss in 2008, and her self obsession and egomania are only serving to drive the party farther apart. Its a dark secret in the world of politics that many serious Republicans have nothing but utter contempt for her.

2010 should really be the bell weather for where they go now, to be sure. It'll be fun to watch.