We have a tea-party movement, and a raucous and rivalrous gang of independent groups, precisely because GOP leaders cannot exercise the sort of control over their coalition that Democrats do over theirs. Left-leaning PACs and independent groups are a supplement to the Democrats’ machine; right-leaning groups are an alternative to the Republicans’ machine.Naturally this narrative appeals to me; I'd like to think I support the party that values honest debate over mindless conformity. But I wonder if it's really true? Democrats--even potential donors--do exhibit some fracture lines in their political solidarity. The fulminating fury at left-wing sites about the sell-out DINOs sounds to me remarkably like its counterpart at right-wing sites: indeed, remarkably like the frustration I vent daily over why everyone in power can't be sensible enough to agree with me all the time.
I will say that Democratic leaders in the House and Senate in the last few years have exercised better control than Republicans over their caucuses.
My evidence to the contrary is the ACA. They had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and House when they wanted to pass this thing, and they had to fight to get 50% + 1 on it. Remember the "Louisiana Purchase"? Mary Landreau wasn't going to sign on until they bought her loyalty with deal sweeteners in the bill. Sure, they eventually got it through, but they had plenty voting no on the deal, because they knew how unpopular it would be back home. And perhaps a few of them actually had personal objections to it. I don't we'll ever know for sure how many did.
ReplyDeleteAs you say, though, they got it through -- even after losing Ted Kennedy's seat over it. It was an amazing act of political discipline, especially given the manifest hatred from the voters and the fact that none of them had time to read it and therefore couldn't be sure what they were being asked to own.
ReplyDeleteThe Leftists I know are not fools. They can be critical of Obama and other political leaders, especially for deception and opportunism. But that doesn't make them persuadable: their view of the Republican Party is that it is wholly owned by corporations whose private and selfish interests are completely opposed to the good of the nation.
Oddly enough, Williamson agrees with that view of the Republican leadership. He may be right: I've certainly not been happy with the Georgia Republican Party, neither at the state nor national levels.
Democrats--even potential donors--do exhibit some fracture lines in their political solidarity.
ReplyDeleteDespotism always has its dissenters, token and otherwise. It's why the USSR had its Gulag, for instance.
The Republican Party doesn't necessarily exercise lesser control over its caucuses than the Democrats; it certainly does exercise a different control and a different level of control. One outcome of that is evident in the contrast: the Democratic Party reaches its party decisions in secret behind closed doors, whereas the Republican Party thinks out loud, discusses its disagreements, and reaches a more or less consensus in the public's eye. The Democrats talk democracy; the Republicans live it.
Whether that's by design of the Republican Party leadership is a question; it's clearly the design of the Democratic Party leadership.
...GOP leaders cannot exercise the sort of control over their coalition that Democrats do over theirs.
No, say rather, GOP leaders do not exercise the sort of control.... Williamson seems to have lost sight of the essential noisiness of (republican) democracy.
Eric Hines