- Carol Shea-Porter 'Ready to Win' N.H. Seat Back
- Lindsey Graham Rolls Eyes at Rand Paul
- Why Titus Won't Run for Reid's Senate Seat
- 14 Open House Seats, Few Takeover Opportunities
- Veteran Democratic Consultants Launch New Media Firm
One wonders what might have happened to the notion of liberal Republicanism if its identity had been linked to President Dwight Eisenhower rather than New York Gov. and Vice President Nelson Rockefeller.
Would attaching Eisenhower’s iconic status as savior of Europe and his popularity as president to the middle-of-the-road mentality have made it more palatable to the changing GOP electorate?
Probably not. By the end of his presidency, Ike remained personally popular and politically unassailable, but his policy preferences were already beginning to be pushed aside by many members of his own party. It would be nearer the truth to say that Rockefeller Republicanism became the appellation for the left wing of the party because nobody wanted to attach that stigma to the popular president.
So, Clint Eastwood notwithstanding, “Eisenhower Republican” remains a quaint phrase with little grounding in either history or contemporary politics.
Which brings us to the tea party movement.
In “Rule and Ruin: The Downfall of Moderation and the Destruction of the Republican Party, From Eisenhower to the Tea Party,” Geoffrey Kabaservice tries to make the case that “the GOP has for all intents and purposes become a uniformly ideological party unlike any that has ever existed in American history.”
Except, of course, the one it is currently competing with. (And, for a party that has suffered “destruction,” the Grand Old one seems to be doing quite well.)
There is much bemoaning by the liberal chattering class — and many crocodile tears shed — about the demise of Republican pluralism (and hardly any about the similar trend toward the left of the Democratic Party). Of course, the Republicans that liberals of today pretend to get all misty about are the same ones who were invariably labeled as dangerous kooks by their liberal contemporaries.
“Rule and Ruin” is a readable history of the evolution of the Republican Party, but it suffers from this same myopia. All was swell in the good old days, and if only Republicans today would act like Republicans of old, all would be swell again.
Kabaservice gives a passing nod to the changing circumstances that largely accounted for a changing body politic, including population shifts to the South and West and the Democrats’ purge of segregationists that made the party more palatable to GOP moderates.
But in his telling, the Democrats are virtually blameless. The party that abandoned President John F. Kennedy’s clarion call to “pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty” and replaced it with “come home America” barely makes an appearance.
Which is too bad because “Rule and Ruin” is good history, as far as it goes. Unfortunately, Kabaservice can’t get past his nostalgic attachment to the mythical figures of the past that he chronicled in “The Guardians: Kingman Brewster, His Circle and the Rise of the Liberal Establishment.” Either he doesn’t understand that the game has changed, or he doesn’t want to admit it.
The people who changed it, of course, are the tea partyers.
In “The Tea Party: Three Principles,” law professor Elizabeth Price Foley lays out in exacting terms the core philosophy that underpins the movement.comments powered by Disqus