If it wasnt for the war on terror, the party would have splittered already. Republicans certainly dont all agree on how to fight the war (the Buchannon isolationist wing doesnt agree with the realist Scowcroft wing who dont agree with the Krystal idealist wing), but there is one issue that the Republican party can always, always, always come together on: The utter distrust for any Democratic candidate's foriegn policy ambitions.
That will, in a time such as this, always bind the party together in a way the Democracts simply dont have. This election may come down to the question of whether leftists hate Bush more than rightists fear Kerry at the helm.

If Bush wins, GOP intra-party sniping will continue, because the Reps and Sens will have gotten away with it. They will also conclude that "tax-cut and spend" was a formula for success, to the dismay of fiscal conservatives. In contrast, a Bush loss will narrow party divisions. Opposition to Kerry proposals -- foreign and domestic -- would be a uniting force, just as anti-Clinton sentiment united the GOP in the 90's and ABB sentiment unites Dems now. I (and you) may not like any of those scenarios, but recent history suggests they are more likely than those suggested here and at andrewsullivan.com

I think Karl has it right:

if Kerry's President, there'll be solid majorities in both Repubican caucuses in favor of minimizing the damage he can do.

if Bush wins, I can't see him reigning in spending or Congress taking him seriously if he tries.

I don't have a problem with tax-cuts, though - [a] it's not their money; [b] just because they want it doesn't mean they should have it; and [c] the people are doing a better job with it than Congress.

Sounds a lot like the Lincoln 1864 election year.

"Sounds a lot like the Lincoln 1864 election year."

Amen.

WHat we're really talking about here is the attempted removal of the cultural conservatives from the Republican party by the likes of Sullivan.

a hijacking of the party at worst, but in reality, mere wishful thinking on Sullivan's part.

Karl and BradDad make a good point: A Kerry win will be countered by a Republican Congress. And it might even quiet the Leftist whiners for a while.

But there's more on the ballots than Bush and Kerry. There are mayors, governors, Senators and Congressmen. I think we'll see the tide turn farther away from the Democrats this time. Moore, Gore, and Clinton are going to drive moderate Democrats to rewiew their positions. Just because Dad, GrandPa, and his father before him voted Democrat isn't going to be enough to stay in the fold.

Andrew gets carried away again:

"The Santorum-Ashcroft axis will continue to wage war on any Republicans not interested in legislating either the Old Testament or the dictates of the Vatican. "

For starters, Kerry is the Catholic, not Bush. Sullivan is sometimes too focused on the religion issue, which isn't really an issue at all.

I think Dan is too optimistic (from a Dubya perspective) about the GOP divisions going away if Dubya wins. There is an arguable foreign precedent -- John Major's surprise election victory after taking over from Maggie when Labour seemed to have a real chance of victory with Maggie's revolution already having soured. So the Tories got another term, but all the tensions either exploded (e.g. the exchange rate debacle) or festered (EU, public services). The Tories might not look quite so pathetic now if they'd had a defeat back then to force the fissures into the open.

Drezner,

I'm still trying to figure out how you can possibly justify voting for John Kerry, given your support for the Iraq war. You been consuming too much MSM lately? Are you not familiar with Kerry's history of foreign policy positions over the past 30 years, which shows a lot more similarity with Jimmy Carter than Scoop Jackson? This is a man who voted against Gulf War I, a man who never met a defence weapons program he liked, a man who participated in secret negotiations with the North Vietnamese during the time he was working for VVAW and slandering the US military. A man who every one of his chain of command in Vietnam considers unfit to lead the nation. And you are thinking about voting for him as Commander in Chief?!

Imagine what the troops think of this man. Imagine how effective he will be leading them into danger if called for. Clinton was merely a draft dodger. Kerry was, in the opinion of a large percentage of the military, a traitor, or at the least a dupe and friend of traitors.

You're buying into the MSM's "incompetence" meme because you applying a standard to the Bush administration that no previous administration could possibly meet. And because of this supposed "incompetence" you are willing to put a bullet in the head of the notion of regime change as the appropriate response to horrific, dangerous despots who play with WMD and succor terrorists. Look at who your allies in the pro-Kerry camp are, and what they stand for, before it's too late. Michael Moore is a hideous anti-American propagandist (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/26/opinion/26BROO.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fDavid%20Brooks) and the Democratic Party has made him part of their campaign. Congress was adjourned so his pals in the Democratic party could go watch his screed. And you're going to stand with that crowd and pull the "K" lever. Open your eyes, man!

Excuse me Matthew Cromer,

Your portrayal of Kerry is sharp, acerbic, and off the mark. If Kerry "never met a weapons program he liked", then you must also despise VP Cheney. After all, Cheney was the Defense Secretary who outlined $10 billion of defense budget cuts in 1989. Keep in mind that Kerry voted against defense APPROPRIATIONS three times, but voted for defense bills 16 times. That means Kerry voted in favor of defense budgets 84% of the time.

For the record, the 3 defense bills Kerry voted against are: HR5803, S3189 (both in 1990) and HR2126 (1995). Were you concerned about terrorism in 1995? Doubtful. If you were like most Americans, the fall of the Soviet Union meant that defense spending should be reduced. After all, the daddy Bush White House believed so – it wasn’t a partisan thing.

How do you reach the conclusion that Kerry hates the military? I might also add, since this claim does not appear to be fact based, it seems dubious that anything else you say is anything but partisan rhetoric. Please put your emotions away and use the rational side of your God given brain.

Mike writes: "For starters, Kerry is the Catholic, not Bush. Sullivan is sometimes too focused on the religion issue, which isn't really an issue at all."

Kerry's the Catholic, but Bush and Santorum are the ones who want to make all Americans live in Vatican-dictated box, not just Catholics.

Sounds a lot like the Lincoln 1864 election year.

Good point, predictions of a “looming Republican Civil War” have been around as long as I can remember and just never quite seem to materialize. Seems a lot more like wishful thinking on the part of the opposition than anything substantive (you might have noticed that all three of the individuals who are making this prediction work for the New Republic which is the equivalent of asking the staff of the National Review to talk about the future of the Democratic Party). This might be more entertaining if it weren’t so utterly transparent.

Matthew Cromer

I'm still trying to figure out how you can possibly justify voting for John Kerry, given your support for the Iraq war.

You might as well ask Daniel Drezner why after spending the last several months excoriating Bush over the (already repealed) steel tariffs, on Tuesday he said he considered a ticket with John Edwards a more attractive proposition when Edwards bragged about his views on trade as:

“I didn't vote for NAFTA. I campaigned against NAFTA. I voted against the Chilean trade agreement, against the Caribbean trade agreement, against the Singapore trade agreement, against final passage of fast track for this president.” - John Edwards Democratic 2004 Presidential Primary Debate in Iowa Jan 4, 2004

Just something to keep in mind whenever you hear a "conservative" voter say that they're considering voting for Kerry.

The truth is out, boys. This Administration is headed by a moron, and predictable results ensue. And no matter how it gets spun, sooner or later people figure out that its better to be headed by a block of cheese that this Republican Administration.

Ah, yes - the "Republicans are stupid" stereotype. Didn't take long for that one to appear - thanks, Tim.

Must irk you, though, that the blockhead keeps beating your guys.

Dan or anyone else:

Any thoughts on what's going to happen to the Democrats after the election? Because it seems to me that they're just as divided as the Republicans are, but that is hidden temporarily by their united front against Bush.

Kracker,

I didn't state that Kerry hated the military, although I personally consider that a fairly likely possibility based on his positions and politics after leaving Vietnam.

It seems clear that the military (in large part) hates him for joining up with Hanoi Jane, leading the retreat from the war we had militarily won in Vietnam, and calling Vietnam Vets a bunch of war criminals.

Do we really want to elect as president the man who wrote a book with a picture of the flag hanging upside down in disrespect, the man honored by the Vietnamese communists as an ally in their cause whose portrait hangs in their war museum, the man whose entire chain of command in the military has declared him unfit for the position of Commander In Chief?

I'd love to see Drezner explain how the election of Kerry and his army of Michael Moorean foot soldiers is going to help the cause of liberal interventionism in the middle east and elsewhere.

“On the foreign policy front, the realists are disenchanted with the Bush team for listening to the neocons, the neocons are upset that the realists seem to be in charge, and the remaining "internationalists" are upset with both of the other groups.”

I personally will do everything within my power to purge the Republican Party of the so called “realists” and “internationalists.” These idiots have done enormous damage. Only the neocons truly understand that the Muslim world must be brought into the 21st Century. The culture of self pity and scapegoating has to be eliminated. Our very lives may very depend on this goal being achieved.

The situation in Iraq appears to be dramatically improved. Will the neocons receive credit? How much longer can the vile liberal media downplay the good news?

“I'm still trying to figure out how you can possibly justify voting for John Kerry, given your support for the Iraq war. You been consuming too much MSM lately? Are you not familiar with Kerry's history of foreign policy positions over the past 30 years, which shows a lot more similarity with Jimmy Carter than Scoop Jackson?”

Yup, Daniel Drezner’s position is indefensible. John Kerry was a full grown adult when he opposed Ronald Reagan during the Cold War. That alone should be sufficient to destroy his campaign. The man is a proven foreign policy wimp. Could it be that both Drezner (and Jacob Levy) are too hung up on the Cultural War issues? Are the abortion and gay rights issues too important to them? Me thinks that both gentlemen should seek advice from Instapundit and Roger L. Simon. Our University of Chicago professors may have gotten their priorities all messed up. Joseph Lieberman failed in his bid for the Democrat nomination. George W. Bush is therefore the lesser of evils---and currently the only game in town.

David,

I think you are right. I think Levy and Drezner find it intolerable to realize that they have to vote for the ineloquent, religious cowboy to be on the right side of history, and have managed to con themselves that voting for Kerry is not a foreign policy catastrophy of epic proportions in the middle of this war. So they latch onto the "incompetence" meme and ignore the startlingly clear indications that John Kerry's foreign policy vision shares the feckless weakness and fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the world last put on display during the administration of James Earl Carter.

A note to Drezner and Levy: The last "stupid" cowboy president with religious affiliations was right too, and your friends in academia were wrong, wrong, wrong.

Bithead,

What have the cultural conservatives accomplished? Have they stopped abortion, made porn less available, or improved the teaching of values in the public schools?

The answer is no, they have accopmplished nothing on the cultural value front. And while the cultural conservatives tilt at windmills all day long the liberal agenda is advanced courtesy of all the tax money the liberals have to spend. The cultural conservatives ignore the fact that the bloating federal expansion is more of a threat to their values then Janet Jackson's clothing malfunction will ever be. But there is no doubt which one will get the most attention from the cultural conservatives

Unfortunately too many cultural conservatives are not conservative, they are big government republicans. Those that support traditional values need to realize those values will continue to decline until the cultural conservatives focus on accomplishing something most conservatives agree on. Shrinking the size of the federal government and letting people keep more of their own hard earned money.

Sounds a lot like the Lincoln 1864 election year.

Maybe so, if Dean were one of the candidates. But he's not.

And 43 is so not 16.

And, although the opposing candidate isn't one of them, there's way too much neocopperheadism in the opposition for my tastes.

It's lose, lose, and I for one am looking forward to holding myself aloof from it.

Hello Matthew,

I agree that Kerry was critical of the US military in early 1970's. However, there are many who served in the military during that era who were also critical. I do not see political criticism equaling treason. (However, I do believe Kerry used his opposition to the war to launch his political career. Is that despicable? Nah, he's a politician.)

Which leads me to a request, would you refer me to your sources for why you believe the North Vietnamese honored Kerry? I am not aware that he took any trips to North Vietnam after the service.

Now some questions for you: Do you believe that the United States government is above criticism? Do you believe that America is always right to wage war? Are you advocating that citizens should accept the White House's view of the world without critical analysis?

And finally, why is the current President’s service in the National Guard acceptable? Why are the holes in his story about his time in Arkansas not a critical issue?

I am not saying, "Vote for Kerry". But I am saying, why is Kerry being skewered while the President is getting a free ride?

Crispy,

Bush gets a pass because he did not attack his fellow soldiers and call them a bunch of war criminals. He did not write a book about Vietnam Veterans with a picture of the American flag hanging upside-down in dishonor. He did not secretly meet with the North Vietnamese while a military officer, as documented by FBI surveillance. He was not present at a meeting where the assassination of members of Congress opposing VVAW was discussed. He has also not demonstrated a 30 year record of hostility to the American military and military programs. His record was not evaluated as the most liberal in the Senate by the congressional review. This is completely ignoring the mountains of evidence that John Kerry is a pompous asshole -- cursing out and blaming his secret service agent for a fall while snowboarding, cutting in front of people at restaurants with the line famous in his home district "Do You Know Who I Am?". Not to mention the rather unappealing fact that he is a twice-over gold-digger, not a disqualification for higher office to be sure, but distasteful nonetheless.

How this man was selected by the Democrats as the "electable" candidate will forever remain a mystery to me.

You can start your research into John Kerry's activities after getting out of Vietnam after only 4 months at:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Carchive%5C200406%5CSPE20040604a.html

and

http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php?page=20040531140357545

and

http://www.wintersoldier.com/

and read more about this albatross of a candidate the Democrats have nominated.

Dr. Drezner,

I followed your link to Jacob Levy's post on his decision to vote for Kerry.

He says he has never voted for a "major-party" (and thus Republican) presidential candidate and has never voted for a Republican Senate candidate or a Republican gubernatorial candidate either.

How does this make him part of the Republican base that's supposedly about to erupt in civil war?

And as for the examples he cites,... Jesse Helms ain't voting for Kerry. WFB ain't voting for Kerry. Bruce Bartlett ain't voting for Kerry. I don't know about Tyler Cowen, but the idea that Kerry would have either the political courage or the mandate to end the Cuban embargo (or even tinker with it much) is laughable.

My interpretation of Levy's (and to a lesser extent, Sullivan's) post is that politically bratty maximalists continue to be politically bratty maximalists even after terrorists declared war on us.

I've been thinking about this subject, and will think about it some more, because I now believe a Bush defeat in November more likely than not.

I think Dan is right that divisions within the GOP could be moot if Bush wins, at least for a year or so until people start gearing up for 2008. But if he does lose the initial reaction from many Republicans who are restive may well be focused on Bush himself.

In three of the four election cycles before this one the Republican Party chose to put Ronald Reagan's legacy in the keeping of a member of the Bush family. There were many Republicans who thought this a great mistake, a few (myself included) who never really reconciled themselves to it, and a very large number who would look at a Bush loss this November as a confirmation that the Party could have done better. What other conclusion could they draw from the son of the man who turned the country over to Bill Clinton turning the country over to John Kerry?

I suppose they could blame the whole thing on the liberal media. There would also be some blame affixed to neoconservatives inside and outside of the administration, who would be regarded with suspicion for a very long time to come. But if Bush were to lose this fall, completing the demolition of the Republican rennaissance Reagan began a quarter-century ago, the blame for defeat would rest mainly, and properly, with the Party's leader.

A Kerry win will be countered by a Republican Congress

Unless Kerry has enough legs to sweep in a few Democrats in the Senate and enough in the House to retake both houses. Not an unrealistic scenario.

At the very least, we can expect a Kerry win to mean a Democratic Senate. I fail to see how this benefits Republicans in any manner.

Plus a Kerry win would almost certainly mean a more liberal Supreme court.

Bush has done way better than he is given credit for. His accomplishments have been simply amazing to me. His more controversial positions are greatly exaggerated (like abortion and FMA).

Contrary to what Bush says, he does play politics though. I suspect he will be a lot more gay friendly and fiscally conservative when he doesn't have to worry about re-election.

“I suppose they could blame the whole thing on the liberal media.”

Yup, that’s right---that’s who I mostly blame. I am fearful that our democracy is in danger. Any republican running for president will be slimed by these scum bags. One of the very first posts I wrote on this blog concerned the harsh reality that a Republican presidential candidate is down by an estimated five points before the race ever begins. Dan Drezner personally responded to my post. The irony is that I currently realize that I wasn’t at that time sufficient pessimistic! I will offer one major piece of evidence for my view: the photos of Abu Ghraib. Those photos severely hurt President Bush. Mere words would have never had the same impact. Does anybody believe that the liberal media would have released these photos if a Democrat was sitting in the White House? Don’t make me want to laugh.

Why does the liberal establishment desperately wish to destroy George Bush? It’s all about abortion and the other cultural war issues. Nothing else matters. The war on terror and the economy are of secondary importance.

Hello Matthew,

Thanks for the link – they made for some interesting reading. Hmm, how to begin... The bottom line for me, if you dig into the sources of your sources (e.g. the things sighted in the articles you sent), you will find the articles are as much spin as an article from the New York Times.

First the claim that everyone who served with Kerry thinks he’s incompetent – ‘proof’ that he’s incompetent is the letter found at Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Did you read the entire 15-page document? The recurring complaint is that John Kerry betrayed all solders by calling American solders in Vietnam war criminals. Nowhere, including John O’neil’s Wall Street Journal letter to the editor (on page 6 of the PDF), does a signor accuse Kerry of deriliction of duty. Instead, Kerry is unfit because he’s a politician. That is to say, he used his opposition to the war to launch his political career. Sure Kerry said Americans committed war crimes – and many signors took that personally as they did not. I am not saying that all American solders in Vietnam committed war crimes. But is false to say that Americans NEVER did (think Mai Lai, indiscriminate carpet bombing, Operation Phoenix).

Second, the CNSnews.com special report is poor evidence. The article repeatedly references an FBI report saying Kerry negotiated with the North Vietnamese. There is no link to the FBI source data. I googled this topic and found nothing. But there is a more incendiary item in this article, notice that Gerald Nicosia says that BOTH Henry Kissinger and John Kerry were negotiating with the North Vietnamese (both were civilians at the time). But notice that even this is inconsequential. More importantly, why should I believe Gerald Nicosia? If he is right, make the FBI files public. If he is right, Kissinger is just as guilty – which suggests that Kerry was not the only one trying to secure the release of American POW’s (why is trying to get POW’s home so wrong?).

Third, the picture of Kerry in North Vietnam is from 1993. It is in no way related to his activities in the early 1970’s. Do you think he is traitor for trying to reconcile with an enemy two decades after the conflict ended? Do you think there is no room for forgiveness?

Hello Matthew,

Thanks for the link – they made for some interesting reading. Hmm, how to begin... The bottom line for me, if you dig into the sources of your sources (e.g. the things sighted in the articles you sent), you will find the articles are as much spin as an article from the New York Times.

First the claim that everyone who served with Kerry thinks he’s incompetent – ‘proof’ that he’s incompetent is the letter found at Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Did you read the entire 15-page document? The recurring complaint is that John Kerry betrayed all solders by calling American solders in Vietnam war criminals. Nowhere, including John O’neil’s Wall Street Journal letter to the editor (on page 6 of the PDF), does a signor accuse Kerry of deriliction of duty. Instead, Kerry is unfit because he’s a politician. That is to say, he used his opposition to the war to launch his political career. Sure Kerry said Americans committed war crimes – and many signors took that personally as they did not. I am not saying that all American solders in Vietnam committed war crimes. But is false to say that Americans NEVER did (think Mai Lai, indiscriminate carpet bombing, Operation Phoenix).

Second, the CNSnews.com special report is poor evidence. The article repeatedly references an FBI report saying Kerry negotiated with the North Vietnamese. There is no link to the FBI source data. I googled this topic and found nothing. But there is a more incendiary item in this article, notice that Gerald Nicosia says that BOTH Henry Kissinger and John Kerry were negotiating with the North Vietnamese (both were civilians at the time). But notice that even this is inconsequential. More importantly, why should I believe Gerald Nicosia? If he is right, make the FBI files public. If he is right, Kissinger is just as guilty – which suggests that Kerry was not the only one trying to secure the release of American POW’s (why is trying to get POW’s home so wrong?).

Third, the picture of Kerry in North Vietnam is from 1993. It is in no way related to his activities in the early 1970’s. Do you think he is traitor for trying to reconcile with an enemy two decades after the conflict ended? Do you think there is no room for forgiveness?

Crispy,

The Vietnamese choose to honor Kerry as a hero of the Vietnam war. The fact that the picture in their museum is from 1993 is irrelevant. The relevancy is that they honor him as an ally in helping them to win in Vietnam. I think the blood of the South Vietnamese who fought with us, the Hmong, and the victims of the Khmer Rouge stains the hands of the anti-war movement of the sixties who allowed the monstrous evil of state communism to shroud Southeast Asia. And Kerry bears some of that responsibility.

Personally, I do not think Kerry is a traitor. I think he was a young man with bad judgement and exceedingly poor taste in friends. For example, in the VVAW meeting where assassination of members of Congress was discussed, nobody claims that John Kerry advocated assassinations. The problem is that he chose to associate himself with that group of nutjobs.

It's one thing to claim that Kerry is a traitor who cannot be forgiven. I disagree with that. I see him as someone with a distorted world-view (US is arrogant, UN is good, France is our friend, all problems can and should be negotiated) who absolutely cannot be trusted as commander in chief. Just because we can understand how he got involved in an anti-american movement, why he wrote a book sliming the American soldier, and what makes him tick, doesn't mean he can be trusted to use the awesome instrument of American military power when required to protect western civilization. John Kerry as junior senator from Taxachussetts? I have no problem with that. President John Kerry? I can't see anyone in American politics I would trust less to protect this country from the gathering danger from Middle Eastern psychopaths and the regimes which sustain them. The Democrats are wrong, wrong, wrong about national security, have rejected the voices of reason in their own party (Lieberman, Gephardt, Miller) and cannot be trusted.

Why in hell is everyone talking about John Kerry's Vietnam record? That's of very minor importance. The real issue should be his waffling during the Cold War years. This is the number one reason why he should not be president of the United States.

One could present a half way decent argument that John Kerry was an immature youth during the Vietnam era. He was, however, a full grown adult when he hindered Ronald Reagan's fight against the Soviets.

As much as I disdain President Bush's shameless political pandering to the socialist ideologues of the far-right, I'm even more repulsed by Kerry and the gang of liberal aristocrats (re: Ted Kennedy) that surround him.

Though Bush is certainly no paragon of conservatism - at least not of the libertarian variety - this election, I'm afriad I'll have no choice but to hold my nose and vote for him.

[blogdad.blogspot.com]

James Haney wrote:

He says he has never voted for a "major-party" (and thus Republican) presidential candidate and has never voted for a Republican Senate candidate or a Republican gubernatorial candidate either.

How does this make him part of the Republican base that's supposedly about to erupt in civil war?

aaron wrote:

Bush has done way better than he is given credit for. His accomplishments have been simply amazing to me. His more controversial positions are greatly exaggerated (like abortion and FMA).

Not to pick a fight with aaron, but I don’t think that Bush’s moderate pro-life stance on abortion nor his reluctant support for the FMA are particularly “controversial.” At least with the moderate majority which overwhelmingly supports civil marriage as an intestitution between husband and wife and while favoring keeping abortion legal in cases of rape, incest, and to protect the life of the mother (Bush’s position) has no problem with banning partial birth abortion and cutting off tax-payer funding.

Homi wrote:

Unless Kerry has enough legs to sweep in a few Democrats in the Senate and enough in the House to retake both houses. Not an unrealistic scenario.

At the very least, we can expect a Kerry win to mean a Democratic Senate. I fail to see how this benefits Republicans in any manner.

Plus a Kerry win would almost certainly mean a more liberal Supreme court.

The cultural conservatives ignore the fact that the bloating federal expansion is more of a threat to their values then Janet Jackson's clothing malfunction will ever be. But there is no doubt which one will get the most attention from the cultural conservatives

The issue is not what gets spent, directly, but rather what it gets spent ON. Consider it this way; I've yet to see anyone argue that were Cultural conservatives to rule the day, that spending wouldn't eventually drop, once the duties that have been negletced (Such as Defense, under Carter) catch up.

I would also suggest that if the culture is not safeguraded, little else will matter.

Background:

http://bitheads.blogspot.com/2004/07/what-is-purpose-of-government-anyway.html

Bush's results show fantastic competence in foreign policy, economics, and even culture war issues (moderation on abortion and acceptance of the need to support an anti-gay marriage amendment, which most think won't go).

The Dems have kicked out pro-life pro-God folk -- who have not yet taken over the Reps (Arnold). The media Bush-hate is at least partly due to God-hate; Kerry "doesn't mean it" on his own religious views, Bush does.

Bush gets lousy press, and because he's not perfect, nobody is, there's always some small truth to complaints against him.

The civil war in the Reps is that the small gov't "out of power" party is getting seduced into spending Other People's Money, and hasn't suffered high inflation/ high interest rates, yet.

Comparing abuse at Abu vs. prison rapes & AIDs infection in the USA, I honestly don't know how anybody can say Abu shows Bush failing. Abu in Iraq is a much smaller problem, already being fixed by firing a general. It shows normal imperfection. The Left has no standards to complain about Bush, and therefore accepts the implicit perfection, costless standard as the obvious one.

VDH points out that Western Civ needs an ideology that accepts the value of Christian based Western Civ, and values it against enemies enough to: fight, die, kill, and even kill innocents.
If one is not willing to kill innocents for your values, then you'll lose against an enemy that IS willing to.

The Reps ARE a mess, but the Dems are even worse. When will the Dems start complaining about too much gov't spending, instead of not enough taxing?

The Left has no standards to complain about Bush, and therefore accepts the implicit perfection, costless standard as the obvious one.

Bingo, which is why we have not heard anything constructive from the opposition party as to what they would do better if given the chance. Keep in mind though that we’re not allowed to actually discuss their record (votes cast and positions taken) in comparison lest we be accused of “questioning their patriotism.”

I am in basic agreement with Andrew. He is just a little late to the Party. I guest blogged this issue over at Winds of Change 16 May 03.

The catalyst for the destruction of the Republicans will be the destruction of the Democratic Party and the Republican's resounding victory.

There will be a lot of Democrats without a home and a Republican party dispirited by the cultural conservatives. There is a place for a Democracy, Whiskey, Sexy Party in America. Especially America. It will have to be based on fiscal conservatism and anti-fascism.

bithead,

There is one glaring error in your thesis. And coming from your point of view glaring:

Government cannot safeguard culture. Every time it tries it makes things worse. New prohibitions, new criminals.

There will be a lot of Democrats without a home and a Republican party dispirited by the cultural conservatives. There is a place for a Democracy, Whiskey, Sexy Party in America. Especially America. It will have to be based on fiscal conservatism and anti-fascism.

Just out of curiosity, what is the support for the idea that “cultural conservatism” is somehow going to “dispirit” the GOP? Based on what I’ve seen, it seems that “cultural conservatism” is a lot more in the political mainstream that “cultural liberalism” when it comes to issues such as support for traditional marriage, opposition to racial preferences, support for RTKBA, opposition to unrestricted abortion (although there are differences about the degree of restrictions, Bush is a lot closer to the centrist position than Kerry by far), support for capital punishment, support for religion in public life, etc. About the only issue where “cultural liberalism” is arguably more in the mainstream than “cultural conservatism” is the issue of physician-assisted suicide but somehow I doubt that’s going to be a decisive issue anytime in the near future.

People might agree or disagree about some of these issues, but I don’t see any evidence to support the proposition that this is going to fracture the GOP and it seems more like wishful thinking on the part of the opposition party.

msimon
bithead,

There is one glaring error in your thesis. And coming from your point of view glaring: Government cannot safeguard culture. Every time it tries it makes things worse. New prohibitions, new criminals.

Not so, though I can understand how you arrive there.

However, consider, please; Government, in the end has but two tools at it's disposal... encouragement and discourgagement of certain behavior. Those tools take on many forms, but in the end they invariably come down to those two points.

Governments, as a whole have a long history of using these tools to both good and bad effect. The bad most often occurrs when it attempts by means of law, to alter the direction of the culture. This, I hold to be the exact opposite of the original purpose of government. The result is bad in two ways; government becomes irrelevant and is degraded thereby... and the culture's strength is degraded, as well.

OTOH, reinforcement of the culture, is fairly simple, and involves at the least, not running afoul of the existing culture. That alone would both tend to strengthen the culture, and maintain the validity of the government.

Feel free to follow up by e-mail; I've already gone too far in shifting this thread, I think.

Thorley

Just out of curiosity, what is the support for the idea that “cultural conservatism” is somehow going to “dispirit” the GOP? Based on what I’ve seen, it seems that “cultural conservatism” is a lot more in the political mainstream that “cultural liberalism” when it comes to issues such as support for traditional marriage, opposition to racial preferences, support for RTKBA, opposition to unrestricted abortion (although there are differences about the degree of restrictions, Bush is a lot closer to the centrist position than Kerry by far), support for capital punishment, support for religion in public life, etc. About the only issue where “cultural liberalism” is arguably more in the mainstream than “cultural conservatism” is the issue of physician-assisted suicide but somehow I doubt that’s going to be a decisive issue anytime in the near future.

I tend to agree, here. In every one of the subjects you've listed, we're dealing with the social left using the power of government to alter the culture... which is, as I've already suggested, exactly the opposite of the origonal purpose of government.... ANY government.

At best for all but the hard left, the total package you list is going to be a hard sell to the electorate.

bithead,

Actually government has only two tools. Theft and guns. Admitedly useful in some circumstances but generaly recognized as having limited utility for a free people.

The Republicans (say for the last half century or so) used to know this. Democrats refused to face the facts. The fall of the USSR has fundamentally changed the equation.

Out of the center of American politics will come a civil liberties (limited government) party. But first the old order has to die.