Will the Republican Coalition Hold?

Two Coalitions Composed of Many Factions

Except for George Washington's first term and the Era of Good Feelings (from 1816-1824), this country’s government has been organized around political parties, and in particular, a two-party political system.    However, these parties are actually coalitions of groups and interests.  In practice, what we have is a multi-party system in which the candidates are winnowed down to two in party primaries and those candidates compete for support from a considerable bloc of independent voters.  When a party's coalition can no longer hold together, the party splits or fades away.    We have seen this before when the Democrat-Republican Party divided into the Democrats and the Whigs and the Federalist Party went away and when the Whigs gave way to the Republicans.   We have also seen new coalitions arise when one party picks off groups that previously supported the other party.   This happened in the 1930s when Franklin Roosevelt built a coalition based on white Southerners, blacks, Jews, ethnic Catholics, organized labor, urban machines, progressive intellectuals and populist farmers.    This coalition largely stayed in place until 1980 when Ronald Reagan built a coalition based around the Southern, Midwestern and Western states which included many of the ethnic Catholics and farmers who had previously supported the Democratic Party and evangelical Christians who had largely been apolitical before.

The Republican Coalition

 

Since 1980, the Republican coalition has evolved into a grouping of ideologies.    The oldest of these is the pro-business faction which dates back to the late 1800s and is characterized by Calvin Coolidge's pronouncement that "the business of America is business."    The pro-business faction favors limited government regulation of business, but favors government assistance to business and an aggressive foreign policy.  George W. Bush's TARP program is a good example of a pro-business Republican policy.   The pro-business group is also known as the establishment Republicans and includes a belief in good government.    A second strain of Republican ideology is social conservatism.   This group was energized by the 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade which mandated abortion on demand.    This group is also motivated by opposition to homosexuality and a desire to return this country to an overt emphasis on Christian values (just not the parts having to do with social justice).   The third major strain is the anti-government, anti-elite faction exemplified by the Tea Party.   In some ways, this group is a throwback to the Anti-Masonic Party of the early 1800s which believed that the Freemasons were a shadowy conspiracy to enslave the country.    The Tea Party opposes most government programs, favors reduction in taxes and opposes American involvement in foreign countries. The Second Amendment/militia movement which believes that Americans need to arm themselves to defend against an oppressive government is part of this strain.   These three ideologies come together on some issues but diverge on others.   For example, both the pro-business and social conservative factions are perfectly willing to employ government to advance their agendas while the anti-government group almost uniformly wants less government (so long as you don't touch their Social Security). 

The Democrat Coalition

  

The Democrat coalition is much more of an assortment of interest groups organized around the general belief that government can improve the position of their group.   The Democrat coalition includes racial and ethnic minorities (blacks, Hispanics, Asians), the remnants of organized labor, unmarried women (who supported President Obama by a 39 point margin in 2012), the LGBT community, certain religious groups (liberal Catholics and Protestants and Jews) and urban dwellers.    It is worth noting that in extremely red Texas, President Obama carried four of the five largest counties (Dallas, Harris, Bexar and Travis, although in fairness, Harris County was essentially a tie).    Hispanics and the LGBT community are examples of groups which, like evangelical Christians, were not previously engaged in prior years.    Because Democrats are composed of disparate interest groups, they frequently fight amongst themselves.   For example, organized labor has traditionally opposed immigration reform while Hispanics and liberal Christian groups have favored it.  

Will the Republican Coalition Hold Together?

 

I wonder whether the Republican coalition will hold, and if not, what will take its place.   In the 1980s, I used to hear the refrain, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, the party left me."   These days I am hearing that refrain more and more from ex-Republicans (including myself).   In my opinion, a coalition can only hold so long as its members are willing to accommodate their disparate views. Blacks, Hispanics and organized labor are all competitors within the Democrat structure but manage to put aside their differences on election day.   On the other hand, social conservatives and the Tea Party have declared war on the pro-business/establishment faction.    It is not enough to be extremely conservative; a candidate must be ideologically pure to avoid a primary challenge.  While John Cornyn is one of the most conservative members of the U.S. Senate, there was an active effort to mount a primary challenge against him for failure to sufficiently support Ted Cruz's effort to defund Obamacare.   The threat of a primary challenge is enough for establishment/good government Republicans to mute themselves when the bomb throwers in the party engage in government shutdowns and other shenanigans.   

If the social conservatives and anti-government elements succeed in purging the establishment Republicans, I sincerely doubt that the establishment group will continue to support the party.  However, where would they go?    

One possibility is that they will simply stay home, let the Democrats win a few elections and then re-join the party.   During the 1960s and 1970s, the Democrat Party moved far to the left, causing it to lose the presidential elections of 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984 and 1988.   In 1992, a centrist Democrat led the party to victory.  This could happen if the Republican party succeeds in purifying itself into a minority position.     

Another intriguing possibility is that some Republicans will run as independents.   One intriguing analysis suggested that if twenty Northeastern Republican Congressmen successfully ran as independents, they would hold the balance of power in the House.   There are currently three independents in the Senate.   These individuals (Bernie Sanders, Angus King and Joe Liebermann) are all big personalities in small states and are an exception to the normal rules of party domination.   However, I don't think this is likely to happen in any significant numbers.  Generally, party members will prefer keeping their safe seats until they perceive a serious threat. Because the major parties make it difficult for outsiders to qualify for the ballot, incumbents have a real incentive to stick with their existing party.   Unless a number of Congressmen feel sufficiently at risk in the primaries, there are unlikely to be more than a handful of independent candidacies.  Thus, the self-interest of the incumbency weighs against this possibility.   

I doubt that many Republicans will switch to the Democratic Party.  The gulf between the parties is just too great.  Also there have been a number of cases where individuals switched parties and then lost their primary in the new party.    

The final prospect is that there is a new realignment between the parties.    The eternally optimistic hope for the emergence of a centrist third party which will draw on disaffected Republicans and Democrats.   Historically, America has not been able to sustain a viable third party for more than a single election cycle (e.g., 1860, 1912, 1948, 1992).  However, England and Mexico are able to maintain a three party system.   Mexico is a good example of the evolution of politics.   For 70 years, Mexico essentially had one party rule.   Today, three parties compete at both the national and the local level.   If our neighbors to the South could pull this off in the face of an entrenched political establishment perhaps it is possible here as well.

Beware the Grumpy Old Men! Alternate Reality Rules on Comment Boards

I used to think I was pretty conservative. I actively campaigned for every Republican presidential nominee from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush, served as a Republican precinct chairman and was a delegate to two Republican State Conventions. While I have since soured on the Republican Party, most of my underlying core beliefs remained the same. However, when I had the audacity to challenge statements made on some right wing discussion boards, I found out that I was a "liberal POS" (and they didn't mean Point of Sale System), "retarded" and "the worst kind of fool." Who knew?

Seriously, these boards are symptomatic of a larger problem. In today's America, many people tune out the Main Stream Media and only listen to those who confirm their biases. If the only people you talk to are the most conspiratorial minded 1%, you can find validation for the wildest theories. Woe to the person who walks in who is only 95% pure. They can expect an internet thrashing. While my recent experience has been with the right wing echo chamber, I am sure that the same can be said for people who find the Huffington Post to be too conservative.

As a public service (or perhaps I just want to vent), let me open a window into some of these forums. The three that I get the most emails from are The Last Resistance, Political Outcast and Eagle Rising. You can click on the article titles  below to get to the sites. Each of them send out email news updates which allow readers to comment. Sometimes the comments get pretty far afield from the original article. While the articles can be pretty bad, the comments are much worse.

Here are a few examples:

• Last Resistance had a post entitled "Eric Holder: Blacks Have a Civil Right to Murder" on November 8, 2013. The premise behind this article was that: (i) Trayvon Martin tried to murder George Zimmerman; (ii) Eric Holder said that the federal government was thinking about pursuing federal civil rights charges against Zimmerman; and that therefore (iii) Eric Holder believed that blacks have a civil right to murder white people. The article was full of gratuitous slurs against black people such as, "there's nobody black people love more than black people" and "the American government sets very low standards for black people." However, to me, the most absurd premise about the article was that Zimmerman was the victim and Martin was the aggressor. The article said:

If Zimmerman violated Trayvon’s civil rights, then that means it was Trayvon’s civil right to kill Zimmerman, because that’s the only thing Zimmerman stopped Trayvon from doing.

Huh? I thought this was nuts and said so.

In response, I was told:

 Bonk:

It's not a race thing, it's a culture issue. BO would love a race war, so he can declare martial law. His Obamacare does well to help kill off most of the senior population.

Sharon:

Did you conveniently forget that Martin was bashing Zimmerman's head on concrete and would have most likely killed him if Zimmerman hadn't shot him? Perhaps you need to open your eyes and stop drinking Liberal Kool-Aid.

freemanfornow:

The 911 operator knew Zimmerman was on foot and continued to ask about Martin's actions, which required Zimmerman to continue following (with his gun holstered and concealed). As the police car was entering the neighborhood, Zimmerman broke contact and started walking back to meet the officer. That's when Martin doubled back and attacked Zimmerman.

Avenger:

Why is that all liberals sound so retarded? Liberal organizations were formed so the organizations can easily influence the stupid to say and believe fairy tales like Steve Sather is spouting. As Steve shows, short-circuited 'logic' and liberal ignorance can be funny and entertaining.

• In another article, entitled Neo-Nazis: Haters We Love to Hate on November 14, 2013, the author told the story of a Neo-Nazi who found out that he was part black. The article pointed out the stupidity of Neo-Nazi groups. So what did the comments say? You guessed it: Barack Obama is just like the Nazis.

Rockyvnvmc:

There's little difference between the Obot's hatred & the Nazi's, except the Obots hate Whites And Jews... even those whites amongst them.

Obamaism is following the Nazi's lead, word for word, out of 'Mein Kampf'. Now, just like Hitler, Obama's hoing after our guns... we All remember what happened next, after Adolf disarmed his opponents...

Harold:

Why worry about a small group of neo-Nazis, when we have a whole bunch of them in Washington,D.C. who are trying to rule like Adolph's Nazi's. starting with the white house.

• In TX School Says Cheerleaders Part of Government So Their Speech Can Be Controlled on November 8, 2013, the author asked what I thought was a fair question: whether cheerleaders at a football game are speaking for themselves or for the school when they hold up banners with Bible verses. Because the article only offered one side of the argument, I offered the rebuttal, which is, that when cheerleaders selected by the school are wearing uniforms with the school insignia on them and are given a special platform not available to others that maybe is not unreasonable to consider them to be acting as representatives of the school.

 What I saw in the comments was hatred against Muslims and Jews and sympathy for Joe McCarthy.

SpudPicker:

Too bad McCarthy didn't get a lot more help way back when! He had the right idea but was outnumbered and outgunned. He needed help but didn't get it.

Winston Blake:

The three women on the Court are... JEWS...

The Jews Who Rule America

V Steve:

My free speech:

Jews and muslims should be ran out of the united States, jewish groups want to destroy our christian heritage and our culture which our founding fathers founded the united states on, muslims want to enforce their sharia law to replace the constitution and bill of rights.

Denise B:

He's absolutely 110% correct. Jews and Muslims are completely Anti AMERICAN. Screw off to Israel.

fort9erdon:

As there should be! Islam, is not a religion, but in fact is an agenda for world domination, therefore not entitled to protection from the first amendment. Islam is an idea, that belittles women, causes 98 percent of the evil in this world, and Muhammed was an insane pedophile, sex deviant, who hatched an idea that took hold in a very evil, backward culture. Mulims are stuck in a very bloody 6th century world. Islam should be outlawed. America will be doomed by Islam, because PC IS DESTROYING THIS COUNTRY! WAKE THE HELL UP AMERICA!

• When Eagle Rising wrote a story about Sarah Palin Warns Obama of Impeachment on October 16, 2013, I thought it was bizarre that anyone would still listen to Sarah Palin and said so. 

Sarah Palin has not shown any familiarity with the Constitution. On top of that, she was incapable of serving one term as Governor of a small state. She is an intellectual lightweight who is overly in love with the sound of her own voice.

 Of course, this does show my bias.   The comments in response to my shot across the bow were equally poignant adding more heat than light to the discussion.




BarefootBoy1:

Steve Sather is full of Blather. Your Ignorance and Stupidity is showing.

Jon Hawk:

and yet another Mis informed Liberal fanatic who does no fact checking obviously...go drink some more koolaid and do some actual research before making ill founded and un truthful remarks about someone you moron

Poodleguy:

And Steve is full of equine fecal matter!!!!! Go away, you leftist POS.,,,,

Of course, the comments that were not directed against me were even worse.

TimboT:

Obama is still in power because of the evil of this nation and the world. The Despot has been propped up by none other than Satan who is the Devil and Prince of the Air.

Peggyjsl:

Here is one for you Delbert whether anyone likes it or not: The current president, Community Organizer is muslim (says so himself) Islamic and is of the muslim brotherhood and his god is Allah, which means "curse" and in arabic the mark of the beast "666" is "In The Name Of Allah" and "Shariah Law" is their caliphate

Marian:

Obama will never stop lying. He must be impeached now! I do not want him in prison...I want him gone....ship him off to Pakistan with Mooch and his two daughters. Get rid of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi...the rest will be replaced in November 2014. We need to clean up Washington and air out the WH!

G. Frazier:

Anybody, who votes NOT to impeach Obama should be tried for treason! Obama should not only be tried and convicted, he should also be sentenced to prison - HARD LABOR, MIND YOU - until he has paid back every cent he's stolen from the nation.
That should keep him busy until at least 2525!!

DavidE:

Obama is our greatest enemy ever!! Being a devout Muslim, he hates our guts and is looking for ANY excuse to implement Martial Law to extend his dictatorship indefinitely to destroy our country and imprison or kill our citizens. GOD BLESS AMERICA

Final Thoughts

There you have it. Barack Obama is a Muslim Nazi who is in league with Satan to encourage black people to kill whites so that he can impose martial law. I don't know whether to laugh or to cry.   Reading these articles and the comments they inspire, it is clear that there are some people who are very, very angry about nearly everything in America.   If the comment boards allow them to blow off steam and commiserate with their compatriots, they may well be doing some good.   However, when there is a constant refrain that the other side is not just wrong, but in league with Satan, I worry that some will be inspired to take up arms against their fellow Americans.  Hopefully, these are just a bunch of grumpy old men who while their time away on the internet while they wait for their social security check to arrive.  Maybe they just need to get out of the house and feel the sun upon their faces.    

White Republican (Boehner in Wonderland)

One bill makes you larger
And one bill makes you small
And the ones that Congress gives you
Don't do anything at all
Go ask Boehner, when he's ten feet tall

And if you go chasing conspiracies
And you know you're going to fall
Tell 'em a pill-popping Rush Limbaugh
Has given you the call
To call Boehner, when he was just small

When the men on Fox News get up
And tell you where to go
And you haven’t had any healthcare
And your mind is moving low
Go ask Boehner, I think he'll know

When logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead
And Ted Cruz is talking backwards
And Michelle Bachmann's off with his head
Remember what the merchants of chaos said:

Feed that dread!

Feed that dread!

A good satire will make you think.   My intent here was to take John Boehner, who is not always the world's most sympathetic person and cast him in the role of Alice in Wonderland.  In the event that my metaphor doesn't inspire more than a half-hearted chuckle, or if you prefer inspiration to snarkiness, consider the words of George Washington from his Farewell Address.   They seem very timely today.

All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.

Impeach Obama? What Does the Constitution Say?

It seems like hardly a day goes by without some rightwing figure claiming that President Obama should be impeached.    In the past week, Texas Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst claimed that the President should be impeached for offenses ranging from failure to prevent the attack on the Benghazi consulate to his implementation of the Affordable Care Act and immigration laws, while former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin contended that the President should forfeit his position if he allowed the country to default on its debt.    

When I commented on a right wing message board that Sarah Palin might benefit from reading the Constitution, I was hit with responses describing my position as "Sather's blather," "equine fecal matter" and something about my opinions being typical for a leftist.    I knew what I was getting into when I posted, so I was not terribly shocked by the response.   However, since it was not that long ago that agitated liberals were calling for the impeachment and hanging of President Bush, I thought it might be productive to pull out my copies of the Constitution and the Federalist Papers and see what they had to say.  I also consulted my copy of Grand Inquests, which is Chief Justice Rehnquist's book about the impeachments of Justice Samuel Chase and President Andrew Johnson.

The Constitutional Text

The Constitution provides several methods for vacating the office of the President.   First, the people can decline to re-elect a president when his term ends.   No matter how popular the president is, he must leave office after two terms under the 22nd Amendment.   There is also a procedure for declaring the President unable to carry out his duties under the 25th Amendment.   Finally, Article II, Section 4 provides that:

The President, the Vice-President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Treason is defined by Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution to mean:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Bribery has a pretty clear meaning.  However, "other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" is problematic.    In 1970, Gerald Ford defined it as "whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."   While that may be accurate, it is not very helpful.   (When Rep. Ford subsequently became President Ford, he probably saw the wisdom of a less expansive definition).   

The Views of the Founding Fathers

 According to the Constitutional Rights Foundation, the Constitutional Convention worked through several phrases before arriving at "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."    First they tried "treason, bribery and corruption."   Then they dropped corruption and left it at treason and bribery.   George Mason proposed adding "maladministration" but James Madison objected and proposed "high Crimes and Misdemeanors against the state."   "Against the state" was dropped and we ended up with the final formulation.   The Constitutional Rights Foundation explained that:

Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.

The Federalist Papers appear to be more interested in discussing the structural aspects of who gets to determine impeachment (Articles of Impeachment are voted upon by the House and the case is tried to the Senate) than the grounds for impeachment itself.   However, in The Federalist No. 65, Alexander Hamilton described impeachment as resulting from:

those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.   They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL as they relate to injuries done to the society itself.

Both the CRF and Hamilton seem to agree that impeachment requires an abuse of the powers of office or a violation of the public trust.  Under the English tradition, acts amounting to mere negligence, such as failure to moor a ship or appointing an unfit subordinate could grounds for impeachment, the rejection of the term "maladministration" suggests that something more was required.   Additionally, the use of the term "high" referred to acts committed in the capacity of a public person.   As a result, a President arrested for driving drunk while on vacation might be a low crime, while getting drunk at a state dinner and challenging the French foreign minister to a duel would be a high one.  

 The Historical Record on Impeachment

The use of impeachment in practice also provides an imperfect guide.   Three presidents have had impeachment proceedings commenced and fifteen federal judges have been impeached.   Among the Presidents, Andrew Johnson was impeached but not convicted for attempting to remove the Secretary of War from office in violation of a congressional enactment, Richard Nixon resigned prior to being impeached on corruption charges and Bill Clinton was impeached but not convicted for lying about a sexual affair with a White House intern.    Judges have been removed from office for offenses ranging from mental instability and intoxication on the bench, waging war against the United States, perjury, accepting bribes and income tax evasion.   

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase was impeached but acquitted on charges of arbitrary and oppressive conduct of trials after he used his charge to a Baltimore jury to rail against the current administration.  According to Grand Inquests by Chief Justice Rehnquist, Chase's impeachment was an attempt by Congress and the President to remove a judge whose criticism had become a thorn in their collective side.    According to Rehnquist:

(T)he Chase acquittal has come to stand for the proposition that impeachment is not a proper weapon for Congress (abetted, perhaps, by the executive as in the case of Chase) to employ in (confrontations between branches of government).    No matter how angry or frustrated either of the other branches may be by the action of the Supreme Court, removal of individual members of the Court because of their judicial philosophy is not permissible.    The other branches must make use of other powers granted them by the Constitution in their effort to bring the Court to book.

Rehnquist, p. 134.   

Chief Justice Rehnquist similarly concluded that the failed impeachment of President Andrew Johnson stood for the proposition that impeachment could not be used to remove a president whose policies Congress found repugnant.    He wrote:

Andrew Johnson was not, of course, convicted; he was acquitted.  His acquittal confirmed what had already been established by the acquittal of Samuel Chase in 1805.   Impeachment would not be a referendum on the public official's performance in office; instead, it would be a judicial type of inquiry in which specific charges were made by the House of Representatives, evidence was received before the Senate, and the senators would decide whether or not the charges were proven.

 Rehnquist, p. 271.     

Seven years later, Rehnquist's theory would be tested as he presided over the Senate trial of President William Jefferson Clinton.   The House of Representatives adopted two out of four proposed articles of impeachment on a largely party line vote.    The case was tried to the Senate on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.   The case was doomed when all forty-five Democrats voted not guilty, preventing the Senate from obtaining a guilty verdict.   Five Republican Senators rejected both charges, while an additional five Republicans not guilty on the perjury charge.    

The failed Clinton impeachment can be viewed in more than one way.   One lesson is that impeachment of a President who is popular with his own party is doomed to failure.    This is the realpolitik  lesson.   However, there is a more subtle lesson a well.   The Clinton impeachment, while based on very real misconduct, largely concerned the President's behavior in his private capacity.   The charges of perjury leveled against him arose from a civil suit unrelated to his duties as President of the United States.   The obstruction of justice charge was more difficult, because it involved allegations that the President attempted to use his public powers to cover up his private misdeeds.  It may be that when history is ultimately written, it will report that the Clinton impeachment failed because he was guilty only of "low Crimes and Misdemeanors."   

President Obama and Impeachment

It seems no small understatement to say that President Obama is unpopular with the Republican Party.  Partisans on the right can score political points (and raise money) by attacking the President with intense fervor.    However, I will go out on a limb and state that there is absolutely no chance that the President will be removed through impeachment.   President Obama is as popular with Democrats as he is despised by Republicans.    Given that there are currently 53 Senators who caucus with the Democrats (including three independents), there is simply no way to find 67 votes for conviction.   Even if all 47 Republicans voted to convict, it would take another 20 votes from Democrats and Independents to succeed.    That is not going to happen.

Furthermore, the complaints about President Obama fall into two categories:  political and preposterous.   Impeachment was never intended as a means of resolving political disputes; that is what elections are for.  The Republican Party lost the last two national elections. If they seek a do-over of the last election under the name of impeachment, they may well lose the remainder of their support among middle of the road voters.   As for the charges that President Obama is a closet Kenyan Socialist Muslim who wants to overthrow our Democracy and institute an Islamo-Fascist regime, I seriously doubt that the President's detractors could come up with enough evidence to convince even one Senator.   My suspicion is that Republicans are happy to allow their firebrands to stir up the faithful but they would never seriously pursue an impeachment they could not win.