2009 Elections and American Kadima

Last night's off-year elections were clearly a win for the Republicans as they picked up the governor's office in two key states, but I'll somewhat buy the line coming out of the White House, as reported by Politico, that "Democratic losses in New Jersey and Virginia are no verdict whatsoever on President Barack Obama or his policies." That's an exaggeration, but as Nate Silver has argued, this was very much an "all politics is local" election. The Democratic candidates in New Jersey and Virginia were either wildly unpopular or inept (or both), and there are plenty of state-level explanations for the GOP gubernatorial victories (particularly in New Jersey, where Obama remains as popular as he was when elected).

Arguably the more interesting election came in upstate New York, where a Democrat won election to the House in a district that should have been a safe bet for the GOP. The interesting part is not so much the victory of Democrat Bill Owens (who is rather conservative), but rather the fact that Palinites and Tea Party movement folks were able to force moderate Republican Dede Scozzafava from the race while instead backing the Conservative Party nominee Douglas Hoffman. He of course lost, but for the far-right activists this does not really matter. A hated RINO was booted from the race, and they flexed their muscles.

While popular, Charlie Crist is too moderate (and perhaps too gay) for the GOP base

All indications are that this will not be an isolated incident. Current Florida governor Charlie Crist is running for the Senate in 2010 but is being challenged from his right in the primary by former state representative Marco Rubio, who can expect significant support from lovers of Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh. A similar dynamic might be at work in California where former (disgraced) CEO of Hewlett Packard Carly Fiorina is trying to unseat Democrat Barbara Boxer but likewise has a challenger to her right (now supported by arch-conservative South Carolina senator Jim DeMint). Sen. John Cornyn, who heads up the GOP Senate campaign committee, has said that the party will not spend any money "in a contested primary" in 2010, which basically means they will not back more prominent politicians like Crist and Fiorina if the Tea Partyers et. al. put up their own fringe candidate. Obviously that's good news for the grassroots right.

Former New York governor and Vice-President Nelson Rockefeller

All of this is being widely reported, but I'd like to consider a possible (and very dramatic) ramification of this strong move to "primary" Republicans who are not conservative enough for the base. Social conservatives have been taking over the GOP (initially at the local level, eventually nationally) since the early 1960s, and if anything that move has intensified in recent years. These days moderate or "Rockefeller Republicans" are not just being marginalized, they are being run out of the party with torches and pitchforks, and—so far at least—party leaders are not really doing anything about it, though some seem dismayed at the extent to which the Tea Party movement, Glenn Beck, Limbaugh, and Palin are running the show.

While there are almost no moderate Republicans in congress anymore, there are still a lot of moderate Republican voters out there—just as there are a lot of "moderate" Democrats and "moderate" Independents. The problem for the GOP, as I discussed in a much earlier post, is that their core base (without which they cannot win elections) does not allow for compromise and indeed vilifies anyone who does not hold to their extremely strict social and political agenda. Folks talk about the left-wing of the Democratic Party in the same terms, but the fact is that there are over 50 moderate and conservative Democrats in the House (very much a force to be reckoned with) and at least a dozen or so in the Senate. Perhaps surprisingly, the Democrats have done a much better job of holding together the different wings of their party than have the Republicans (Exhibit A, which gave the Dems a 60 vote majority in the Senate).

The current Democratic-Republican two party system has been relatively stable since the 1896 election (when the Populists melted into the Democratic party), with the major exceptions being the flood tide of African Americans and labor into the Democratic Party during the New Deal and the gradual move of southern white racists from the Democrats to the Republicans. There seems to be a sense today that our current party system is a permanent feature of the political landscape, but more and more I wonder if that idea (which is obviously false) is about to be disproved, and if a third "moderate" party a la the Israeli Kadima is not somewhere on the horizon.

Kadima logo

Kadima was formed by former Likud leader Ariel Sharon almost four years ago due to resistance from members of his own (conservative) party to his efforts to "disengage" (kinda, not really) from Gaza. While formed by "center-right" politicians, it quickly attracted support from center-left members of the Labor party. Likud currently has the largest number of seats (barely) in the Israeli Knesset.

The American and Israeli political systems are not really at all similar (for a host of reasons), but it seems possible that for the U.S. currently as for Israel in 2005, "the centre cannot hold." Politics in the U.S. right now seems to me to be remarkably unstable, a fact undoubtedly exacerbated by ongoing economic malaise. Both major parties have a core group of supporters (who disagree on just about everything), but a huge percentage of the population (one poll says 37%) identify as "independent," and no doubt a significant percentage of Democrats and Republicans do not feel comfortable with the more "radical" members of their party. Of that "independent" swath some are very much on the right (e.g. Bill O'Reilly), and some are very much on the left (e.g. me), but it's likely that a significant majority fall more to the "center," defined very roughly.

A majority of these folks voted for President Obama, but many are now having second thoughts about that. They certainly don't like what they hear from Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh though, and those are the main faces and voices of the GOP. In terms of issues they probably tend to be hawkish on spending and deficits (thus disgruntlement with Obama), in favor of lower taxes in general but not always, pro-business, nominally pro-environment, and for the most part I-don't-give-a-damnish about "social issues" like abortion or gay marriage. They probably like some of the stuff they hear from libertarian types but see that as too fringe to be involved with. Demographically they are largely white (disproportionately so to the overall population), metropolitan (specifically suburban), fairly well educated, and almost certainly more male than female. A high percentage are apathetic about politics, in part because they see both parties as too extreme (perhaps without even knowing why they think that, since politics might be largely off their radar screens). However if an American Kadima party was created (say, the "Moderate Party"—creative, I know) many of them would be interested. (I'm completely making all of this up off the top of my head, by the way.)

There are a significant number of current and former governmental officials who would be appropriate candidates for such a party. In the past folks have spoke of a theoretical "McCain-Lieberman" party and both of those Senators (particularly the latter) would fit in here, though I think they have less influence than they used to. Other sitting Senators of the American Kadima ilk would be Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe (Republican moderates of Maine) and conservative Democratic senators Ben Nelson and Evan Bayh. Former Republican Representatives Tom Davis and Jim Leach (both of whom have railed against their party since leaving office) and former Republican Senators Chuck Hagel and Lincoln Chafee also fit the bill, as do past and present moderate Republican governors like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Charlie Crist, and Christie Todd Whitman. Other possible "Moderate Party" figures would include Michael Bloomberg, Rudy Giuliani, and Ed Koch (all with multiple terms as NYC mayor), Lee Hamilton and Thomas Keane (co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission), retired General Wesley Clark, and Colin Powell.

Bloomberg at the Tribeca Film Festival

Of all of these, Michael Bloomberg (who won a much closer than expected election last night) is perhaps the archetypal figure. A political independent, Bloomberg gets points from liberals for caring about the environment and being more sensitive to racial issues (at least in his rhetoric) than his predecessor Giuliani. Yet he is pro-business to the core and strongly supported by New York City Republicans as well. No friend of labor in his heart, he's brought a number of unions into his coalition. He is widely seen as competent and pragmatic, which would probably be the watchwords of anything along the lines of a "Moderate Party."

I don't know what Bloomberg plans for his future beyond governing New York City indefinitely, but if he ever decided to toss a chunk of his considerable fortune into a moderate third party movement there are a lot of people who would follow him. Whether that would ever happen or not, I think any viable American Kadima party would have to have both grassroots support and support from prominent politicians from the beginning, and that's difficult to do. Of all of the barriers to the creation of a third party in the middle of American politics, perhaps the biggest one is simply inertia (objects at rest...., etc.). But if a grassroots movement started in the thick middle of the American polity, and a few prominent pols from both parties latched on to it (or at least expressed sympathy), we could well be looking at a massively transformative event. Given the economic disaster amidst which we still find ourselves, and the enormous problems (global warming and a host of more "short term" concerns) on the horizon, I think the likelihood of something like this happening is stronger than it has been in a long time.

Of course it very well might not happen (for example it is still possible for the Democratic Party to become the centrist party in the U.S., however the Democratic base will likely not stand idly by while that happens), but the runaway right-wing loonymobile to which the GOP has seemingly crazy-glued itself increasingly makes me wonder if a more significant realignment beyond "ascendance of the Democrats" is not on the horizon. The repercussions of any such realignment would be far too complex to think about here, but I think this possibility bears watching. The 2010 midterms should give us a lot of information, particularly if the far-right is successful in their efforts to defeat the Crists and Fiorinas of the GOP in Republican primaries.