Kerry Spot    [ jim geraghty reporting ]
[ kerry spot home | archives | email ]

Liberal blogger Kevin Drum objects to DNC Chair candidate Tim Roemer's comment that the Republicans have a big tent.

The fact that liberal states sometimes elect moderate Republicans to state office doesn't mean the Republican party is a “big tent.” Quite the contrary. The very fact that these guys are so famous for their moderation is an indication of how rare moderate Republicans have become. It's also worth noting that the actual leadership of the Republican party is a very small tent indeed, and uses guys like Giuliani and Schwarzenegger strictly as window dressing. They have exactly zero influence on Republican party policies and exactly zero chance of ever having any influence.

Now, DNC chair is not primarily a policymaking position, so to that extent I don't think Roemer's positions disqualify him from consideration. However, I would like to have a DNC chair who doesn’t publicly glorify as a “big tent” an opposition party that in reality has become nothing but smaller and ever more insular over the past two decades: more ideological, more extremist, more intolerant, and increasingly self-righteous. Praise their organization and their zealotry if you will, but not their openness to opposing views. Enough’s enough.

There are a couple of problems with this analysis. For starters, one has to define what one means by “leadership.” Apparently, to be a governor of California, governor of New York, mayor of New York City, senator from Pennsylvania, Maine, Secretary of State, EPA administrator or other positions doesn't meet Drum’s definition as a “leader” in the Republican party. Okay, fine, although that seems to narrow the list of leadership posts to... the presidency and the vice-presidency, RNC Chair, Speaker of the House, Senate Majority Leader… and that’s it, I guess?

It’s one thing to say that Colin Powell, Schwarzenegger, Giuliani and the rest don’t have as much influence on party policies as they would like. It is another – and, in fact, wrong – to say they “have exactly zero influence on Republican party policies and exactly zero chance of ever having any influence.”

Second, there's a bit of a problem with Drum's declaration that the current GOP “has become nothing but smaller and ever more insular over the past two decades.” Somehow the GOP has simultaneously become smaller and more insular while winning more seats than ever before. In fact, when you recall Drum’s big-tent glory days of two decades ago, the pre-Reagan days of Gerald Ford and Nelson Rockerfeller and Bob Dole… the Democrats had sizable majorities in Congress, state legislators, governors, and the Carter presidency. Drum may find the current crop of GOP leaders “more ideological, more extremist, more intolerant, and increasingly self-righteous,” but they are also “more often elected” and “more popular.”

And just how open must a party be to opposing views before it earns the label, “big tent”? Most Republicans are okay with dissent from conservative positions from governors, particularly in states like New York and California, but not from a president, or at least not that often. Republicans will live with a pro-choice Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman, so long as he gives the president’s judges a fair shake before the whole Senate. Moderates can rise to the governor’s mansions, the Senate, and some spots in the president’s cabinet. But Republicans – members of the conservative party - want conservatives in the White House. That seems like a pretty big tent.

[Posted 01/18 01:50 PM]