Posted on 10/11/2004 2:04:37 PM PDT by churchillbuff
The New Republic, among others, has recently gotten excited over the prospect of a major battle in the Republican Party. It won't break out until after the election (for, after all, until Nov. 2 the party will be exerting its united strength to re-elect President Bush), and what happens afterward will obviously depend in large part on whether Bush wins or loses. If he wins, he will decide the outcome of any intraparty brawls that occur during his term. If he loses, the party will be up for grabs, and the battle to control it is likely to go on for several years.
The protagonists, according to The New Republic, are (on one hand) the so-called "neoconservatives," consisting of various second-rank figures in the Bush administration and certain influential outsiders like William Kristol and several of his colleagues at the Weekly Standard, all of whom have been zealous supporters of the war in Iraq, and (on the other) a looser coalition of conservatives, inside and outside the administration, who are less eager to see the United States barging around the world, liberating oppressed nations at the cost of American lives.
The argument goes that the neoconservatives captured Bush early on, and induced him to use the public outrage over Sept. 11 as an excuse for invading Iraq, as the first step in a grand scheme to democratize and tranquilize the Middle East. But that may overstate their influence. The traditional test for committing American troops to battle abroad (namely, whether a "vital American interest" was at stake) was passed in Iraq on the theory that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. When it turned out that he didn't, Bush badly needed an alternative justification for the war, and not unreasonably began to stress the liberation of Iraq and its potential for encouraging democracy throughout the region. His appetite for such bold geopolitical strokes may date from that necessity, and not from some earlier conversion to what William Kristol has dubbed "national greatness conservatism."
In any case, there is no doubt that a lot of influential conservative Republicans have serious reservations about committing America to the Clintonian policy of improving the world by brute force (Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo) unless a vital American interest is at stake. This applies, of course, to the party's isolationist rump, personified by Pat Buchanan, but extends well beyond it. The powerful wing of conservative opinion led by the National Review has not - at least, not yet - clearly thrown its lot in with the hotter-eyed neoconservatives on this issue, and it will be interesting to see whether it does so.
As for the neoconservatives, they must be aware that they would not be at their strongest in a Republican National Convention genuinely representative of opinion in the party. They are at their best in the government offices where they can usually be found, or at cocktail parties sponsored by the Weekly Standard. So, if the predicted battle breaks out, it's likely to influence who wins the nomination in 2008, the neoconservatives will try to find a candidate sympathetic to their views and ride him to victory.
Based on Bill Kristol's demonstrated enthusiasms, at any rate, this seems likely to be Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who has staunchly supported the war on Iraq. McCain is well known to be interested in the 2008 nomination, and would presumably welcome neoconservative support. But he is undoubtedly aware of their status as a small, smart and highly opinionated faction, rather than as a major force in the party at large, and would probably prefer not to be known as merely their tiger. Other candidates are likely to be still more circumspect.
In a nutshell, then, there is indeed likely to be some squabbling in the GOP during the next four years over exactly how much influence the neoconservatives ought to wield. As noted above, Bush, if he is re-elected, can answer that question for the duration of his second term. But it is likely that not even he can head off, or decide, the outcome of the 2008 convention. And that is where the issue of neoconservative influence in the party, and for that matter in the country, is likely to be determined for the foreseeable future.
William Rusher is a Distinguished Fellow of the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy.
And what becomes of the Democrat Party and the Buggy Whip Media if they lose this election despite their all out effort to win based on sheer hatred for the current President?
If America rejects their opinion, will they change their focus?
I think the split will be between those Republicans who want the best War on Terrorism President (Rudy) in 2008, and those that will never accept a pro-choice GOP nominee.
I think that is wishful thinking on his part. The GOP has never been more united and never been a bigger tent.
John
Hehe.
Please, keep it up, better the Dems die not knowing what went wrong.
Decature Daily Democrat... Propaganda to try and garner some Republican support for Kerry... Thats what I think....
I would respectfully disagree. I believe that there is a rift brewing in the GOP. Yes, we are united on electing President Bush, but he is really the perfect candidate for our party.
The modern Republican Party is made up of two main factions: religious social conservatives and business-minded "county-club Republican" fiscal conservatives. The President is able to appeal to both of these factions, but not many other candidates can.
I'm hoping a candidate emerges that can appeal to both. If not, I think we have a primary coming up in '08 that will be bloodier than the one the Democrats just experienced.
And what becomes of the Democrat Party and the Buggy Whip Media
The Democrat Party is disintrigrating.
What with Campaign Finance Reform, they can't raise soft funds. And since they don't have a grass roots, there's no longer any reason for them to exist.
The young are the future, by definition. Neocons will prevail, and the Pat Buchanans will retire to luxury elder communities, just opposite Dan Rather's psychiatric ward.
If they lose this election, you may be right. If they win, they could tilt the electorate in their favor for the long term, by opening up immigration even wider than is already the case, and getting those news folks registered en masse, in state after state.
From the post: "Bill Kristol's demonstrated enthusiasms, at any rate, this seems likely to be Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), "
McCain is another Kerry in my opinion - He is a fake and not worthy of any party backing -
(Perhaps that is why Kerry mentions McCain so often, along with other Socialist Democrats. The only difference is perhaps China - and perhaps that is why Iraq happened - it was in China's interest - I noticed the voice coming out of China wasn't nearly as strong as France, Germany, and Russia - )
And Kristol can take his worship of McCain and
just my opinion - review the report on campaign financing that came out(actually hidden from the public) during the Clinton administration - and see who got money from China - both Reps. and Demos. Makes me wonder what role they are playing
McCain is unstable. He has that crazy look in his eye, you know? I would not support him for President. I have not put too much thought into the 2008 primaries but how about Michael Steele and Condi Rice as a ticket?
The dems. have been pushing this idea of a split in the republican party for months in an effort to break down morale prior to the election. I don't believe it. It is the left that is a hotbed of interparty intrigue and backstabbing. Republicans disagree, but they rarely stoop to the same level.
Stop right there.
Buchanan is no longer a Republican. He has absolutely no influence over the GOP.
Bringing him up as an example of the differences within the GOP, therefore, is specious. And that's putting it mildly.
If the author wants to view a major rift inside a party, he need look no further than the Democrats. The energized portion of that party, its far-far Left personified by MoveOn.org, will more than likely ditch the Democrats altogether once Kerry loses.
Just watch.
The bigger the tent, the greater the loss. Reagan's right-wing tent took in right-wing Dems, period. Dole's BIG tent took in social liberals. Who won?
Not Rudy, sorry. I don't think he can win a tough primary, even though he might win nationwide.
Gen Franks!
Tommy in '08!!
Rudy is a good bet to replace John A as AG sometime this term.
Oh man, I totally agree. He is a nut case with a deep deep mean streak. God help us if the gets elected.
John
Great another opinion piece by a college professor based on pure speculation. I cannot see anywhere in the whole piece that he cites why this would occur.>
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
