Posted on 07/08/2009 7:41:51 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Sarah Palin’s resignation and Mark Sanford’s downfall have renewed the media meme that the GOP is “leaderless,” therefore doomed. Google “Republican leaderless” and you get more than 38,000 results.
The GOP has very real problems, but this one is mainly hype. In American politics, the -party that is out of power is naturally leaderless. The United States does not have a parliamentary system with one person heading the opposition. In our system of federalism, bicameralism, and separated powers, the party that does not hold the presidency has many voices. In search of drama, however, journalists depict this normal state of affairs as if it were a terminal crisis. They have been doing so for a very long time.
In 1898, in the middle of the first McKinley term, the New York Times declared: “Facing the greatest questions and the greatest opportunities that have presented themselves in a generation, the Democratic Party is without unity, without a policy, and without a leader.”
Early in the Eisenhower administration, Time magazine used similar language: “Seven months after the great defeat, the Democratic Party is disorganized, in debt and leaderless.” It quoted one Democrat as complaining of the party’s “intellectual anemia” and “almost total collapse of the . . . organization.”
A 1965 editorial in the New York Times lamented New York governor Nelson Rockefeller’s decision not to run for president in 1968. (He eventually changed his mind.) His withdrawal removed “a chief spokesman for the forward-looking Republicanism that alone as a political philosophy can compete against the Democrats.” The paper saw no one available to take his place. Figures such as George Romney and Richard Nixon “did not distinguish themselves the last time around and the party remains embarrassingly leaderless.”
Three years later, Nixon was in and the Democrats were out. Columnist James Reston faulted them for lacking a coherent response to Nixon’s policies: “[A]s often as not Democratic alternatives contradict one another, and the party as a whole seems to be settling for the old political rule that it is the business of the opposition party merely to oppose.”
In a 1981 New York Times Magazine piece, Martin Tolchin admired Speaker Tip O’Neill’s mastery of House politics, but lamented: “The Democratic Party is now a leaderless party. Its identity will probably be shaped more by the Reagan Administration than by its own warring parts. The heart of the Democratic strategy — if it can be so dignified — is to await, and exploit, the Administration’s failures.” Even after the Democratic takeover of the Senate in 1986, Richard Cohen of the Washington Post wrote: “Now the Democrats, issue-less and leaderless, will set out to show who won the election. Given their recent record, it will be Ronald Reagan. Lame duck or dead duck, when he quacks they will quake.”
Bill Clinton’s 1992 victory put the Democrats back in power and the GOP back in the “leaderless” box. Right after the 1992 election, one representative observation came from a Knight-Ridder reporter: “Republicans face civil war in their party. Leaderless now and dispirited, Republicans are bracing for a nasty struggle among their contentious factions.”
During the George W. Bush presidency, the Democrats were “leaderless” again. A Gannett story on the 2002 midterm election noted: “Democrats are in disarray and leaderless, with no compelling vision for America.” After Bush’s reelection, Newsweek’s Howard Fineman wrote: “The Democrats are leaderless and reeling, seemingly bereft of inspiring ideas.” A few months later, he returned to the theme: “Leaderless and intellectually rudderless, the Democrats are desperate for issues, and they have decided (to the extent there is a ‘they’) to make a piñata of [Tom] DeLay.” Even after Katrina, The New Republic’s Ryan Lizza said: “Democrats are, at the moment, leaderless. There are few Democrats who command enough attention to make the party's case to the country.”
In each case, journalists were correct that the out party lacked a comprehensive policy agenda and an overarching leader. But there was no reason to expect such things in the first place, and their absence did not spell doom. After more than a century of periodic “leaderlessness,” both parties are still around.
— John J. Pitney Jr. is the Roy P. Crocker professor of American politics at Claremont McKenna College. With James W. Ceaser and Andrew E. Busch, he is coauthor of Epic Journey: The 2008 Elections and American Politics (Rowman and Littlefield).
Truthfully ... yes.
Currently there is no ‘larger than life’ conservative to step into the void. There are some ‘minor’ players right now but they are not speaking LOUD enough or OFTEN enough to get to the front of the line.
Read any good book about the Battle of the Bulge in WWII. Americans don’t rely on leaders when the chips are down and the time comes to kick some serious ass.
“Google “Republican leaderless” and you get more than 38,000 results.”
However if you search Sara Palin, you get 10,500,000 hits...
I agree with the author that the condition isn’t terminal, and is a natural outcome of losing the WH (as well as lots of credibility and seats in Congress).
I recall believing (naively) that the ‘Rats were toast around 2002-2004. Then the Stupid Party, working overtime, managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
However, this much is true. *Until* a leader (or small coherent collection of leaders) emerges, the R’s *will* wander in the wilderness.
Curtains for the GOP? (Is the GOP leaderless?)
You mean like America is under BO?
And if you search mitt rommey, you get only 3,500,000...
I no longer consider myself a Republican, I am a Conservative. I'll vote for Republicans if they run conservatives, if not, I'll cast my vote elsewhere.
It you google John McCain you get 25,000,000 hits...lol.
We’d be better off if we were leaderless. Unfortunately for the GOP our leadership is inept, incompetent, and entirely too interested in the examination of the writing on their intestinal walls to actually do their jobs, which would be to advance the Party Platform at all levels of government.
The focus on National politics by the GOP and the rush to the “center” by GOP leaders has led to a general revolt by the GOP’s conservative base and a loss of influence at the local level which should be the strength of the GOP party. If we are to build a long lasting movement, we need to promote conservative values and policies at the local levels. Win enough local elections and eventually we win control of Congress.
This could be a blessing in disguise.
Amen, brother!
the old straw man of “Google X and Y and you get xxx hits”. If you Google “Democrat Leaderless”, you get 111,000 hits. So what. It’s meaningless.
as a Conservative Republican, I am one of the millions who
have Gov. Palin as a leader. Her poll numbers are going
up.
Gov. Palin is speaking at the Reagan Library in a few weeks and candidates are asking her to campaign or give speeches for them.
Gov. Rick Perry who is in a primary vs Vichy Republican Kay Baily has been given endorsement by Gov. Palin and
campaign for him.
I guess the third party folks who are trying to split the republicans are looking forward to another Obama victory
She has a heck of a jump on a guy that has been in the news for 42 years and in politics for 28 years including one close presidential primary race and one actual run for the presidency.
Hardly leaderless.Sanford had already thrown Cheney and Rush under the bus...he was a poser and really unknown.
We have Rick Perry, Pawlenty, Romney, Huckabee and many others.
That’s what I was going to say..
I would take the anti Reagan Romney off that list too.
Right now the only leader that we have that truly excites conservatives is Governor Palin but I also think that we have pretty good bench depth, this is one of those cycles where the fight between the left and right of the republican party is going to be bloody.
We are leaderless because Republican primary voters lack the ability to find serious leaders.
That was kind of funny about Sanford, because so many freepers were mentioning him I kept trying to tune in and see if I could develop a liking for the guy but he just left me empty, I just couldn't pick up any connection at all with the guy and then one day, poof and he was gone and revealed as a weirdo. Jindal is on my radar strong, he needs seasoning but he will run for president at some point and he seems to be a first rate, top of the line man.
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.