Posted on 02/19/2015 1:25:10 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
The United States’ political parties have always been amalgams of factions rather than vehicles for any single interest. Partly because of the pressures of the electoral system and partly because of the republic’s vastness, forging either of the two major parties into a political monolith has been impossible; the need to cater to a wide base of Americans tends to keep the parties broad and relatively inclusive.
This embedded pluralism of the U.S. party system has diminished somewhat in the current era of polarization but it has not evaporated entirely. The parties are still relatively broad churches. This is clearest of the contemporary Republican Party than it is of the Democrat Party, with the emerging lineup for the GOP presidential primary season providing a good case in point.
From the brash conservative “fundamentalism” of Ted Cruz to the “compassionate” conservatism of Jeb Bush and from the “angry” neo-conservatism of John Bolton to the “libertarian-ish” bent of Rand Paul, the modern Republican Party encompasses an impressive array of views and interests. On issues such as immigration, foreign policy and civil liberties, healthy disagreement would seem to reign supreme. To be sure, it would be wrong to overstate the case: there are many issues on which the GOP does not gladly suffer dissenters and key demographic groups—most racial minority groups, for example—stubbornly refuse to see the party as an ally. But the point remains that the party edifice has been built in spite of deep political fissures.
Often, these split foundations are regarded as a weakness. The Republican Party will tear itself apart in the primary season, pundits aver. Civilized debate has been replaced by “trolling” or worse. Whoever emerges as the GOP’s presidential nominee will do so battered and bruised, the bloodied recipient of countless wounds inflicted by the leaders of rival factions within the party.
Moreover, the hydra-headed nature of the party makes it difficult to attract voters because almost everybody in America can find something offensive in the Republican crop. Rand Paul’s flirtation with the anti-vaccination lobby and his apparent willingness to entertain decidedly unorthodox monetary policies will alienate moderate conservatives. Mitt Romney’s background as a venture capitalist is off-putting to blue collar Americans. The tepid paternalism of Jeb Bush is anathema to hardcore Tea Party activists. Sarah Palin’s anti-intellectual populism appears vulgar to liberal-leaning would-be Republicans, and so on.
There is some truth to such arguments. Yet they should not be overstated. The internecine warfare of primary season is a routinized occurrence and hurts both the Republicans and the Democrats equally. In any case, there is no reason to believe that voters look less favorably upon a party capable of holding a vigorous internal debate than they do upon a party that looks rigid and unimaginative. And just because some voters might be irreparably turned off by the vulgarism of Sarah Palin or the cringe-worthy cluelessness of Mitt Romney, it does not mean that these same voters cannot be excited by the supposed “big ideas” of Newt Gingrich or the straight-talking persona of Chris Christie.
Broadness and inclusivity should be seen as strengths of American political parties. Narrowness and homogeneity are weaknesses, things that lead to introspection and condemn a party to the political wilderness if not terminal decline. The most successful political parties in history have been those that forged broad coalitions out of disparate interests: the Jacksonian-era Democrats; the progressive-era Republican Party of 1896-1932; the New Deal coalition, which was solid between 1932 and the late 1960s; and the Reagan coalition, to name but a few examples.
Today, the Democrats have few problems accepting diversity within their fold. But Republicans would do well to recognize that seemingly fringe politicians such as Rand Paul, Sarah Palin and Ted Cruz have a critical role to play in sustaining the vitality of their party. While they are unlikely to secure the mantle of leadership within the GOP, they nevertheless serve a valuable function as outriders—political entrepreneurs capable of rallying motivated groups of people to the Republican banner. Without such politicians, the great catch-all parties of the American republic could not exist. Narrow sectional interests would run amok instead of being knitted together into a “big tent” coalition.
Indeed, the biggest problem with the modern Republican Party is probably not that it is too diverse, but rather that it is not diverse enough. Too many Americans dismiss the party as “not for them.” As such, while Rand Paul’s politics might vex co-partisans such as Rick Perry, Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush, it should not be forgotten that this same brand of politics can serve to excite and engage large numbers of young Americans, racial minorities and others not usually tempted by the GOP brand. If the cost of making headway among such demographics is merely to chafe against other grandees within the party, it might just be a price that the party deems worth paying.
********
Peter Harris is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Government at the University of Texas, Austin and a Visiting Lecturer in Politics at Earlham College.
The GOP Must Be the Big TEA Party.
Fixed it.
by the way, FURP!!
They both suck
I skipped the article...too windy : )
How about just deciding what the party stands for, and go with that? Or is that too simple?
BTW why is it the democrat party is never enjoined to change? Its the party thats been suffering epic losses lately.
bttt
Big tent party is RINO code for being pro gay marriage, pro abortion, and pro amnesty. In other words, they need to be like Democrats.
Haven’t gone through Harris’s opus but if the aim is this; It’s not in the national interest to have the Republican party be the socialist alternative to the Godless socialist so called democrat (in name only) political opposition.
A big tent would be great. Just make sure it’s filled with many, many people who have heard and believed the rightness of conservative values. It doesn’t mean that everything is washed down so it is meaningless in order to not offend anyone.
If you stand for nothing, you fall for anything.
Put conservatives at the top of the ticket (for a change) and you’ll be surprised how big the tent has to be.
“The GOP Must Be the Big TEA Party.
Fixed it.”
Thank you. We gain ground an inch at a time, but we will prevail.
There has to be one party to represent the citizens.
At this point both the GOP and the Democrats are representing Fraudulently Documented Foreigners and their employers.
When Jeb is nominated there must be an alternative and people have to have the courage to let go of the GOP.
The GOP should be a big tent party - working to attract people who want less government interference with various aspects of the lives of American citizens.
We should attract people who want fewer firearms laws infringing on our God-given right to keep and bear arms. We should attract people who want lower taxes, so we can keep more of the money we earn. We should attract people who want stronger protections on our God-given rights to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and protection against unreasonable search and seizure. We should attract people who want ObamaCare killed so that our doctors will have more of a say over our medical care than some bureaucrat in HHS has. We should attract people who want the borders protected and immigration laws enforced, so that illegals don’t take jobs and tax dollars from American citizens.
There is a lot of room in the big tent of a small-government republican party, just not enough room for Bush, Romney, Christie, Rubio, and Graham.
“It seems like the GOP’s image problems started around the late eighties, about the same time the term “big tent” was coined.”
And the establishment RINOs began to take over.
The GOP should be a big tent party - working to attract people who want less government interference with various aspects of the lives of American citizens.
The GOP doesn’t teach or enunciate affirmative policy anymore.
Something told me having all of those democrats switching to the GOP back then wouldn’t end up being such a good thing after all.
That is the problem, and Bush/Christie/Rubio/Romney are emblematic of that major problem. That's why we need Cruz.
When you read the article you find that he is calling for the GOP to embrace “outriders” like Cruz, Palin and Paul.
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.