For a long time the GOP was essentially run by business interests, with the cultural right taken for a ride; in 2004 Bush ran as the nation’s defender against gay married terrorists, then announced that the election gave him a mandate to … privatize Social Security.I would like to think that this signifies more: the death of the Republican party. Once the business group realizes it can't run the crazies as its "base" it will go looking to buy up the conservative wing of the Democrats as its future base. So my fevered imagination has the Republicans disappear and the red state/blue state divide among Democrats leads to two new parties, the Red Democrats and the Blue Democrats. You get the same tension, but without the fundamentalist crazies.
But what the Tea Party really signifies, I think, is that the business interests have lost control, that the base, with its fears about the Other, has escaped from guidance. And the sudden immigration outburst is part of that phenomenon.
Democrats think this gives them an opening. I’m unclear about that, at least for 2010. But yes, in the long run you have think that if the GOP becomes the party of angry white men, unleashed — as opposed to angry white men harnessed to the business elite — it will have a poor future.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Krugman's Prognostications for the Republican Party
Here in a nutshell is the Republican Party and its future. This is taken from Paul Krugman's NY Times blog: