State of the Union January 2009

The Issues: Political Parties

In this online chat transcript, Ross Douthat and Matthew Yglesias consider where the two major political parties will be in 2012

ROSS DOUTHAT: Okay. So we're here talking about the state of the two political parties, and I suppose we should start with the Republicans, because that part of the conversation won't take long.

MATT YGLESIAS: Fair enough—the RNC Chairman race hasn't really looked to me like the sign of a party that's about to embrace innovative, appeal-broadening ideas

ROSS DOUTHAT: but they all own guns, as I understand it, and really like Ronald Reagan!

MATT YGLESIAS: exactly, and some of them Twitter

ROSS DOUTHAT: I think it's telling that the DNC seems poised to pass from the hands of one successful governor—Howard Dean—into the hands of another—Tim Kaine—while the leading candidates for the RNC chairmanship include two guys—Michael Steele and Ken Blackwell—who LOST their last bid for statewide office.

MATT YGLESIAS: on the other hand, these party chair jobs are sort of sideshows; I think the more interesting thing is that I'm accustomed to seeing GOP unity on economic issues, but the right seems pretty divided on responding to the recession

ROSS DOUTHAT: You mean, between people willing to go along with some sort of spending plus tax cuts package—i.e. work with the Democrats—and people who want to fight till the last dog dies for capital-gains tax cuts and corporate tax cuts plus nothing?

MATT YGLESIAS: there's that and also divisions in congress over the TARP package, and even beyond congress you see substantial disagreement between conservative economists who are embracing the basic idea of stimulus (Greg Mankiw, Martin Feldstein) and those who disagree at Cato and so forth

ROSS DOUTHAT: Yeah—and I think that you'll see divides like this going forward, between people who want (whether for principled or for cynical reasons) to be part of what's going to be a Democrat-run game, and people—led by certain House Republicans—who think that a kind of purist oppositionalism, a Newt Gingrich redux, will bring the party back to power.
But if you aren't invested in intra-Republican struggles, I think what's really striking is how irrelevant the institutional GOP looks at the moment. You've written a lot about how the whole "search for new ideas" among Republicans matters less, in the long run, than whether Barack Obama governs effectively: If he does, the GOP will be shut out of power with or without new ideas; if he doesn't, then Republicans will come roaring back even if they haven't figured out anything new to say. And maybe that's true, but by the same token, it's perfectly possible for a party to lack the institutional capacity to take advantage of opportunities even when they present themselves. And that's how the Republican Party looks to me at the moment.

MATT YGLESIAS: I think that's possible, but I do think the future of both parties is largely in the hands of Barack Obama and the congressional Democrats in particular. If they succeed in bringing back prosperity, it's very hard to see what the GOP can do for itself in the short-run, and I think that's one of the causes of Republican lassitude
at the moment they sort of need to wait and see if an opportunity of some sort presents itself.

ROSS DOUTHAT: Well, true—and the good news is that precisely because the party's suddenly irrelevant, nobody outside the DC bubble cares about, say, how embarrassing the race for RNC chair has been. So the party can afford to flail around for a while and have people make asses of themselves, because things can't get all that much worse. (I hope!) And the very flailing may give some outside-DC figure who runs for President in 2012 or 2016—whether it's a Bobby Jindal or someone we haven't even thought of yet—precisely the opening he needs to put some distance between himself and the Bush-era party's brand.
Or at least that's the optimistic take. So ... on to the Democrats! Seems like there have been an awful lot of scandals already, huh? Obama's not even President yet—shouldn't power take a little longer to corrupt?

MATT YGLESIAS: you would think so!
though to be fair, Democrats have been in power in Illinois since 2002.
And I think if you look at the GOP record, 6 years seems to be about how long it takes for power to corrupt

Presented by

Things Not to Say to a Pregnant Woman

You don't have to tell her how big she is. You don't need to touch her belly.

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register.

blog comments powered by Disqus

Video

Things Not to Say to a Pregnant Woman

You don't have to tell her how big she is. You don't need to touch her belly.

Video

Maine's Underground Street Art

"Graffiti is the farthest thing from anarchy."

Video

The Joy of Running in a Beautiful Place

A love letter to California's Marin Headlands

Video

'I Didn't Even Know What I Was Going Through'

A 17-year-old describes his struggles with depression.

Video

Google Street View, Transformed Into a Tiny Planet

A 360-degree tour of our world, made entirely from Google's panoramas

Video

The Farmer Who Won't Quit

A filmmaker returns to his hometown to profile the patriarch of a family farm

Video

Riding Unicycles in a Cave

"If you fall down and break your leg, there's no way out."

Video

Carrot: A Pitch-Perfect Satire of Tech

"It's not just a vegetable. It's what a vegetable should be."

More in Politics

More back issues, Sept 1995 to present.

Just In