Book of the Month

Michael Wolraich's picture

What's the Matter with Delaware? What Christine O'Donnell's Victory Means for America's Future

by Michael Wolraich 9/15/2010 - 2:04 pm   |

Almost one year ago, I wrote a post titled What's the Matter with New York? about the fierce battle between moderate Republican Dede Scozzafava and fringe conservative Doug Hoffman to represent New York's 23rd congressional district. Scozzafava dropped out of the race and endorsed the Democratic candidate, who prevailed in the election.

The title of that article alluded to Thomas Frank's influential book What's the Matter with Kansas, which documented the bitter "Mod" vs. "Con" conflict in Kansas during the 1990s from which the Cons ultimately emerged supreme. That conflict has since played out across the country. After Hoffman defeated Scozzafava, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs observed, "If you look at what I think is likely to happen next year, you already have Republicans -- some Republicans who are more aligned with the very conservative element of what's happening in New York saying, this is a model for what you'll see throughout the country."

These words were prophetic. From Florida to Alaska, North Carolina to Colorado, Tea Party backed Cons have knocked out establishment Mods at almost every turn. The latest Con victory took place in Delaware, as abstinence activist Christine O'Donnell defeated the moderate nine-term representative Mike Castle by six percentage points in the senate primary.

Some liberals, including my co-blogger Articleman, have cheered the success of fringe conservatives like O'Donnell because their victories will help Democrats retain critical seats, and indeed O'Donnell will almost certainly lose to Democrat Chris Coons in November. But the celebration is shortsighted. Last year, Democrats applauded Doug Hoffman's victory in NY-23, which ultimately gave the Democratic party an extra House seat. But Hoffman's success energized the nascent Tea Party movement, which has since mobilized millions of conservative voters who will contribute to an expected Democratic rout in November.

Likewise, the Republican civil war in Kansas did not cripple the state party. It emerged more powerful and unified than ever, and the Kansas Cons soon exported their success across country, contributing to twelve long years of Republican legislative dominance in Washington, first under Newt Gingrich and later under Tom DeLay, both of whom owe their support to the conservative faction. And as I have described in previous posts, the Republican party has gone through a series of civil wars and purges since the 1970s. In each case, short term losses have given way to long term political power under increasingly demagogic and right-wing firebrands who have been extraordinarily successful at mobilizing voters and unifying Republican legislators.

So rather than celebrating Tea Party successes, Democrats should drop the champagne glasses, jump to attention, and urgently seek an answer to the question, "What's the Matter with America?"

My book on right-wing paranoia, Blowing Smoke, will be published in October. For links and updates, click the I Like button on the book's fan page.

Doug Hoffman is again splitting NY-23 right now, and returning it to Democratic custody.  He lost the primary 53-46 to mainstream Republican Matt Doheny, but is running against Doheny in the general election as the Conservative Party candidate.

I'll take that momentarily triviality, "control over the Senate," and console myself that having that and not solving other problems you allude to is better than having no control over the Senate and not solving other problems you allude to.

I don't see "extraordinary success" at unifying voters in Christine O'Donnell's future.  She insinuated that Mike Castle is gay, demanded before she won through a proxy that the state party chair resign after her impending victory, and then demanded today that the GOP establishment work hard for her.

In sum, I think my cup of Tea is more than half-full.

by Articleman 9/15/2010 - 2:18 pm

Which the GOP establishment responded to by writing her a check this morning.  And the right-wing web is busily burning Rove at the stake for suggesting that she's not electable.

Also, Genghis isn't suggesting here that Christine ODonnell herself will be a major unifying factor, but that's she a part of a movement that, while it seems to smack of internal turmoil, mirrors previous movements that ultimately gave rise to solid Republican coalitions, held together by an even more extreme ideology than previous incarnations.

And keep in mind that we're talking about coalitions solid enough in the face of Democratic politicking that 51 seats was enough for Bush's first term.

by DF 9/15/2010 - 2:36 pm (re: Articleman)

1.  So what?  She's got a 29/50 fav/unfav rating, and a $10MM check to appease nutjobs won't change that, it will dissipate limited resources they'd be better off spending on Buck/Bennet or Murray/Rossi or Feingold/Johnson.  The point that some GOPers fund her has literally no negative externality. 

2.  Unless you guys have a way of banning right wingers from democratic engagement, the problem Genghis points out will persist.  Waving one's arms about shaming the hard right out of politics isn't a plan.  And the extreme disunity the baggers sow with Doug Hoffman and Sharron Angle (66% of NV GOPers polled wish the primary had picked someone else) and the utterly unelectable O'Connell is entirely germane.  The debate-ish countermove of no, the examples of disunity really achieve greater unity, citing 1970s Kansas, does not win the point.  The disunity I cite is happening now, and provable, and affects many different races.

3.  51 Dems in the Senate (or 52) is a better deal than 49.  In fact, we needed an extra real Dem because of Ben Nelson.  So these pickoffs at the margin are vital, where the only numbers that matter in the Senate are either 50 you truly hold, or 60 you can get.

by Articleman 9/15/2010 - 4:00 pm (re: DF)

I agree that O'Donnell's win will help the Democrats next year. That's beside the point. Whether shaming the right wing will succeed in keeping extremist candidates from winning elections is also beside the point.

The point is that there is a real long-term cost to primary victories by hard right candidates, whether or not they win in the general elections. Simply put, these primary victories are reshaping the Republican party in a way that is very bad the country's future. That is not a speculative prediction. It has already happened.

by Michael Wolraich 9/15/2010 - 5:07 pm (re: Articleman)

No, the majority of Republicans being that way already is reshaping the Republican party. 

Fixating on the victories as being a bad thing is beside the point. 

The point is what to do since we all have to operate in that world.  That's the point.

by Articleman 9/15/2010 - 5:27 pm (re: Genghis)

No, the majority of Republicans being that way already is reshaping the Republican party.

Not exactly. The demographics of the GOP have changed significantly since the 1970s. The Republican base is far more Christian, rural, and Southern than it once was. The shift is the result of deliberate strategies by conservative insurgents and Republican leaders: Paul Weyrich, Richard Viguerie, and Nixon in 70s; Stephen Moore, Tom DeLay, and Dick Army in recent years.

But that makes it sound like a conspiracy, which it's not. It's a movement and, like any movement, it consists of a broad array of loosely affiliated participants with shared objectives. Primary victories by conservatives support the conservative movement's efforts to continue to reshape the Republican party, regardless of whether they win in the general election.

In the short term, we need to get Democrats elected. In the long term, we need to counter the conservative movement. But ever since Clinton, Democrats have focused exclusively on pragmatic short term victories and neglected the big political picture, complacently assuming that the country's shift to the right is some kind of unstoppable tidal force.

Conservatives tuned into the big picture years ago. As the moderate Republican leadership struggled to hold every seat, Weyrich and Viguerie deliberately sacrificed Republican seats for their objectives. But in the end, those guys and their political heirs were far more successful at delivering a Republican majority than the old pragmatists.

I'm fixated on the downside of these Tea Party victories, because I believe that the Democrats need to take their eyes off the ground for a moment and look up to see the big picture. We do indeed have to "operate in that world," but more importantly, we have to change that world. Otherwise, the Obama era will just be a blip in a long period of conservative dominance, and it won't matter a whit that we hung on to Delaware in 2010.

by Michael Wolraich 9/16/2010 - 8:51 am (re: Articleman)

You know, I'm going to challenge a couple of your assertions. I agree that the Republican party has gotten more Christian, rural, and Southern, but I disagree that they've brought the country rightward.

We have:

  1. More and more states considering allowing homosexual marriages. When I was a kid, homosexual acts were illegal in the majority of states.
  2. Racial equality is progressing. Not fast enough, but it is progressing.
  3. There is a gradually increasing awareness of the importance of the environment. I'd like this awareness to be increasing more swiftly, but I do feel that it's increasing.

The only evidence I see that we are moving rightward is in the increasing disparity between the rich and the middle class/poor. I feel like we've had this discussion once before and you said something really smart that made me reconsider my points above, but if so, I can't for the life of me remember what it was.

by Atheist (not verified) 9/16/2010 - 9:11 am (re: Genghis)

I can't remember either, unfortunately. The country is certainly not stuck in the 1970s. In particular, we've come along way on tolerance and equality issues. In addition to the changes you mention, gender equality has changed dramatically. (I differ on environmentalism. Given the overwhelming evidence of global warming, it's shocking to me that so many people still don't believe it.)

But other than those issues, public opinion has gone right in many ways--abortion, taxes, welfare, gun control, capital punishment, drug sentences, unions, internationalism, public education, corporate regulation, teaching evolution. What am I missing? Even anticommunism is coming back, and we don't even have communists any more.

More definitively, the GOP has definitely gone right. It used to have real liberals who supported welfare, environmentalism, and abortion rights. Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford had very moderate positions by today's standards. The 1976 RNC platform hemmed and hawed over whether abortion should be legal. Those days are long gone. Now Republicans get excommunicated for voting for TARP.

by Michael Wolraich 9/16/2010 - 9:43 am (re: Atheist)

I have to say, I agree strongly with your end of this argument.

by Articleman 9/16/2010 - 12:24 pm (re: Atheist)

You've put into words what has been bugging me every time I read that a win for the Tea Party candidate is good for Dems.

by Donal 9/15/2010 - 2:19 pm

I want to compare your analysis of the Republican party with what I'm inferring is dijamo's recipe for the Democrat party (with apologies to dijamo if I'm misrepresenting her). One step forward/back, two steps back/forward.

To be explicit, your valid concern is that the Republican Party will come back stronger after being beaten about a bit by the Tea Party.

Similarly, some Democrats (if not dijamo) seem to suggest "punishing" our current lot of Democrats by staying home in order to make the Democratic party stronger in the future. I don't buy into that strategy, but these two ideas do seem to be woven of the same cloth.

by Atheist (not verified) 9/15/2010 - 2:58 pm

I felt the same way as you before I started writing my book, but after studying the history of the GOP, I'm now in Dijamo's camp. After FDR cast Republicans into the political wilderness, they lived in a big tent for forty years. Then, starting in the 1970s, conservatives launched a series of purges and power plays. Once they had tossed out the liberal "Rockefeller" Republicans, they were able to topple the moderate leadership of the party in 1992. In the very next election cycle, they returned to power for the first time in decades, where they more or less remained until 2006. Correspondence does not prove causation, and there were other factors in play, but I think there's good evidence to suggest that the ideological purges were politically effective.

The trouble is that I'm a centrist, so I'm not terribly excited about ideological purges from the left.

by Michael Wolraich 9/15/2010 - 3:12 pm (re: Atheist)

Call it the political theory of creative destruction.

Curious to see yourself label yourself a centrist, G, but that's at least in part due to the fact that I can't make sense of political labels any more.

So you're a centrist.  But, I am told, the country is center-right.  And the President is a centrist.  Or is he a conservative Democrat?  Or a Fabian socialist?  But the people who say the country is center-right also say he's to the left of Hugo Chavez.  And they're just to the right of center.  Hey, that's right around the corner from where you live!

Oh, the sweet center.  That's where all of the gooey nougat and rich caramel are.  Everyone wants to be at the center!  Even if they're a right-wing demogogue - or a liberal author!

I swear, it was easier to understand relativistic reference frames than to keep tabs on the immutable American political spectrum.

by DF 9/15/2010 - 3:22 pm (re: Genghis)

I like your general comment the last two days about the fakeness of the left-right dichotomy at times.  I tend leftward, but hold some positions deemed center and one or two deemed right.  I consider myself a progressive and a liberal, but on a couple of issues, others would disagree.  I don't see a lot of utility in the labels, and letting them drive everything.  They seem to get in the way of creative coalition building.

by Articleman 9/15/2010 - 4:08 pm (re: DF)

That's part of what I was getting at in the other thread, but perhaps my examples weren't clear enough.  One of the ways it prevents coalition building is that it taints issues and issue positions.  Climate change is a perfect example of this.  Doing something about it at all has come to be viewed as a left position, but why?  Holding that position is nothing more than the result of taking the findings of science seriously.  Of course, there are cultural norms that may help color the issue one way or the other, but I think that the most significant reason is that there are political interests that seek to portray the issue that way.  That one frame becomes dominant over another is largely a result of winning or losing the messaging war.

And, of course, that something being aligned as a "left" position is seen as so horrible in the eyes of so many is also the result of relentless messaging.

by DF 9/16/2010 - 4:38 pm (re: Articleman)

I am not and will not likely ever be in Dijamo's camp, or that of anyone who agrees to such notions of "purity testing" as a means of...well, anything. 

She proposes punishing the Dems for their "failures" but those she really would punish if we followed her course of action are Americans who will then be again living with Republican misrule.

Incremental progress is still progress, backsliding is still backsliding.

The real difficulty, about which I will write more in the near future, is that politics is now out of hand here to the extent to which emotions are involved, on both the left and the right.  Reason goes out the window, and things (and people!) fly out of control.

Yes, it may feel satisfying to remove a Dem officeholder you feel is less than what you'd hoped.  That only works if the replacement comes in in the primary and then gets through the general election.  Otherwise, you've contributed to swinging the pendulum back and undoing any and all recent gains, however "incremental" they may be.

Bad idea.  Truly bad idea.

by Austin Train 9/15/2010 - 3:31 pm (re: Genghis)

I think you guys should wait until the actual Dijamo shows up and respond to her actual comments instead of characterizing her in absentia, but that's just me.

I will add to that that while being simply punitive is not the point, it is constructive to push a party, especially in primaries, to the place you want it to go.  That's only good.  Be it Halter, or Sestak, or whomever.  It spends resources, but they're yours, and you care about the party, so it's good.  Now the Tea folks have engaged in an unfocused and generalized degree of that which may not benefit them to the degree a more managed focus would, but that's their right.

I would agree with what I think you're saying to the extent once the primaries and the chance to push folks to your POV have passed, then the question *really is* who is better, the Dem standing or the Rep standing. 

Making fun of the difference is to me an unpersuasive countermove, because I noticed a difference between, say, the first and second Congress during Bill Clinton's first term.  And I'm sure I'll notice a difference in the next two years.  So I don't need to idealize or rationalize how great the last two years were to prefer them to the legislation we'll get next.  So I am voting on November 2.

by Articleman 9/15/2010 - 3:54 pm (re: Austin Train)

I don't consider it punishment, more like a come to (insert your choice of non-deity here) moment.  I understand the Tea partiers who don't feel Mike Castle represents their view point.  He's more liberal than Ben Nelson.  Is he better (in their mind) than the Democratic candidate?  It depends.  Of course he's more electable because he can attract cross-over votes, but could you count on his vote when it matters?  Would electing him push the Repubicans more to the left?  Whether O'Donnell wins or loses, the GOP will not take Tea Party votes for granted in the future.  There's a lot progressive democrats can learn from that kind of tough love against your own party.  Of course the Tea Party has an advantage that progressives lack:  a powerful King/Queen-maker in Palin who is truly rogue, doesn't give a crap about upsetting the status quo within the GOP, and has the ability to atrract attention to these insurgent candidates.

by dijamo 9/15/2010 - 4:44 pm (re: Atheist)

If the hypothetical remains the most aberrant member of one's own party (Nelson or Castle) versus a tornadic entity of negative destruction (O'Donnell) that's one thing.

Some of the more interesting questions are how motivated factions in a party do something besides shoot the irredeemable candidacies down, like how Joe Pesci was made in GoodFellas.

Seems to me in game theory the person you want is the most prog or the most conservative you can get for where you are.  Sometimes that entails capping a bad candidate's career.  Sometimes it may entail less extreme forms of intervention. 

Maybe making examples out of the most extreme cases is a good thing.  Making examples out of every case...I would part company from that argument.

by Articleman 9/15/2010 - 4:52 pm (re: dijamo)
<em>OldenGoldenDecoy</em>'s pic

 

 

One thing I really do appreciate about Dijamo.

 

And what I appreciate is her passion of what she believes she sees in her ol' crystal ball.

But often those ol' crystal balls are a wee bit too cloudy to get a good clear precise picture of what's about to happen.

Now, I'm just wondering how that investment worked out back in May of 2008 when she informed anyone who'd listen in TPMElectionCentral about her "Don't Blame Me, I Voted for Hillary" bumper stickers.

Paddlin' on...

~OGD~

 

by OldenGoldenDecoy 9/16/2010 - 1:16 pm (re: dijamo)

I think those we see as tea-baggers and birthers are a large part of the core republicans have relied upon to sweep them into office. Of course, the pot was always sweetened to the taste of whatever fringe group being placated. Unfortunately for the republicans, the fringe began to get restless once they knew the republicans had the power to push thru their agendas. By 2006 and the end of republican reign in Congress, they realized all their faith in the GOP was for nothing. So began the exodus creating splinter groups of like-minded conservatives hell-bent on making sure their agendas got center stage this time around. Interesting to note, none of the splinter groups have anything in common with Democrats and I suspect Progressives...they're strictly hard-core conservative republicans with a single agenda they want made into law. Now we come to this election cycle.

It is interesting to see so many fringe elements for the republican party wrapped up in myths of what they perceive to be the truth. And that they never understood about simple politics that if you don't cross all your T's, both large and small, and dot your all your little i's and j's too, there will be ample legal wiggle room to make legislation ineffective. In short, politics isn't for the lazy or those looking for a quick fix. It's a time consuming and thought provoking exercise in thinking up all the what if scenarios and determining the exact words to nullify any attempt to reinterpret the intent of the legislation. But many tea-bagger readily claim they had considerable trouble, if not out right failure, to grasped those concepts in their high school civics and government courses. But they have the power of the lever at the ballot box.

This whole tea-bagger movement is based on the failure of the GOP in manipulating political perception of their base for political leverage to gain control over Congress...the base finally realized their political ignorance was being taken advantaged of. So this is nothing more than a strike back. And it's hard enough to shake the GOP at its' roots. That's why the head honcho's are scrambling over each other to placate those tea-bagger that have ousted their select candidates in GOP primaries.

I suspect the GOP will expect the newly elected tea-baggers to caucus with them, thus giving them a majority to take back control, however, those tea-baggers are going to expect their agendas become part of the legal record...something the GOP has resisted doing.

It will be fun to watch and see what gets compromised to placate those tea-baggers.

by Beetlejuice 9/15/2010 - 3:24 pm

"It will be fun to watch and see what gets compromised to placate those tea-baggers."

Fun or painful.  But you're dead right, and if the Republicans don't properly acquiesce, there's America's (shudder) first viable third party.  Quick cooking too, just boil and stir.  And New York's now officially planted its imprimatur.  I think, with Paladino in, Genghis's what's the matter with New York question should be revived.

He won't beat Cuomo (I hope that doesn't wind up to be famous last words), but downstaters tend to forget that upstate is a whole different animal, and, he's going to get a lot of time at the bullhorn, winning hearts and minds.

So the syndrome spreads.  Perhaps it has to reach critical mass before there's a pullback. But till then the question remains as to just why progressive causes can't produce this kind of groundswell.  Fancy financing aside, I keep scratching me head on that one.  Why?

by anna am 9/16/2010 - 10:31 am (re: Beetlejuice)

Howard Dean did.

by Articleman 9/16/2010 - 1:45 pm (re: anna am)

you're right in a way, and would totally be right if dean hadn't capitulated to the democrats and settled for DNC chair.  if he'd taken his people off the table (which is what a great many of them wanted) there might have been a viable progressive third party now, whether he lost the election or not. 

but i'm not really talking about rallies around a specific figure.  by that criteria, obama's campaign would qualify as a movement no less than dean's, no matter that Obama and the left are on the outs now. 

and i'm definitely not talking about tea partiers rallying around a figurehead.  they don't.  they're rallying around a set of common wants and aims and they pick and choose among applicants, deciding who they'll come out for.  or not. 

so comparisons to an organization like move.on are, i think, more appropriate.  and when was the last time we heard from them in a really substantive way?  the right barely even complains about them anymore. 

 

 

by anna am 9/16/2010 - 2:14 pm (re: Articleman)

I think both moveon and the 2004 Dean campaign show that the netroots can and do get exercised around prog causes on a wide scale (Dean raised 40MM, and moveon can mobilize millions on prog issues) and can going forward is all I'm saying.

by Articleman 9/16/2010 - 2:24 pm (re: anna am)

i think i'd disallow presidential campaigns in the context i'm trying to frame.  but move.on does prove there is the potential for concerted effort.  it certainly had visibility and numbers in 2003, we even had eli pariser making the rounds on national tv.  fancy that.  

but the catch there is that this particular groundswell was, in large part, a one issue deal.  moveOn became a star rising in the sky because of the iraq war, and widespread hatred of it on the left.  they didn't have nearly that kind of subscription and audience back in the clinton impeachment days. 

i don't deny they have a whole platform that did and does go beyond resistance to the iraq war and defense of bill clinton. 

but are they focal to a movement like the tea party?  i say no.  and what i'm trying to say is we don't have an organization like that yet. 

by anna am 9/16/2010 - 2:45 pm (re: Articleman)

A clarification that is far more than literal:  the Tea Party is not an organization.

by Articleman 9/16/2010 - 2:47 pm (re: anna am)

point taken. 

but what should we call it then?

by anna am 9/16/2010 - 2:56 pm (re: Articleman)

It is a movement.  And there are gatherings for it (as in Tennessee this past year) and fundraising umbrellas for it (Tea Party Express) -- but isn't that true on the left as well, moveon.org being a freestanding left advocacy funding group?

I think this cycle will spawn the sense of some on the left that we need more DeMints than Cornyns on our side, more advocates for the most liberal candidate as opposed to the most liberal electable one. 

And I think you will then see organizations like that, but given the ramp-up to re-elect the President, which will suck up a lot of the oxygen and leadership energy, I don't think the historical moment of those organizations will come until 2013, win or lose for Obama.

by Articleman 9/16/2010 - 3:02 pm (re: anna am)

I guess another worry is that these people running for office now are winning instant celebrity for themselves.  They don't have to win office to be dangerous.  Indeed, Sarah Palin is a lot more dangerous out of office, with millions of dollars and free media access.

by Michael Maiello 9/15/2010 - 4:46 pm

Destor, here is really the interesting point of the thread, for me:  the disjunction between what's good for the parties and what's good for the masses and what's good for the celebri-leadery people like Palin, who are in-between being political figures and media.

The map, and the pieces that move on the map, have changed decisively in the last five years.  Talking about the Tea Party phenomenon is seeing the insect but not the new ecosystem it lives in.  This to me is where the real analysis lies.

by Articleman 9/15/2010 - 4:49 pm (re: destor23)

exactly.

by anna am 9/16/2010 - 10:48 am (re: destor23)

I can't tell whether this is a surge of crazy or a surge of existing crazy being motivated to vote.  Neither is ideal, but the latter is probably better than the former. 

by Jamie Friedland 9/15/2010 - 11:53 pm

double?

by Jamie Friedland 9/15/2010 - 11:54 pm

Here's another argument for why growth of the tea party is bad news for Democrats: As what now passes for "moderate" Republicans are driven from the GOP, they will swell the ranks of independents who vote Democratic. But not because they are dumping their small-C conservative views. As they become a bigger part of the the mix Democratic nominees need to appeal to, candidates' stances will inexorably skew further right. Conservadems may be the first to suffer this November, but like unwanted chest and leg hair they'll be back in even greater profusion next election cycle. As the crazies complete their takeover of the Republican brand, old-style Republicans will play a bigger and bigger role in shaping the Democratic one.

by acanuck 9/16/2010 - 1:53 am

So as the moderate Conservatives are kicked, pushed and shoved out of the GOP by the tea-baggers and their ilk, they move to the Progessive party which will open the door for more right leaning Democrats to pander for their approval which in turn moves the Democrat Party to the conservative political spectrum once held by the GOP before the hostile takeover. So that leaves us left of center, center left and lefty Democrats out in the cold without a Party. Instead of the GOP having to recreate itsel anew, they just pressgang the Democrat Party and make those of us in the party either submit to their political ideology or walk the plank. Who would have thought the demise of the GOP as we knew it would shift the Democrat party so far to the right it would become the new GOP and start the unravelling the essence of what it meant to be a Democrat.

by Beetlejuice 9/16/2010 - 8:01 am (re: acanuck)

My point exactly. But jeez, stop writing "the Democrat Party." If you're a left-of-center Dem you should find that Republican-generated slur offensive. It's even crept into use up here, where papers and pundits sometimes call the opposition New Democratic Party the New Democrat Party.

by acanuck 9/16/2010 - 1:00 pm (re: Beetlejuice)

Latest Comments

more