August 4, 2004
PEROTISTAS? (via Kevin Whited):
Kerry eyes disillusioned GOPers: The Democratic nominee hopes to find support among Republicans upset with Bush (Marie Cocco, 8/02/04, Newsday)
It is early to talk about the emergence of Kerry Republicans. But not too early.They are a sliver of that tiny slice of the electorate that still is uncertain of how to cast a vote in November. Four years ago, George W. Bush won their support by portraying himself as a compassionate conservative who would blunt the razor edge of the party's conservative congressional contingent. Four years ago, he promised honesty and integrity in the White House and a military that would be strengthened, not stretched.
Now these voters are, at best, disappointed in their president. At worst, they're downright angry.
There are, of course, some on the Right who are disappointed in George Bush--that gang at the American Conservative is pretty upset and the folks at Reason and the Anti-War/Lew Rockwell types. At first glance this may seem an unlikely grouping of libertarians, isolationists, mercantilists, etc.. however, there's a theme that unites them: they all want to close our borders, though some would keep them permeable for their own pet purposes. Pat Buchanan may be the most ideologically pure--he'd close our borders to immigrants, to trade, and to outgoing American troops.
Now, the Democrats can certainly make a play for these voters, but they were only 1% of the electorate last time, so that seems unlikely to make much of a difference in the election. Meanwhile, a nakedly protectionist Democratic Party might have trouble with its own Warren Buffett's and Robert Rubin's and even its George Soros's. An avowedly nativist Democratic Party would shore up its standing with blacks, but drive away Latinos, who now outnumber them. And a Democratic Party that opposes the use of American power even for humanitarian purposes could conceivably attract a hundred year old America Firster or two, but since it is also a passionately transnationalist party it doesn't seem likely to be able to hold onto the angry isolationists for more than one election cycle.
Meanwhile, what would remain of the soul of the Party after it betrayed most of its ideals just to elect John Kerry, who in his heart-of-hearts agrees with George Bush on these questions?
Posted by Orrin Judd at August 4, 2004 9:04 PMAnd of course not a single Democrat is going to go the other way and vote for Bush because of September 11 and his response to it. None, zero, zip, zilch.
Right.
Posted by: brian at August 4, 2004 9:25 PMLibertarians want to close our borders? Please to elaborate...
Posted by: EO at August 4, 2004 9:43 PMYet another puff piece by the media trying to portray Kerry's popularity and inevitability as president.
Posted by: AWW at August 4, 2004 9:56 PM"Party soul" is a casualty for both parties. Republican pragmatists will sacrifice conservative fiscal responsibility and small government for a neo-con foreign policy, Democratic pragmatists will sacrifice we know not what at this point, since Kerry is a blank check, to regain the White House.
Dems want to transnationalize sovereign government authority but nationalize economic activity. Republicans want trans-national economic activity but sovereign national government authority.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at August 4, 2004 11:20 PMFair enough, oj.
I'll never understand the mind of libertarians, anyway. I mean, I was one, but I was an obnoxious 22-year-old male...
EO;
Well, as a libertarian, let me say that you're only young once, but you can be immature forever.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at August 5, 2004 12:04 AMBill Clinton was all things to many people in 1992 when they didn't want to vote for the other President Bush's re-election. Kerry's problem is Clinton didn't have a 20-year national voting record; he does; and by 1992 the Soviet threat was a shell of its former self, even if the collapse didn't come until the summer of 1993. That allowed voters to take their own more frivolous gripes against the administration more seriously, and elect a man they knew was a bit of a rogue, but who they could imagine would fix whatever their little concerns were without bolixing up the big picture.
Kerry would like to create that image among Republicans angry with GWB over budget spending, stem cell research or whatever, but he and the people around him exude their own frivilousness in foreign policy that voters will be hard-pressed to brush off as meaningless in November. Not to mention that compared to Clinton, Kerry just doesn't come across as Mr. Happy on the campaign trail.
Posted by: John at August 5, 2004 1:13 AMRobert:
"Republicans want trans-national economic activity but sovereign national government authority."
Bingo.
Posted by: oj at August 5, 2004 7:50 AM