Party hijacking...

In discussing Arlen Specter's defection from the Republican party which has provided him with heavy support over the last couple of election cycles despite his frequent straying from the party line, I began discussing with Jim M other issues related to the problems facing the Republican Party. Simon's asked me to post that bit on the front page and, as he has been holding down the fort so much here, I figured I better do as he asks... ;-) I've edited this slightly from its original appearance here. You should really go read the entire conversation Jim and I had, which starts about here.

Certainly in the broader sense the electorate always gets what it deserves, by definition. The problem is, I don't think that, in a more utilitarian and less philosophical sense, the voters really have gotten what they wanted. They want a more reduced size of government, they want lower taxes for themselves, they want less government involvement in the economy (on the whole), but they haven't gotten that. They didn't put the GOP in power to deliver Medicare Part D. They didn't vote for Bush the first time because they wanted an adventurous foreign policy.

My own theory is that the religious right was hijacked and terribly manipulated by folks like Tom DeLay. That wing of the GOP, the wing which basically tore up the Contract with America, wanted power for its own sake, and it was inevitable that they would create the same problems that plagued the power-blinded Dan Rostenkowski Democrats. Folks like Specter (and Snowe and Collins) never pointed their finger at that manipulation. Instead, they railed against the well-intentioned religious voters back home. That was stupid. Very poor messaging.

I agree that nobody so far seems to have stepped up to the plate to provide some leadership to help focus and shape the anger shown in the tea parties (note that "nobody" includes the supposedly wonderful moderate Republicans like Specter, Snowe, and Collins). I don't know of any new Reagans tirelessly working the inner workings of the party to gain support for a new conservative movement (note that Reagan spent most of his adult life doing just that; he wasn't a Schwarzenegger who just showed up one day to turn in his "movie star" hat and run for office).

But part of the problem, I continue to maintain, is that the importance of the party has been weakened too much by several decades of campaign finance reform (as well as some unhelpful over-zealotry by hard-core single-issue folks who took over some party machinery in both parties). As you suggest, party membership is much less important in many elections today, not just because of the voters, but because the party itself is more limited in how it can directly assist the candidate. A stronger party organization would, I believe, lead to better, more centrist policy making.

Why? Well, right now campaign finance caps force political donations to be distributed more broadly. A guy who wants to give $1 million in a campaign cycle can't just write one big check to one candidate or to the party. Instead, he's got to give some money here and some money there, $5,000 to this PAC, another $2,500 to some other PAC, etc., etc., etc. This naturally causes the creation of more and more PACs to compete for those dollars. Would the Club for Growth get as many donations without these artificial limits, or would the party machinery itself have a better chance at getting the dollars? I think the party itself would have a strong leg up in getting those donations. In turn, that means that the party would want to craft as broad an appeal as possible (without violating core principles), in order to attract as much money as possible. Thus, it would impose some moderation by its control over doling out those funds. But today, money flows to Club for Growth and other single-issue organizations, which raise more money by being more ideologically pure.