The Right Get Righter

I think there's probably a simple answer to Kevin Drum's question about why Republican members of congress have become even more skeptical that global warming is due to human activity -- when the GOP lost big in November, the losers came disproportionately from less-conservative districts which means the losers were disproportionately moderate in their views. This is one of several rather perverse consequences of our rather unfortunate constitutional system.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no apologist for "moderate" Republicans, but it's still the case that there is and was some difference between even the fauxist of faux-moderates and the true right wing hard core. It's the hard core the voters were trying to reject. But, in practice, it's almost impossible to knock the true believers out of their safe seats unless they get into ethical hot water on the side. So instead you go after the more vulnerable, more moderate members for failing to moderate the GOP agenda in any meaningful way. And fair enough -- don't cry for them. But the upshot is still that most of the worst of the worst get to hang around.

2/5/07 10:07PM del.icio.us this incoming links

Comments

I think what's even more discouraging is seeing conservative intellectuals like George Will raise skepticism on an issue with such broad scientific consensus. He's also been using the old if-it's-real-maybe-it-won't-be-so-bad line. What are a few coastlines for some nice weather, anyway? And it's unfortunate that Andrew Sullivan defends AEI for trying to lure scientists to lend creedence to the think tank's agenda. Sure, AEI is going to have a sugar-coated letter, suggesting that it wants to assess "strengths and weaknesses." They're not attempting to get scientists to say, "Climate change is crap," they just want some people to sound off on the limitations of science. That's an even more effective tool of spreading skepticism. The plan isn't to doubt the existence of climate change, but to raise questions that affect policy.

Posted by: Matthew Struhar on February 5, 2007 10:25 PM

Maybe they read the writings of actual climatologists instead of the writings of Laurie David.

Posted by: James Robertson on February 5, 2007 10:48 PM

But the upshot is still that most of the worst of the worst get to hang around.

On the other hand, Rick Santorum is no longer a Senator. There's always that.

Posted by: Tyrone Slothrop on February 5, 2007 11:00 PM

Oh, and is Laurie David somehow distorting the broad consenus of the scientific community, including climatologists like OSU professor Dr. Lonnie Thompson, who was featured in Al Gore's book, that says climate change is real and is caused by humans? Give me a break.

Posted by: Matthew Struhar on February 5, 2007 11:38 PM

Some of the worst of the worst are gone

- Tancredo
- Hayworth
- DeLay
- That's about it, in the House anyway

Posted by: Cryptic Ned on February 5, 2007 11:58 PM

Tom Tancredo is still in office.

Posted by: Steve on February 6, 2007 12:13 AM

My former Congressman, Bob Ney, was pretty bad ideologically (he was horrible ethically, as you probably know).

But Zack Space now represents the 18th district of Ohio, and all is well on both ethical and ideological fronts.

Posted by: Matthew Struhar on February 6, 2007 12:25 AM

Thinking of Pombo?

Posted by: Matt Weiner on February 6, 2007 12:26 AM

A feature, not a bug

Moderates who lose control of their party deserve the political death penalty. Republican moderates lost control when the Newt took over, and their remnants have since served as dishonest window-dressing for the orgy, Aarons putting a falsely dignified face on abject pagan worship at the feet of the Golden Calf. So now the party they let throw them from their seats of power has lost even the window-dressing, and stands naked and exposed as the vehicle of dangerous radicalism. The consequence is that this party will lurch from defeat to defeat until they have lost enough seats in enough elections that they start throwing the Neanderthals in their midst back into the caves. Let them lose a few more Kansases and Virginias, and the message will start to get through. Once the rump Republican Party starts treating its Inhofes and Coburns like the crazed, lunatic, untouchable, back-benchers they so richly deserve to be, they will be again ready to compete seriously for the majority. Republicans haven't even begun to acknowledge that they have many more Sistah Souljahs to dis, much more deeply embedded in the core of their party as now consitituted, than Dems ever needed to face down, before they will be ready to govern again, so I'm not holding my breath. Let one of their leaders call Pat Roberts a "bathroom idiot" who is welcome to tell anyone fool enough to follow his advice to vote for someone else, and live to tell of it, and I'll start to worry that their healing has begun.

Posted by: Glen Tomkins on February 6, 2007 01:08 AM

You're distilling them - boiling the party down to a twisted, bitter, tarry essence of wingnut, like something extracted from Keith Richards' lungs. With any luck it'll stink the place up so much no-one will want to see it again, however dilute it is.

Posted by: Alex on February 6, 2007 05:16 AM

What Glen Tomkins said - it's a feature, not a bug.

As the window-dressing of 'moderate Republicans' (who in reality did diddly-squat to moderate their party) get stripped away, all that will remain is the radical core of the GOP that only the hardcore GOP base, that last desperate 30-35%, actually likes.

The rest of America will see these loons as the crazies they are, and will vote against the GOP, as long as the Dems actually have the semblance of a spine.

For a long time now, the GOP has been able to play this "no, we're not really wingnuts" game, even though most of them are, by hiding behind the Warners and Chafees and the like.

We got a good start in knocking them off last fall. On we drive in 2008!

Posted by: RT on February 6, 2007 05:39 AM

An even simpler answer, in light of the last election and the most recent global-warming report: more than ever, Repub'n Senators need campaign contributions from, for example, oil companies. And symmetrically, more than ever the oil companies need a reliable stable of whores in the Senate.

Posted by: helmling on February 6, 2007 08:53 AM

Hmmm, I call bullshit on the National Journal question. The question asks whether it is "beyond a reasonable doubt" that global warming is anthropogenic. But the IPCC only said it is "very likely". Is "very likely" the same as "beyond a reasonable doubt"? I don't think so.

Posted by: Al on February 6, 2007 09:36 AM

"This is one of several rather perverse consequences of our rather unfortunate constitutional system."

You've been reading too much Sandy Levinson, Matt. In the November elections, the electorate wasn't seeking to moderate the Republican party, they were seeking to moderate THE CONGRESS, and moderate it they did - and quite effectively I might add - replacing moderate Republicans with Democrats. Republicans who chose to vote with the hard-right Republican leadership over representing their moderate constituents were duly replaced. What we're left with, by and large, is moderates representing moderate districts, conservatives representing conservative districts, and liberals representing liberal districts. Think what you will about that - I myself am none too happy with how many conservative districts there are in America - but there's nothing PERVERSE about it.

Posted by: Nate W. on February 6, 2007 09:46 AM

It's kind of odd, but there's evidence that more moderate districts elect more extremist representatives.

Winning a primary isn't that hard, especially if you have the right machine backing, and it does not necessitate ideological purity. Winning an election in a bellwether state IS very hard sometimes, and it seems that sometimes the best possible strategy is to galvanize your true believers. Obviously Bush does this, it's not hard to believe that congresspeople like Santorum and Steve Chabot do it too.

Compare this to safe Republicans like Lindsey Graham and Sam Brownback, who won't have to rely on every single evangelical voter in their state voting, and they tend to be a little more open minded.

Posted by: Tony V on February 6, 2007 09:52 AM

rE: Some of the worst of the worst are gone
- Tancredo
- Hayworth
- DeLay

Tancredo is still haning in there. As are Marilyn Musgrave and George Sensenbrenner, two more Neanderthals who should be stuffed in a museum of prehistoric artifacts. On the other hand Katheryn harris is history, although she was too incompetent to do much actual harm in Congress.

Posted by: JonF on February 6, 2007 11:33 AM

Those Republicans holding Senate and House seats may be more extreme than those who were displaced, but more importantly they're now in the minority. They used to be extremists driving their party's, and hence the Senate's and House's agendas. Now they're just extremists with the same agenda but without the power.

Posted by: mrgumby2u on February 6, 2007 11:59 AM

Wow - Lots of language here that's reminiscent of what the repubs were saying in 1994.

Posted by: Mike on February 6, 2007 12:22 PM

You can flip that around to say that now the Democratic survivors and now leaders are guys like Waxman, who are terrible in Republican leaders.

Posted by: American Citizen on February 6, 2007 01:29 PM

Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
forum
forum
mirc
turkmirc
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet