Whatever the Democratic Party doesn’t succeed in doing to destroy the Republicans, the Republicans seem determined to do to themselves. It’s getting very, very old.
And by “Republicans” I don’t just mean what other people mean when they use the term “establishment Republicans.” I mean “establishment Republicans” on their own, Tea Party conservatives on their own, and the two pitted against each other.
Each group has strengths and weaknesses. Each group could, at least theoretically, help each other (novel thought, that). You will probably disagree with me if you believe that these two groups are unalterably and irrevocably opposed to each other. But although I know they have their differences, I believe those differences do not automatically preclude their uniting on common goals to help each other. But I don’t think it’s going to happen; the bitterness is too great and the territorial instincts too strong.
I’m seeing reactions on the conservative side to articles such as this one about the formation of a new super-PAC that some consider an establishment effort to undermine and usurp the Tea Party and its candidates and replace them with more establishment types. The article (which appeared in the NY Times, and since when did conservatives pay much attention to what’s said there?) describes it thusly:
The effort would put a new twist on the Republican-vs.-Republican warfare that has consumed the party’s primary races in recent years. In effect, the establishment is taking steps to fight back against Tea Party groups and other conservative organizations that have wielded significant influence in backing candidates who ultimately lost seats to Democrats in the general election.
Ah, the Times only has our interests at heart, to be sure! No doubt they just want to see us all get along:
The Conservative Victory Project, which is backed by Karl Rove and his allies who built American Crossroads into the largest Republican super PAC of the 2012 election cycle, will start by intensely vetting prospective contenders for Congressional races to try to weed out candidates who are seen as too flawed to win general elections.
The project is being waged with last year’s Senate contests in mind, particularly the one in Missouri [and Indiana, involving Akins and Mourdock].
The project’s president, Steven J. Law, is quoted as saying:
We don’t view ourselves as being in the incumbent protection business, but we want to pick the most conservative candidate who can win.
Sounds reasonable to me; in fact, I think it’s something I’ve suggested in the past. But it’s also completely understandable that Tea Party forces see this as an attack, an attempt to undermine them and their power.
If these groups persist in tearing each other apart, they will splinter into two parties—and, as I’ve written before, help assure a lengthy hegemony for the liberal/left.
Lost in the shuffle is the fact that, as Ramesh Ponnuru points out (in my opinion, quite reasonably) in National Review, why suspect someone like Stephen J. Law, head of American Crossroads, which is behind the new Conservative Victory Project?:
I take him at his word: He is, in my experience, solidly conservative himself, and served in the top ranks of the most successfully conservative Cabinet department of the George W. Bush administration (Labor, under Elaine Chao). American Crossroads spent a lot of money on behalf of conservative candidates such as Representative Allen West in 2012. My guess is that Law really does want to implement the “Buckley rule” of picking the most electable conservative.
Ah, is it because Karl Rove has backed the project? He seems to have gone from being evil incarnate to liberals to being evil incarnate to Tea Party types. Or maybe not; I’m weary of trying to follow these skirmishes.
I also wonder whether this group tried to work with the Tea Party types and were rebuffed, or whether some Tea Party types are actually on board, or whether no effort was made to recruit them in the first place.