Republicans More and More are the Party of Process not Ideas

      Paul Waldman points out that the GOP primary becomes more of a minefield every four years as underscored by Indiana's recent pro discrimination against gays law.

      "When the “religious freedom” law in Indiana first started getting national attention last week, the Republicans running for president probably thought it was an easy call. Their party has firmly backed the movement to expand religious prerogatives into the realm of commerce, and gets some of its strongest support from religious Christians. Furthermore, laws like this have been relatively uncontroversial in the past. None of them seemed prepared for the intensity of the criticism the Indiana law got, and like Governor Mike Pence, found themselves pushed to backtrack on their initial full-throated support."

      "They were also probably surprised by just how many directions that criticism came from, with everyone from business leaders to religious groups making their opposition clear."

      "This issue illustrates just how complicated a task it will be for Republican candidates to navigate their party primaries without harming themselves for the general election. It isn’t just that pleasing the GOP’s base could displease the broader electorate, though that will often be true. The challenge is made even tougher by differences of opinion within the Republican party.:

      "What we have now is one party, the Democrats, that is demographically diverse but ideologically unified, while the other party, the Republicans, is demographically homogeneous but ideologically divided.

       "We shouldn't exaggerate this; there are plenty of issues on which almost all Republicans agree. But look at what Hillary Clinton won’t have to worry about between now and next summer. There aren’t major issues where factions of Democrats square off against each other. Liberals may think some in their party are too close to Wall Street, for instance, but on most major economic issues, even people like Chuck Schumer will say most of the same things the most liberal House member would. And can you think of an issue on which Clinton could alienate the general electorate by pandering to her base? It isn’t as though she’s going to find herself in trouble next October because she advocated an increase in the minimum wage or action to address climate change."

     http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/04/03/indiana-controversy-shows-what-a-minefield-2016-gop-primary-has-become/

     The GOP base is unified on one thing only: opposition to whatever Obama has done. The GOP figured it could get away with Mike Pence's anti gay law last week. After all, the GOP playbook in recent years has been to only get into divisive social issues at the state or county level as Pence did. Nationally, the playbook is that you pick your battles. You try not to get into Todd Akin like issues like whether you believe even rape victims should be denied the use of abortion services. Instead-nationally- you talk about something called partial birth abortion. Talk like what Akin got into is supposed to be reserved for the state level. However, what Pence's problems have shown is that now even at the state level there be a price-at least on some issues. 

     As I've suggested previously, Madonna isn't as absurd as some act in saying that gay rights are more advanced than women's rights at the present. At the state level you do see the GOP win victory after victory against a woman's right to choose. You can argue over the issue of abortion-but when the GOP shuts down 15 of 17 Planned Parenthood in the state like they have done in places like Kansas and Texas, it hurts women much more broadly than solely by taking away their right to choose on abortion. 

    The way GOP politics is supposed to work is that certain things can only be done at the state level and somethings are for the consumption of the general election. Immigration for instance isn't supposed to be discussed in the general election-you pass harsh anti immigration laws at the Red state level but nationally at most you offer homilies about being for 'sensible immigration reform' but first we 'must secure the border.'

    What seems to be happening now is that even this seems to becoming less tenable. They still have a lot of the process on their side. They have gerrymandered districts and states with voter id laws meant to reduce voting. They still have the Supreme Court. However, ideologically on most issues they don't win. 

    That the country disagrees with them on most issues-from taxes, to the minimum wage, to immigration to gay rights and yet they still keep winning roughly 50% of all elections in the country shows that process is nothing to sneeze at. To run on nothing but process and avoid any honest intellectual discussion may be cynical. But it's not like it's cost them anything yet. Whether it will in the future remains to be seen. What Indiana maybe suggests is that the ground to even argue process may be decreasing for the GOP. But only time will show if that's really the case. 

    P.S. Of course Waldman's point is important: the Dems are the unified party now which is the total opposite of what it was in the past. The GOP is unified only in opposition.