There is an interesting article in the latest Atlantic in which David Frum, among other things, sets out four alternative courses for the GOP in 2016. Option 1 is the Romney Coalition with a more persuasive standard bearer than Bush (i.e., Rubio); Option 2 is the Reagan Coalition (that would be Cruz); and Option 4 is the Reactionary agenda with regulatory changes to limit voting participation among prospective Democrats (not happening). Option 3 is clearly his preference, and I would identify it as the Christian Democrat agenda, which is not really espoused by any of the candidates (Kasich has his CD moments, but his tax and spending plans are clearly PBP). The question for today is, why is this agenda currently off the table?
I would suggest three reasons:
1. “Compassionate conservatism” was discredited by Bush 43: George W. Bush was unique in that he had strong ties to the Reactionaries (his evangelical religion), the PBPs (tax cuts, deregulation, bailouts), and the CDs. Of these, only the “compassionate conservatism” element has been repudiated by the mainstream of the party, partially because it was connected to his pro-democracy activism in the Middle East. As a result, the GOP has lurched to the right, and the CD faction has diminished substantially.
2. The CDs don’t have any enforcers: The Reactionaries have a host of right-wing talk show hosts and evangelical ministers to maintain discipline. The PBPs have the WSJ. The CDs have. . .David Brooks, Ross Douthat, and Michael Gerson. That’s it. They don’t scare anyone, and Douthat is so eager to make deals with any faction that will oppose abortion that he can barely remember he is a CD.
3. The Reactionary faction has been substantially strengthened in numbers by former “Reagan Democrats”: Current polling makes it clear just how far to the right the party has moved over the last few years, and, demographically speaking, that is the reason. Angry white male blue collar workers do not become CDs.