This week’s Economist contains an article about the GOP which concludes with the following sentence: “Political parties, like people, tend to get the reputations they deserve, and the Grand Old Party’s may yet shut it out of the White House next year.” The same magazine also contains a leader which expresses newfound hope for the party because its “ascendant stars. . .are serious and electable.” Paul Ryan! Marco Rubio! Moderation and good sense abound!
This raises two questions:
- Who is being more realistic here?
- What accounts for the discrepancy?
As to the first question, I have expressed my opinions on Rubio’s supposed “moderation” on multiple occasions. I would further note that, even if you assume he is a “moderate,” he is so far behind Carson and Trump in the polls that he can barely see them with a telescope. No, moderation is not on the horizon.
There are two answers to the second question. The first one, the general media desire to split the difference between the parties, has been set out by Paul Krugman so many times it no longer needs elaboration. The second is that the magazine caters to business people who are natural Republicans; they do not particularly want to hear from the editorial staff that their party is in the thrall of fools and clowns.
Consistent with this, I will be addressing the radicalization of the GOP from several different angles in the coming week.