The War for the Soul of the Republican Party

With McCain's loss in the election many pundits are predicting a sort of Republican Civil War within the party.

In fact the opening salvos of the war were being fired a few weeks before the election with Palin becoming increasingly vocal and independent, and criticism coming at her from within the campaign. The McCain campaign often gave an impression throughout the campaign of being factionalised and schizophrenic. That's because it often was, with different figures in the campaign having radically different views on the best way to win the election. Now that the election is lost each figure of course thinks that their course of action would have won the election. McCain thinks he should have fought a moderate campaign based on political independence and 'Country First'. Palin no doubt thinks she should have been allowed to do what she wished - rail against Obama's 'links' with 'terrorists', and speak up on issues like abortion, gay rights and so on.

Since the election shots have been firing between both camps, with McCain aids anonymously briefing the Press that Palin is some sort of idiot, and Palin referring to her detractors as 'jerks'. It is my belief (and the belief of many pundits) that the camps will widen to include the latent divisions within the Republican Party, between neocons and their Religious Right allies on the one hand, and moderate and fiscal conservatives, more concerned about lower taxes and efficient government than foreign or social policy. A third, smaller faction, based around grassroots support for Ron Paul may also appear in my view being like the Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War - pissing off all sides, without much hope of actually winning but virulently refusing to be put down nonetheless.

The fate of this war is intrinsically tied to the fate of Palin herself. While she's the new villain amongst moderates and liberals she has set the Republican Base on fire as anyone who's seen footage of her rallies can attest to. With Ted Stevens looking like he might have just won the Alaskan Senate election Palin has a chance to become a prominent figure in national politics. Stevens has been convicted on 7 counts of corruption. As a result the Democrats in the Senate can (and probably will) expel him. Theoretically the Republicans could stop them, but if you were a Republican Senator who'd only just scrapped a victory through by the skin of your teeth would you want to stand up and declare "Yeah, let's keep the corrupt guy." This will result in a special election (like a British by-election) for the Senate seat, which will probably pit Palin against Stevens' opponent, former Anchorage mayor Mark Begrich. Palin is popular in Alaska, and would probably win (if Alaskans will re-elect the corrupt guy do you really think that Palin is going to have much trouble?). This will give Palin a national platform - the Senate - from which to become the de facto leader of the Religious Right.

The party itself is also a more right-leaning party than the one in 2004. The irony of this war is that as politics in America is geographical as well as ideological most moderate Republicans are in liberal, or moderate, states. Figures like John Sununu in New Hampshire, and Gordon Smith in Oregon (who was placed by one National Journal article as being the exact centre of the Senate) have lost their seats as a result. Similarly moderates have abandoned the party, both congressmen (like moderate Virginia Senator John Warner who resigned before this election) and the grassroots.

As well as this the Conservative wing has at least two potential national leaders (as well as Palin, Huckabee probably has good hopes for 2012), whereas the moderate wing now has none. Giuliani is TOO moderate even for much of the moderate wing. McCain is too old and a proven loser. Ron Paul could attempt to ally himself with this faction, but he is too politically eccentric to succeed. The moderate wing's best hope is a charismatic young Governor could pull an Obama. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana are both candidates for to 'out-Obama' Obama by appearing out of nowhere and getting the nomination in 2012 (Jindal is also Indian-American, allowing the Republican party to play ethnic one up. "You've got a mixed race guy? We've got an Indian!") Alternatively Mitt Romney could make a 'unity' or 'compromise' candidate.

Of course this sort of speculation is futurism, and anything could happen in the next 4 years. Nonetheless it is clear that the GOP is in civil war.

The likely result of this civil war, in the meantime, is probably that the Right will win. In 2010 there are mid-terms, and almost always (you can count the number of times this rule is broken on one hand) the opposition party has a success in mid-terms. The GOP will probably fight it with candidates from the right of the party, due to its abandonment by moderates. This may not happen but likely will, probably reducing the Democratic majority, rather than overturning it. The Right will probably declare this a victory for them, and use it as a justification to continue on this path during the remainder of Obama's first term.

The simple reality is though that elections are won from the centre. Parties that are viewed as being on too far on one end of the spectrum or another fail to get elected because the simple reality is that most people are neither left nor right, but centrist. Ask the British Labour Party in the 1980s or the British Conservative Party pre-Cameron.

Sooner or later someone in the GOP will realise that in order to win, and winning will, sooner or later, become more important to the GOP than ideological purity, they'll have to moderate. The true question is not who will eventually win the GOP civil war, but when the moderates will gain enough influence to boot the Democratic Party out of office.