Who is the base?
One of the key questions in the debate over Miers is this: who is the base of the Republican party? This question is largely taken for granted at anti-Miers bastions like Redstate and the Corner, where Bush is presumed to have “betrayed/dissapointed the base” but it bears scrutinizing more closely. In the end, there are two answers to that question, and neither of them are particularly kind to the pundits and Internet commenters who appear to consider themselves the Base.
One definition of the base is thosee people who make up the bulk of the solidly Republican votes. The vast majority of these people, I assure you, don’t even know what a blog is, only occasionally listen to talk radio and are only dimly aware of who Harriet Miers is. Most, but not all of them, will start paying attention to politics again in about a year when the 2006 elections are in full swing. By that point, this debate over Miers will be long forgotten, and there will be a pretty clear winner and loser, as Miers will have had a chance to rule on things that the base really does care about, like parental consent laws, euthanasia and partial-birth abortion. Arguments over who is the “best qualified,” assertions that Miers should have written some op-eds, and comparisons to Souter or Luttig (neither of whom are familiar to these people) will not mean anything. If this is who you mean by “the base,” then no, Bush has neither betrayed nor disappointed them.
But there’s another group that could be called the base, and they are, in some ways, the polar opposite of the broad base described above. They are the party activists, the precinct comittee officers, the local candidates, the district and county chairmen. They’re the doorbellers, the phonebankers, the sign wavers, the GOTVers, who actually put effort into electing Republicans, instead of opining about it at a newspaper, magazine or Internet site. Are these people upset with the Miers nomination? That’s a much harder thing to tell–they are paying a lot more attention, they’ve heard the arguments for and against, they care about the issues. This article implies that they may be in favor of it, but it only cites comments from State chairmen, who may be more eager to ingratiate themselves with the White House than is conducive to rendering an unbiased judgement on the nominee.
I only know one way to find out what this, more narrow base thinks about Harriet Miers, and that’s to ask them. And so I did. Every Tuesday I join a handful of PCO’s, activists, candidates and other party leaders to sharpen our political skills and knowledge (and you’re invited to join us!). Today, I queried them about their thoughts on the Miers nomination. Practically unanimously, they were supportive of the President. Would this be the case in such groups across the county? I don’t know, but I suspect the sentiments they shared–supporting the president, rejecting the requirement of intellectualism for supreme court justices, and waiting to see the hearings–are shared by similar people all over the nation.
Bush was not elected by bloggers, columnists or pundits. He was elected by the broad base of regular people who voted for him in record numbers, and the narrow base of irregular people, if you will, who worked hard to get those people to the polls. Neither of those groups feels abandoned.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. To comment, please register. No profanity, please. Non-family-friendly words will be changed to amusing euphemisms as suits the author.
October 14th, 2005 at 7:46 pm
Rush has 20 million listeners a week. How many people were in attendance at your roundtable discussion?
The difference between the way you and I think is this: You spend too much time with party hacks who either don’t embrace conservative principles or have been brainwashed into believing conservatism can’t win by those who don’t embrace it. I however, spend my time with people who do make up the broad base of the Republican party. They embrace the conservative agenda. They do know who Harriet Miers is. They don’t have time to attend a convention, organizational meeting or roundtable discussion. They do listen to Rush and Laura and Michael Savage. Most of them have never heard of you or Chris Vance, however.
October 14th, 2005 at 8:13 pm
Two thoughts: First, Bush’s 62 million voters trumps Rush’s listeners.
Second, you have obviously never met any of the “party hacks” I hang around with.
October 15th, 2005 at 5:38 am
Social conservatives CAN’T win alone.
People who self-identify as “conservatives” make up about 33% of the American public, according to a survey released in May 2004 by the Pew Research Center for People and the Press, and a significant percentage of those aren’t strictly social conservatives.
If you purge the Republican party of everyone but social conservatives, that would make you a third party, and the smallest of the big three political parties, at that.
In fact, there are at least two “third party” political organizations for social conservatives: The Natural Law party, and the Constitution party - neither of whom have amounted to much, being far less successful than the moderate Libertarian party, which is itself only marginally successful.
October 15th, 2005 at 5:07 pm
The number of votes Bush has, doesn’t negate my point. I voted for Bush. Those objecting the most voted for Bush and have been his most staunch supporters too. Though interestingly enough, those who are most ecstatic about the Miers nomination are …Chuck Schumer…Harry Reid….Diane Feinstein.
I have a pretty good idea of the party hacks you hang out with. I’m no stranger to them either. Their rhetoric (when it comes to how to get elected) is just about identical to the “Mainstream Republicans”, The WISH List, Republicans For Choice, Log Cabin Republicans, the above poster, etc.
October 15th, 2005 at 5:22 pm
Michael,
Republicans can NEVER win without social conservatives. I consider myself conservative all around.
I know why you’re here. To help convince conservatives to give up on our ideas. Nice try. Most of us know that pollsters phrase questions in a way to get the answer they’re looking for and leave out pertinent information in reporting those polls. Upon further review of the poll you site, the 33% who self identify as “conservative” was much less than those who gave the conservative answer to the social questions. So I think you might want to re-think your thesis that social conservatives can’t win alone.
The two third parties you mentioned are relatively new to the scene. I agree that they haven’t mounted to much, but if we look at history, we realize that they won’t until one of the two major parties implodes–which is very likely to happen soon–unless there is a major change for the good in one or the other.
October 15th, 2005 at 8:48 pm
The folks at Republican Roundtable will find your comparison of them to the Log Cabin Republicans remarkably hilarious.
October 15th, 2005 at 10:05 pm
Republican In Exile:
I’m here in an attempt to undermine and destroy you ?
Maybe I should just get back on my unmarked black helicopter, since you’ve cracked the code.
If you’re convinced that social conservatives alone can pull 50.5% percent of the vote nationally, please go ahead and try.
At the least, it will be amusing.
October 16th, 2005 at 4:28 pm
Michael,
I never said ALONE. I said Republicans can never win without them. I’m not opposed to social moderates voting for a social conservative because they agree on fiscal policy. I’m opposed to social “moderates” getting elected.
Timothy,
I didn’t say that the folks at the roundtable were Log Cabiners, I said their rhetoric on how to win is identical, atleast the ones who agree with you.