Over at Mischiefs of Faction, John Patty has a theory for why there are eleventy billion Republican presidential candidates. There’s a bit of casting about for an answer, but what he ultimately arrives at can be summed up as: it’s the price the GOP is paying for pursuing a short-sighted strategy of ramping up outrage on every front as part of an overall total obstruction policy.
The reason for this, as I see it, is that there are a number of tangible objets de la colère (objects of anger) for the GOP base. Obama, Obamacare, Immigrants, Unions, Gay Marriage, Budget Deficits, just to name a few. These are all very different now in a way that wasn’t always true…
…The problem for the GOP is that there are so many policies and other issues that are induisant la colère (anger inducing) to their natural electoral base. Simply put, the GOP seems like a party that, at the base, is mad…
…As demonstrated by the craziness of the unqualified GOP candidate [Donald Trump’s] current media frenzy, it is completely reasonable to suppose that the establishment Republicans opened Pandora’s box by so clearly, stridently, and unthinkingly aimed at opposing all things coming from the other side of the aisle (arguably, the best recent example of such a stance came from then-Minority Leader and now-Majority Leader Mitch McConnell).
Succoring anger solicits serious squabbles.
What does political science say about this? I think it’s easy: the GOP as a “national party” focused very narrowly/short-term for the past 6 or so years, and the currently broad, voluble, and volatile field is the price they pay for what probably seemed like a worthwhile bet to block/repeal the Affordable Care Act. That bet didn’t pay off, but it’s still coming due, and will be paid over the next 3-12 months.
If what we’re concerned with is the size of the Republican field, this theory doesn’t have a particularly convincing causal explanatory power. Or, perhaps, we can use this observation as a tool to dig deeper. I do think Patty has identified a factor, even if it isn’t necessarily one of the strongest factors.
I think he comes closer with this:
I won’t continue on a granular level: the point is that the broad and deep slate of GOP candidates reifies the constellation of discord and discontent within part of the GOP’s base. To be clear, this type of mutli-faceted cleavage is not unusual in “the opposition”—when a party has been in the wilderness for a sustained period, it is frequently the case that none of the various factions has a sustained and acclaimed position of primacy.
The problem is that I think that there’s a serious error in the premise here. It’s true that the Republican base is upset about a wide array of issues, some cultural, some economic, some about foreign policy. What’s not clear, however, is that more than a couple of the candidates are running to represent just one of these issues, or to represent a faction of a divided party. I think we can say comfortably that Sen. Lindsey Graham is running primarily to defend neo-conservativsm from an assault by Rand Paul. And Rand Paul represents a unique faction within the GOP. But, beyond those two individuals, it gets a little more difficult.
We might be able to identify Ben Carson as an anti-ObamaCare candidate, but this doesn’t distinguish him or separate him from the others. Opposing the health care law is a default position, not a factional one.
We can identify some fissures, though. Mike Huckabee and Donald Trump oppose entitlement reform and Rick Santorum has rather unconvincingly tried to rebrand himself as a working-class populist. Jeb Bush has problems with the base on education policy and immigration reform, and Marco Rubio actually led the effort to pass immigration reform in the Senate.
However, overall, as The American Conservative editor Daniel McCarthy noted two days ago in the New York Times, there isn’t much that these candidates disagree about.
There’s nothing wrong with the number of candidates seeking the Republican nomination. The field will narrow once the debates begin, and until then the more opportunity the party has to debate its direction, the better. But that’s where the contenders so far disappoint. From Jeb Bush and Scott Walker at the head of the pack to Rand Paul and Mike Huckabee in the middle to Carly Fiorina and Lindsey Graham at the back, their similarities are more striking than their differences. All want to be the generic conservative candidate…
…On foreign policy there is less variety among the prospective nominees than in 2008 or 2012, despite the radically new conditions represented by the rise of ISIS and warming U.S. relations with Cuba and Iran.
Time will tell whether economic populists like Bernie Sanders and Jim Webb stir up a debate over jobs and trade with Hillary Clinton, or whether sharp foreign-policy divisions arise among them. But it seems possible that five Democratic contenders will have a more vigorous discussion of the economy and America’s role in the world — and even race and gender issues within the country — than the 15-plus Republican field will have. That’s not a comforting thought for those of us who want the G.O.P. to be a party of creative reform.
Should we make this obvious and ask what distinguishes these candidates’ health care proposals from each other? Really, you can choose any topic or policy you want. These candidates either don’t have any proposals or they’re indistinguishable from each other, or they’re based on strict fantasy.
So far, outside of Trump and his antics, there’s really only been two issues the candidates have fought over. The first is over who is the most authentic conservative, and the second is over who is the most electable. In these disputes, there’s been less substance than recitations of grievances.
And that’s why I think Patty is onto something when he identifies anger and grievance as one of the causes of the large field. It’s just that it’s not easy to see how that works.
More important, surely, are the new post-Citizens United election laws that make it easier than ever to finance the travel, staff, and other expenses of a presidential campaign. If you don’t have to go into debt to find yourself on a presidential nomination debate stage, it’s a pretty tempting thing, no?
Also important is the severity of the fuckup we call the latter Bush administration. Not only did they fail to leave an heir apparent, they left a smoking husk of a country and a party behind them.
A final thing to consider is this: they have no real theory about how to win the Electoral College and they’re unwilling to test the idea that a non-conservative might provide the answer. So far, the best they’ve come up with is that they should be more conservative.
And anyone can be that.
I have a simpler explanation — they have such contempt for Obama that they think “if he’s president, I definitely can be president” and throw their hat in the ring.
I think that gets to something I mentioned though, which is not so much a lower barrier to entry than a lower barrier to sustainability.
It’s just way too easy to run for president.
Agreed — the fact that it’s easy enables them to run, with contempt as the motivator.
I think it’s more that Dan Quail and Sarah Palin prepared the ground by allowing the base to believe any lunatic qualifies to be president. Tie that together with Post-Citizen United-funding and a very angry base, and this is what you get.
there’s really only been two issues the candidates have fought over. The first is over who is the most authentic conservative, and the second is over who is the most electable.
Wouldn’t exclude tRump from that fight. He’s at the top of the heap because he’s better at teabag speak than the others.
There are so many GOP candidates because the contest has been reduced to a personality popularity contest. And that assessment is in the eye of the beholder.
Once upon a time, celebrity status was directly tied to a skill, talent, or merely physical attractiveness of an exceptional nature that was uncommon and was valued by the general public. Often it was more than one of those variables. Famous for being famous was exceedingly rare. Now we’re awash in that.
Open seats in the absence of an acknowledged successor in either party tend to draw the most candidates. The 2008 stages for both parties were crowded.
What’s striking so far about the GOP candidates is the absence of charisma (unless one grants that quality to tRump). And in politics, the charisma bar isn’t high.
Matt Taibbi checking on if it’s the same Rusty Houser.
A factor that plays into it is the Mitch M inspired giving up all pretense of governing, – encouraged by the billionaire overlords who only want votes along their desired lines- so these “candidates” are lining up for a publicity stunt sinecure, not a job that requires any skills or training. (speaking of which, the video of Jebya in NH shows a guy even more awkward with ppl than RMoney was; pathetic)
Surprising. Guess the Bush family figured that they didn’t to put “smart one” in “charm school” for a few years.
video [I hope]
https://youtu.be/9z4xyYhKRNg
totally bizarre beginning – doesn’t he have a belt for his pants?
someone posted it in the kos discussion in case you can’t watch it from this supposed link
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/23/1405122/-Elderly-woman-rips-Jeb-in-townhall-I-paid-into-tha
t-for-years-and-now-you-want-to-take-it-away
Also I notice all the pandering teabag talking points that fell flat – don’t they know anything about The North Country? I guess not. if they did any research they’d know what audience to expect there – thoughtful, independent, tough thinkers; but like RMoney, he talks down to everyone not in his bubble
I was thinking something similar. You don’t really need leaders when you’re dedicated to not doing anything.
Apropos this and a another matter.
Matt Taibbi, October 2007: It’s the End of the Road for John McCain (Taibbi was a bit premature in that prediction.) However:
Then this:
Too soon to know if this Rusty Houser that Taibbi encountered in 2007 is the same Rusty Houser that exercised his 2nd Amendment rights in a LA move theater last night.
I guess a bunch of people must have mentioned that to Taibbi. He replied on Twitter that he’s looking into it to see if they’re the same guy.
Caught that — and then added that info as an addendum to the wrong comment.
Appears to be a negative. Not the Rusty Houser that Taibbi interviewed in 2007.
Why pussyfoot around on this one?
“We might be able to identify Ben Carson as an anti-ObamaCare candidate, but this doesn’t distinguish him or separate him from the others.”
The very white TEA Party crowd wants to believe that Carson absolves them of any claim that their extremely hateful views of President Obama and minorities have any racism behind them. Carson’s many preposterous statements justify their racist, fact-free views. The little internal doubt they have is easily shed; they get to feel good about their prejudice.
Here’s a test of my theory here: would a white neurosurgeon with Carson’s views have the attention and support enjoyed by Ben?
Answer: no.
I agree. In speaking to wingnuts, they frequently refer to their admiration of Carson to support their contention that claims of racism against Obama are obviously false. It’s about ideology they’ll say. Sure, if a black person is willing to support policies that screw those lazy shiftless niggers, they’ve got no problem with him. Obviously it’s not racial, not personal; just politics, just business.
Or maybe they have a simplistic notion of “electibility” abstracted from the most recent winners. A black man wins; therefore, the GOP will win with a black man.
(1964 GOP VP candidate was their first Catholic nominee.)
Is this snark? Apparently the ending of Obamacare, the privatizing of Medicare and walling up of the US now constitute creative reform.
The funding is independent of the Republican Party.
The funding is finite but huge.
Each of a few minor candidates has a billionaire or two as patrons, and these sugar daddies have their own specific agendas. And then there’s Donald Trump who hired himself as the candidate.
In the Bush era, the GOP convinced itself that it had won America’s heart and was the permanent majority party. The base having to face the fact that they might turn out to be the permanent minority is driving a lot of the anger; they thought they had it rigged.
And then there’s the black President who has taken everything they have thrown at him and still completed one of the more accomplished records in a modern Presidency, more so when he accomplishes more as the nominal size of his Congressional caucus diminishes. The structuring of the Iran deal so that it is essentially a fait accompli, and does Boeing want to trade with Iran or not, has disempowered the warhawks expect to screw the military-industrial complex (Boeing) in its civilian product line. (Iran needs 400 airliners to keep up with demand foregone because of the sanctions.) That left them sputtering angry; there is nothing they can vote on that will reverse what are likely to be successful inspections that allow the rest of the world to lift sanctions.
They are on the 55th vote to repeal Obamacare. For all the high-flying promises, Congress cannot act to deliver its promises — even with a Republican majority.
And the courts just killed a hot-button issue or two in a couple of decisions. Dangling state legislation to stir up the troops has less grounds for working.
The Republican base is angry; this is not how the Goldwater-Reagan-Bush revolution was going to be. And the base is angry to the degree that getting old increases unwelcome changes and the base is ageing out.
Exactly. I’m surprised Boo and John Patty missed this. It used to be that in order to mount a credible candidacy you needed a base of thousands of donors. Sure, the bigger ones were more important but you needed a lot of them as well. Now anybody who can get a billionaire to adopt him can be a candidate. Also, you don’t really need to think you can win, because the publicity gets you a Fox News gig or other wingnut welfare sinecure, or an independent grifting enterprise (a la Sarah Palin). So why not go for it?
And i would add: such a process weeded out a lot of candidates. Having to build that mass base meant going around and finding out whether or not there was real party support for a run. If the response to you was “crickets” or a golf clap, you closed up your exploratory committee and went home. That meant only candidates that had at least a nominal chance of winning the nomination would be in at this point. The Republicans were so happy to let billionaires fund their campaigns they forgot that electability was also important. An out-of-touch billionaire is hardly a good judge of that.
So while Hillary practically is cruising to the nomination, and the small field of Democrats are busily working to be her VP, the Republicans are having a “jungle primary” that is as wild and untamed and its namesake with little hope that there will be a nominee that will be strong enough to actually win and a party that will actually be united.
well there’s more in the pipeline (link from Carne Ross twitter feed)
http://www.rtcc.org/2015/07/23/the-week-climate-change-diplomacy-went-into-overdrive/
Attention hungry Cruz says McConnell lied on the senate floor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaWgFoVI4JU&feature=youtu.be
Most of his GOP Senate colleagues already hate him; so no loss there in trashing McConnell. Plus it gets him free media coverage and the public already agrees that McConnell lies.
Why so many candidates?
G-R-I-F-T
they want to get their grift on.