A few weeks ago, I wrote about the how the immigration issue was splitting the Republican
party, perhaps permanently. Basically, the intransigence of the
anti-illegal immigration wing has split the party, making even a good
compromise impossible. This has alienated the fastest growing voting block
while accomplishing nothing of POSITIVE value (I agree that stopping the
last immigration bill was a good thing, but USA will NEVER do a “Full
Tancredo”.) The anti-immigration block refuses to use its newly gained
clout for a good compromise, and holds out for the impossible. The result?
Bush’s Republican successor (nominee) will NOT be able to look forward to
the 44% of the Hispanic vote that Bush rec’d. Good work, folks. Keep it up.

If polling is accurate, the Iraq war is having the same effect. While I
support doing the right thing in Iraq regardless of polling (until Dems
force a “surrender” in the face of possible victory), the fact is that Bush
Administration incompetence (in both communication and strategy) has put
Republicans so far behind in credibility that they likely cannot recover
positive poll numbers on Iraq either.

But wait! It gets worse!

Lastly, the profligate spending on the part of Republicans in the last 5
years has come home to roost. As Illinois residents, we’ve seen the what
happens when so-called party “leaders” destroy the “Republican Brand” on
fiscal sanity. If you read the article below, you can see how the cancer
has spread nationally.

The most prominent sign of dissatisfaction has come from former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, long a pillar of Republican Party economic thinking. He blasted the party's fiscal record in a new book. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, he said: "The Republican Party, which ruled the House, the Senate and the presidency, I no longer recognize."

Some well-known business leaders have openly changed allegiances. Morgan
Stanley Chairman and Chief Executive John Mack, formerly a big Bush backer,
now supports Democratic front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York. John
Canning Jr., chairman and chief executive of Madison Dearborn Partners, a
large private-equity firm, now donates to Democrats after a lifetime as a
Republican. Recently, he told one Democratic Party leader: “The Republican
Party left me”—a twist on a line Ronald Reagan and his followers used
when they abandoned the Democratic Party decades ago to protest its ‘60s and
‘70s-era liberalism.

To be sure, much of this article is media “wishful thinking,” as the reports
of Republican demise are likely greatly exaggerated. On the other hand, it
is also true that parties can see long troughs in their effectiveness and
power. Just look at the Democrats from 1980–2006. In turbulent times (war,
hot social issues, economic uncertainty) parties can even destroy
themselves. Ask any Whig.

One might ask why the Democrats, with poor candidates, many bad ideas, and
few good ideas, are doing so well. The first answer is that they may not be
doing that well at all. The well-deserved skepticism brought on by
Republican profligacy and corruption isn’t really translating into success
on the part of the Democrats. Bush’s approval ratings, low as they are, are
higher than Congressional ratings. But in all honesty, with only two (bad)
choices, the Democrats clearly have the upper hand in party identification
and fundraising.

Why are the Republicans suffering so much when the Democrats have their own
divisions? I’d argue that it is because the difference in the motivation
behind each party’s base. Democrats are generally the party of government,
and therefore find ways to stick together regardless of ideology.
Republicans, whether you agree with any of their motivating principles or
not, tend to be motivated by these principles. Lose your principles, lose
your voters. It’s pretty simple.

While I would rather see the Republican ship “righted” so it can move
forward, the fact is that if it flies apart based upon the centrifugal
forces of political inertia, it may not be a bad thing. Maybe the time has
come for a new compact that reorganizes the political landscape.

Maybe America needs a “nationalist” party for those motivated by immigration
and social issues, a “socialist” party motivated by forced equalization and
safety nets for the “little guy,” and an “economic” party motivated by
technology, trade growth, and prosperity. Maybe each of us are
closer to 3 dimensional political beings squeezed into a two-dimensional
political box. Maybe we need more openness in political
organization. More ballot access, more competitive seats, more discussion
of ideas instead of demonization of our opponents. More independence.

With over a year to go before the 2008 elections, the fundraising numbers of
both Democrats and Republicans, combined with polling numbers, are merely
indicators, and not predictors of the future. That said, Republicans have
their work cut out for them if they want to hold on the presidency and make
inroads in the House and Senate. Before they go to the voters and make the
case that they have ‘rediscovered’ their principles, they may want to ask if some those principles inside the Republican coalition can even be reconciled.