The Agony of the GOP Establishment

New York Magazine has an article with a title that reads as the caption of this post that looks at the predicament of rational Republicans - admittedly an endangered species - in the party establishment that still grasp the reality that despite Obama's unpopularity a total nutcase GOP nominee may nonetheless be unelectable. The goal of the Republican Party was once electing steady conservative candidates to office. Now, the party base which acts almost like some crazed religious cult that is more focused on extremist ideology/theology than the electability of the party's nominee. So what is a rational Republican to do? Try to scuttle the extremists without setting themselves up for a backlash should a crazy candidate like Perry or Bachmann with the nomination and then go down in flames in the general election. Personally, I have little sympathy for these establishment figures who sold the party's soul to the extremists and Christianists for short term gain all the while ignoring the longer term consequences that would come home to roost. Here are some article highlights:

The Republican Establishment finds itself with a problem no party Establishment wants to have. It has a presidential race between a decent candidate, who could probably win the general election but is distrusted by the primary electorate (Mitt Romney), and a candidate perfectly in tune with the primary electorate, who would make for a terrible general-election candidate (Rick Perry). How to steer the voters away from the guy who makes their right-wing hearts flutter, and toward the electable guy?

Today's Quinnipiac poll in the Republican must-win state of Florida casts the party's nightmare in sharp relief. The poll shows Romney leading President Obama 47-40, and Perry trailing him 44-42. But Perry leads Romney in a two-way matchup in the state's nominating primary, 46-38.

This is the dilemma the party elite must navigate. Now here is what compounds the dilemma. If you're a Republican opinion leader, you want to promote Romney over Perry. At the same time, you have to account for the possibility that Perry might win the nomination anyway, which means that you can't say anything that could be used against him in the general election. You need to gently suggest to Republicans that Perry is too crazy to be elected president, without suggesting to swing voters that he's too crazy to be elected president.

Let us observe the efforts of two such party voices today. Karl Rove, in his The Wall Street Journal op-ed column, points out that the candidates leading in the polls in the last GOP primary did not wind up winning.

Meanwhile, conservative blogger Jennifer Rubin gently suggests that Perry's patronage operation in Texas might be a problem. Rubin has a wonderful line: "I understand all too well the inclination among conservatives to shelter Perry from criticism." . . . Rubin's argument, of course, is very careful: Perry must "justify this conduct to a national electorate." In other words, she's not saying he's done anything wrong, only that there's a danger swing voters will believe he's done something wrong. All criticisms must be couched in the subjective, conditional form, so as to avoid subverting what may well be the party standard-bearer.

I sympathize with their agony. They are like parents warning their daughter not to marry the no-good boyfriend — they want to strongly steer her away from a huge mistake, but must also take care not to poison the relationship in case the advice is unheeded. The party Establishment is trying to make itself heard, sotto voce.

Again, the GOP establishment sold the party's soul out of short term opportunism much like a cheap whore might do. Now, they are faced with the less than pretty longer tern consequences. And meanwhile, more thinking Republicans and moderates are fleeing the asylum that is now the GOP.