In the debates over this week’s off-year elections, one of the major Democratic and MSM memes is that the Tea Party movement has lost major ground. Some say the Cuccenelli campaign defeat says so, or the Alabama Republican congressional primary says so. There are good reasons for this interpretation, but I’ve argued against it at the Washington Monthly:\\

My old buddy Will Marshall of the Progressive Policy Institute offers his plenary take on what happened yesterday: he thinks it was pretty much a rout of the Tea Folk.

I don’t agree.

In considering Will Marshall’s argument that Tuesday’s primaries show that Tea Party influence on the GOP is on the wane, I countered with the suggestion that intimidation of Republicans by the Tea Folk is a more important part of its strategy than replacing “RINOs” in primaries.
A case in point is the ongoing pander-fest being conducted by Sen. Lindsey Graham, who faces divided and underfunded Tea Party primary opposition next year, and is trying to overcome conservative anger at his role in supporting immigration reform legislation and then ending the government shutdown.
First you had him risking the Mother of All Filibuster Wars with a threat to hold up all presidential nominations unless he’s given fodder for more Benghazi! investigations. Now we have this, via National Review’s Robert Costa (burnishing his credentials as the go-to conservative reporter of his era):
Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina is ramping up his pro-life efforts, and today unveiled the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would prohibit abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

“These babies who have been taken out of the womb at 20 weeks can feel pain, and some have survived,” Graham says, in an interview with National Review Online. “We need to get the courts to establish this as a legitimate state interest to protect unborn children….”

The planted-axiom rhetoric about “babies” is as much the point as the legislation, which has no chance of passage (to the chagrin of “pro-life lawmakers” cited by Costa who clearly think Graham is grandstanding).

Graham, who is up for reelection next year, says it’s important to bring social issues back into the fold as the midterms approach. “The goal is to have a vote in 2014, to make sure we vote on it,” he says. “It’s worth having this debate. The more people understand what we’re trying to do, the more public support will grow over time.

More to the point, it will be harder to purge Graham as a traitor to The Cause if he’s out there fighting for the victims of the American Holocaust.
Another validator of the Tea Folk’s power to intimidate is its onetime hero Marco Rubio. Is there any right-wing meme, position, or opinion the man hasn’t embraced since his movement-conservative stock fell over the immigration bill? If so, I must have missed it. Just yesterday Rubio offered post-election analysis closely toeing the Movement line that Cuccinelli lost because the party didn’t give him sufficient resources, while Christie’s win had zero implications for the national party.
These are just data points, of course. But I’d argue that Graham’s and Rubio’s frantic efforts to propitiate radical conservative opinion are better measurements of the Tea Party’s influence on the GOP than a very narrow loss to a rigorously conservative and massively-financed candidate in Alabama.

Win or lose, the Tea Folk are doing well.

As discussed here back in 2008, a big part of Barack Obama’s approach to politics has involved efforts to force Republicans either to compromise or to split. As we all know now, the GOP has been extraordinarily resistant to pressure to compromise. And while Obama did succeed in peeling off a small but significant portion of prior Republican voters in 2008 and 2012, the long-awaited GOP split between old-school Republicans and the ascendant and increasingly radical movement conservatives hasn’t transpired, either.
In the wake of the government shutdown/debt default mess, there’s now fresh hope, and some fresh evidence, that things could be shaking loose within the GOP. I addressed this possibility rather skeptically at Washington Monthly today.

Today’s new revelations from the latest NBC/WSJ survey on favorable/unfavorable ratings for the GOP among its rank-and-file will doubtless fan speculation about a potential split. They show GOP favorability among self-identified Republicans dropping to 49/26 (as compared to 73/7 among Democrats). Moreover, non-Tea Party Republicans are exhibiting significantly more disgruntlement (41/32) than Tea Party Republicans (56/21). On top of that, in a hypothetical three-way generic congressional contest involving a Democrat, and Republican, and a third party/independent candidate, non-Tea GOPer are more likely to go indie (32% as opposed to 25% for Tea Folk). Chuck Todd and his colleagues at NBC’s First Read place a lot of stock in these latter numbers indicating that threats of defection from the GOP are now graver from “the center” than “the right.”

Maybe, but maybe not. When you stare at all these numbers, some problems emerge.

For one thing, while Republicans are broken down into Tea and Non-Tea factions, independents are not. Given the past tendency of Tea Folk to disproportionately identify as indies even though they almost all vote overwhelmingly Republican, Republican identifiers within the Tea Nation are obviously going to be relatively quite loyal.
More importantly, happiness and unhappiness with the current condition of the GOP is likely to have different meanings for different Republicans. If one stipulates that the GOP is dangerously right-wing these days, the numbers look a little different: add together the 56% of Tea Folk who feel good about it with the 21% who likely think the party should be more conservative, plus the 41% of non-Tea GOPers who are happy with the party’s direction, and you don’t exactly have a mandate for moderation, do you? (And this is totally aside from the reality that Tea Folk are significantly more likely to participate in Republican primaries).
As for the third-party support findings, they are indeed interesting, but in the absence of any identification of what kind of ideology an indie/third-party would stand for, it’s really just an indication of party loyalty, which brings us full circle. Fully 61% of self-identified indies in the survey say they’d support an indie/third-party candidate, but it’s hard to know what if anything that means if you don’t know whether we’re talking about a hard-core Tea Party candidate or some sort of Michael Bloomberg “centrist.”
So while pursuing a split in the GOP is obviously an important Grand Strategy goal for Democrats–it’s been a big part of Obama’s Grand Strategy from the get-go–and while Democrats are much happier with their party than Republicans, it’s a bit early for the Donkey Party to declare any kind of victory or even a major advance. If you add in the fact that elected officials are massively less likely to defy party discipline than the rank-and-file, perhaps the most we can say is that the preconditions for a GOP split are coming into view, but still at a great distance until such time as we see more evidence.

Democrats are just going to have to be patient, and work harder, if they want to see the GOP rupture or lose many millions of previous voters.

There have been two story-lines in a lot of the recent talk about Virginia’s off-year elections next week. One is that the likely victory of Terry McAuliffe, which would represent the first time since 1973 that the candidate of the party controlling the White House has won a Virginia gubernatorial contest, reflects a reaction to the government shutdown that will still echo in November of next year. And the second is that “purple” Virginia is in general a harbinger for a Democratic House takeover in 2014.
TNR’s Nate Cohn published a column pushing back on both these story-lines, noting that Ken Cuccinelli was in trouble long before the government shutdown, and that the kind of GOP-controlled House seats Democrats would have to win to retake control of the chamber are much “redder” than Virginia and are occupied by well-funded incumbents.
But at Washington Monthly I offered some reasons Virginia might indeed be a harbinger, depending on how the November 5 balloting goes:

What I’ll be most interested when the votes are in next Tuesday are turnout patterns (normally an off-year election like Virginia’s is even more skewed towards pro-Republican older white voter than a midterm) and whether McAuliffe did unusually well in demographic groups that went Republican in 2009, 2010 and 2012. If the Republican hold on old white folks is fading, that’s good news for Democrats in 2014 even in districts labeled solidly Republican due to their partisan character in 2008 and 2012.
Truth is, after 2010 confirmed the heavy shift to the GOP of the groups most likely to turn out in mid-terms and off-year elections, I figured it would be a good long while before a Democrat would win the governorship in a “purple” state with off-year elections like Virginia. There’s got to be a non-trivial reason for McAuliffe’s apparently easy win, and while it may perhaps be personal to Cuccinelli, there’s no reason to conclude that without post-election evidence.

Two polls out just today–one from Quinnipiac and another from Rasmussen–show the Virginia race tightening (though a third, from Roanoke College, has McAuliffe up by double-digits). So we’ll just have to wait and see. But again: any Democratic statewide win in an off-year election is potentially significant.

One of the perennial phenomena of contemporary politics is the periodic sighting of signs the Christian Right–along with the culture wars it promotes–is dead or dying. It’s so frequent a phenomenon that it’s always a good idea to be skeptical.
This week two different developments were bruited about as indicating a fast fade in the grip of the Christian Right on faith communities where it has flourished. This first was the appearance of a new political spokesman for the Southern Baptist Convention.I wrote this about it at Washington Monthly:

Andew Sullivan thinks the Christian Right may finally be on the ropes, and cites as evidence a Wall Street Journal profile of Russell Moore, the man who has succeeded the culture-warhorse Richard Land as chief political affairs spox for the Southern Baptist Convention.

Reading the profile, it’s clear Moore wants to turn the page rhetorically from Land’s many thunderbolts, beginning with welcome warnings of excessive church investment in political causes remote from its mission, and a more irenic attitude towards “sinners” if not sin. And he very clearly wants to dissolve the marriage of convenience between conservative evangelicals and the Republican Party.

But we’ve heard all this before, along with the same expressions of hope from liberals and secular folk (the profile features several) that these zealots are finally going back into their shell just like they did after the Scopes Monkey Trial. I’d remind everyone that a change in strategy and tactics for politically-inclined conservative evangelicals doesn’t necessarily reflect a change in goals or commitments, and also that a loudly proclaimed independence from the GOP has been a hallmark of the Tea Party Movement as well.

Sarah Posner, an adept observer of the Christian Right, added this observation:

The religious right is not a static movement. Although there are still some who go the fire and brimstone route, many others–particularly those telegenic enough to attain a position like Moore’s–are going to give the “culture war” issues a softer touch. But make no mistake: they still see these as cultural issues, and still see their essential role as engagement in the public square as witnesses for (their view of) Christ’s teachings.

The religious right is not a movement with one or even two or three or four leaders. Because it’s a political and cultural undertaking that is playing a long game–rather successfully–it has produced many disciples. (In contrast, liberals tend to see small moments within that long game–like Moore replacing Land–as more consequential than they should.) Moore has an office in Washington, and a press operation. He has a title. He’s smart and thoughtful. I read him. I follow him. He will be on your television a lot. But like with Land (although in a different way) this coverage will overplay his influence. He’s not a general. He can’t order a retreat.

Posner also notes this remark by Moore on Fox News which indicates a robust commitment to the “religious liberty” movement focused on resistance to the Obamacare contraception coverage mandate:

“You can see this happening all over the country not only related to Obamacare. This is just one fiery rafter in a burning house. Religious liberty is under assault all over the place in this country in ways that I think are probably more pronounced than we have seen since the founding era… People who are doing good things in their communities motivated by religious convictions are simply being driven out of the public square because they won’t sing out of the hymn book of the church of the sexual revolution. I just don’t think we can live this way as Americans.”

Not exactly a full retreat from the culture wars, eh?
Meanwhile, other optimistic observers think Pope Francis’ dramatic departures from a culture-war-heavy message from the Vatican could detach American Catholics from the Christian Right, while alienating conservative evangelicals. I wouldn’t bet the farm on that happening, either:

I haven’t been slavishly following Francis’ pronouncements, but it would appear that his many gestures towards change are the religious equivalent of a shift in institutional strategy and tactics rather than doctrine. And while he’s encouraged Catholics to think more broadly and lovingly about the mission of the Church in a broken world, it’s not like he’s excommunicating culture-warriors or telling Right to Life groups to suspend their efforts and instead feed and clothe the poor. The idea that a “liberal” Pope will create an immediate sea-change in American Catholic attitudes is no more compelling than earlier assumptions that conservative Popes could immediately convince their flock in this country to stop taking contraceptives or voting for Democrats.

Let’s wait and see before declaring for the umpteenth time that the Christian Right’s dead.

The debate over the nature of intra-GOP differences before, during and after the shutdown/default crisis continues in various quarters. At Washington Monthly today, I noted that two movement-conservative luminaries strongly weighed in for the idea that it’s strategy and tactics, not goals and philosophy, that separated the “Defund Obamacare” zealots from more cautious Republicans:

First, here’s National Review‘s Jonah Goldberg, who wants to convince Tea Folk there are no ideological heretics left to purge:

“Pick any three defining issues of conservatism — say, smaller government, low taxes, and opposition to abortion, or a strong national defense, entitlement reform, and gun rights — and you’ll be hard-pressed to find the supposedly liberal Republican “establishment” on one side and the tea-party faithful on the other.
“Even on the policies that are splitting Republicans these days — say, foreign policy or immigration — the rift does not neatly divide the establishment and the “real conservatives.”
“Such a statement will no doubt infuriate many conservatives who believe that the establishment is insufficiently committed to conservative principles. And that is an entirely fair complaint. But that criticism is about efficacy and passion, not policy or philosophy. And this is a hugely important distinction that has been deliberately airbrushed out of the picture painted by groups like Heritage Action and FreedomWorks. The inconvenient truth for these groups is that the current GOP establishment is more conservative than it has ever been.
“In the recent internecine conservative donnybrook over the government shutdown, the insurgents insisted they were in an ideological struggle with the establishment. But there was precious little ideology involved. Instead, it was a fight over tactics and power. The Republican party almost unanimously opposed Obamacare, and the Republicans who’ve been in office far longer than Cruz & Co. have voted more than three dozen times to get rid of the disastrous program. And yet, the latecomers to the battle talk as if the veterans in the trenches were collaborators the whole time.
“I have enormous sympathy for their frustration, because I share it.”

More interesting is that the same point of view is shared by Erick Erickson, who is at the beating heart of “defund Obamacare” and “purge the RINOs” rage-a-palooza:

“Long after we are dead, pundits and political reporters will still talk about the Rockefeller Republicans vs. the Conservatives and other such archaic divisions that no longer exist except in the rhetorical habits of pretentious political reporters. The real division within the Republican Party now isn’t even between those who call themselves tea partiers fighting the establishment. “Tea party”, like “conservative” and “Republican”, has less meaning these days and I increasingly dislike using the word. Admittedly though, everyone would consider me one based on the general parameters of what the tea party is.
“In any event, the real fight within the Republican Party now is between those who believe we actually are at the moment of crisis — existential or otherwise — and thereby must fight as we’ve never fought before and those who think the GOP can bide its time and make things right.”

In other words, the rift is about “strategy and tactics,” not ideology, philosophy, goals or even long-term agenda.

This debate is happening outside the Republican ranks as well. Today Jonathan Chait argued that the “Defund Obamacare” movement was not based on a deliberate strategy–because it didn’t make sense strategically–but on a cry of protest aimed at overturning a majority conservatives might have lost for good in the electoral arena. I commented at some length at WaMo:

I absolutely share Jon’s belief that cultural panic is a big part of contemporary conservatism, and would add that the Tea Folk perceive Obamacare as a particular “tipping point” crucial to the larger tipping point from freedom to socialism. But does that mean the “Defund Obamacare” campaign was a cry of despair rather than an actual strategy?

Like Chait, I don’t think there was ever any chance that Obama and congressional Democrats would agree to a significant disabling of the Affordable Care Act had push truly come to shove. But this was not the perception of the “Defund Obamacare” folk, or even of some more mainstream commentators, which is precisely why I kept saying the president needed to look Republicans in the eyes and convince them he’d let Republicans drag the economy to hell before conceding that point.

To put it another way, was the effort to screw up Obamacare really “insane” when it produced a loud wail from a significant number of MSM commentators begging the president to cave–most commonly via a year’s delay in the law’s effective dates? A year’s delay, of course, would have put the Obamacare effective date beyond the 2014 midterm elections, when conservatives figured (a) the bribery effect of Obamacare’s benefits would not have its “tipping point” impact and (b) the righteous remnant, in a better turnout environment, would reverse 2012 as any sort of national referendum.

That’s all a long stretch, of course, but it’s not “insane.” And the other thing we should keep in mind, even if we accept Chait’s characterization of the “Defund Obamacare” drive as more protest than strategy, is that Tea Folk tend to share a far-from-unique belief that noise and “enthusiasm” are a tangible political asset, and that conventional strategic considerations should on occasion give way to a sort of will to power. That, too, is not “insane,” at least to the extent that an awful lot of people in politics, and not just on the Right, share a magical faith in the efficacy of “enthusiasm” to one degree or another.

This debate matters because when the GOP’s strategic issues are resolved, the ideology will remain, along with the long-term agenda to implement it.