I hesitate to make such a declaration. But in recent days it seems the tenuous Bush coalition, at long last, is beginning to come apart at the seams. A simple scan of today's NY Times headlines reveals a party threatened by ethics and corruption scandals, weakened by an unpopular Presidential push to break Social Security, flailing desperately to keep its theocratic base in line (as they demand, but fail to receive, real action on their agenda), while alienating the few small-government conservatives left in the party.
The most important news is that Republicans are speaking out against Bush now. Not only are they unafraid to do so, they are becoming vociferous.
Examples after the jump:
First, the Schiavo case. With
70% of the public (and majorities of evangelicals and conservatives) thinking DeLay, Frist, Bush, et al. have disgustingly overstepped their authority.
Adam Nagourney (NYT) picks up on this:
The vote by Congress to allow the federal courts to take over the Terri Schiavo case has created distress among some conservatives who say that lawmakers violated a cornerstone of conservative philosophy by intervening in the ruling of a state court.
The emerging debate, carried out against a rush of court decisions and Congressional action, has highlighted a conflict of priorities among conservatives and signals tensions that Republicans are likely to face as Congressional leaders and President Bush push social issues over the next two years, party leaders say.
In the article, Sen. Warner (R-VA), Stephen Moore (Club for Growth), David Davenport (Hoover Institution), and other Republicans all voice their displeasure (and in some cases, disgust) with the Congressional intervention into the Schiavo case. But Rep. Shays (CT) has the money quote:
"My party is demonstrating that they are for states' rights unless they don't like what states are doing," said Representative Christopher Shays of Connecticut, one of five House Republicans who voted against the bill. "This couldn't be a more classic case of a state responsibility."
"This Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy," Mr. Shays said. "There are going to be repercussions from this vote. There are a number of people who feel that the government is getting involved in their personal lives in a way that scares them."
The very next story in the Times is about another intra-party GOP cleavage on a similar issue of overreaching Federal powers, one that even John Kerry wouldn't touch -- the Patriot Act:
Battle lines were drawn Tuesday in the debate over the government's counterterrorism powers, as
an unlikely coalition of liberal civil-rights advocates, conservative libertarians, gun-rights supporters and medical privacy advocates voiced their objections to crucial parts of the law that expanded those powers after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Keeping the law intact "will do great and irreparable harm" to the Constitution by allowing the government to investigate people's reading habits, search their homes without notice and pry into their personal lives, said Bob Barr, a former Republican congressman who is leading the coalition....
Mr. Barr voted for the law, known as the USA Patriot Act, in the House just weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks but has become one of its leading critics, a shift that reflects the growing unease among some conservative libertarians over the expansion of the government's powers in fighting terrorism.
Notable names signing a letter to President Bush (from "Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances" -- I like that name!) include Grover Norquist and Paul Weyrich, as well as the ACLU.
Yes, Grover Norquist, Paul Weyrich, and the ACLU are working together to defeat Bush's plan to make the unchanged Patriot Act permanent.
And even David Brooks uncharacteristically took on DeLay on the corruption scandals dogging him yesterday.
The picture that emerges is this:
Bush's push on Social Security has seen him spend all of the little political "capital" he had following the election. He is now, for all intents and purposes, a lame duck. No logical successor in '08, and control of every branch of government. All of the members of his coalition are now demanding they get something back besides expanding deficits and inaction on core issues:
- Small-Government Conservatives in the GOP have been emboldened to ask Congress/Bush for action on their principles, such as fixing the Patriot Act. They are being joined by Libertarian-leaning voices like Barr.
- Theocrats in the GOP have been emboldened to demand action on their principles, and since the gay marriage Amendment has already been tried and no Supreme Court Justices have died yet, all DeLay/Bush can give them is the Schiavo legislation, which pisses off 70% of the public and more than half of their own party.
- And even the Conservative Press, as epitomized by Brooks and some at National Review, is beginning to ask real questions of Bush as it becomes clear he is as adrift as a second-term President as he has been in all of the other jobs he's held in his lifetime.
The Nuclear Option may be the only available next move to keep the Theocrats temporarily sated. Or the nomination of an extremist once Rehnquist retires. But to keep them in line, they will need to alienate vast segments of their own party, and most of the rest of the country. Is Bush willing to do that? If he doesn't, will his party face the wrath of the Theocrats as they sit at home in 2006 or run a third-party candidate like Judge Roy Moore in 2008?
The Bush coalition is beginning to crumble.
Update [2005-3-23 1:28:25 by thirdparty]: Flaxter suggests in a diary that folks (especially constituents) write to Rep. Shays. It would be interesting to hear why he believes he should stay in a "party of theocracy."
