OPINION & EDITORIAL
Dissecting the Republican revolution
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Steve Schwerbel:
- Dissecting the Republican revolution (February 10, 2006)
- Iran not threat West perceives (February 24, 2006)
- U.S. needs ally in India (March 9, 2006)
- Student Government looks to provide students with new voice (March 31, 2006)
- Humanities should be loved for its brutality (April 3, 2006)
Related Stories:
- Minority issues crucial for GOP candidates (October 2, 2007)
- Elections promote watered-down candidates (March 7, 2002)
- Democrats losing liberalism to GOP (January 27, 2006)
- Local races resemble national trends for GOP (October 17, 2006)
- Bush opposition needs backbone (October 31, 2006)
by Steve Schwerbel
Friday, February 10, 2006
Politics is war, and rightly so. Anyone pining for some imaginary time when Republicans and Democrats merrily skip down the aisles would do well to remember the fate of Aaron Burr.
That said, just as historians study von Clausewitz, it is helpful to study which generals are influencing today's Republican march to power. Troublingly, Republican tactics seem less Napoleonic than Maoist. Indeed, more than any screaming Vermont physicians, the Republican rise to power since the 1980s has been a truly insurrectionary campaign.
The language, of course, has always been there. One need look little farther than the "Reagan revolution" or the "culture wars" for proof. But the revolution goes much deeper than mere political sloganeering, and this revolutionary character is instrumental in understanding today's political dialogue.
"Guerrilla strategy must be based primarily on alertness, mobility, and attack," Mao said. No political party, of course, achieves any amount of success without being alert. However, in stark contrast to the trench warfare being waged by Democrats, the GOP has remained amazingly mobile. Republican mobilization over the past 20 years has been tremendous. Sweeping to power on a platform of ending the moribund politics and malaise of the Carter administration, Reagan was nonetheless able to point to critical cultural areas in which Republicans were a definite minority. The revolution had brought Reagan to power, but it did not spell the end of revolutionary politics.
Over the next 20 years, Republicans dedicated themselves to building cadres and attacking the bastions of liberal institutions. Against the liberal bastions of Hollywood, popular culture and the "mainstream media," Republicans built institutions aimed at overthrowing the old system. Think tanks sprang up to spread the ideals of the revolution. More recently, another revolutionary communications structure has sprung up — the blogosphere's decentralization makes it the perfect tool for revolutionaries on both sides of the political divide. Republicans also found a ready source of devoted cadres in the burgeoning Moral Majority — itself a revolutionarily counter-cultural organization. These were to be the shock troops that would engineer early victories and continue to be an important core of the revolution.
There are also youth brigades — College Republicans are the intellectually eager insurgents in the very heart of the enemy bastions. College Republicans, rightly or wrongly seeing themselves as repressed by a group representing a minority rule, are eager to bring down the paradigm. Coordinated from the center and ideologically pure, College Republicans are independent enough to wage a highly visible insurgency of their own, outside of, but parallel to, the national insurgency.
Like any good insurgency, Republicans have "gone to the people." From gangsta rap to gay cowboys, from The New York Times' editorial board to James Frey, Americans are turned off by the cultural elitism they see from the left. It is no coincidence that the revolution arose first, and is still strongest, in rural areas — the "flyover" states are the perfect incubators for revolution. Scorned by the Democrat elite in Washington, middle America has come to see the Democrats as out of touch. The Republican revolution has tapped into that sentiment, transferring disaffection into action.
By now, it should be clear that the revolutionary character of today's GOP has gone a long way toward propelling it to victory. The question, then, is how this revolutionary spirit affects Republicans' ability to govern. This has been, at best, a mixed bag. When not in power, it has led to some definite success — the Clinton era evinced the power of Republican revolutionary tactics in governing. But as Republicans have solidified their power, their revolutionary zeal has come to work against them. Revolutionaries, by nature, are uncompromising. Hard-fought battles have taught them that to compromise when one attains a position of power is to betray the worst of weaknesses. As their power increases, their rhetoric hardens — especially as they move forward on their agenda. There are also purges, as RINOs — Republicans in Name Only — are ostracized. Solidifying the revolution hardens edges, sharpens rhetoric, and the party grows increasingly unable to compromise at all.
Revolutionary tactics are a powerful tool for the minority. And Republicans have a long way to go before they become a cultural majority in the country. But as they govern, they need to put the lessons of the revolution behind them.
Steve Schwerbel (sdschwerbel@wisc.edu) is a senior majoring in international studies, political science and history.
Anonymous (February 10, 2006 @ 9:56am):
"From gangsta rap to gay cowboys, from The New York Times' editorial board to James Frey, Americans are turned off by the cultural elitism they see from the left."
Huh? Gansta rap and books about recovering from drug addiction are elitist? Tupac and James Frey are related to "the left" how?
Anonymous (February 10, 2006 @ 11:08am):
Again with the rhetoric that the Republicans are some patriotic minority that is fighting against the liberal elites who control the country. Evoking the Republicans as insurgents? Against whom? Big Government? the Reagan and Bush governments are much larger than Clinton ever was.
Anonymous (February 10, 2006 @ 11:22am):
Interesting peice, but I think using the word Conservative instead of Republican might be more useful in describing the Reagan revolution. That is really what a RINO is, a non-conservative who uses the party identified as conservative by voters to get elected but doesn't support those ideas once in office.
The conservative crackdown which has given us Roberts and Alito in recent months is an example of the revolution reaching back to state that the goal started by Reagan is to reduce the size and influence of Government. That is why many conservatives are unhappy with the growth of the federal government under a Republican President and Congress. The principals of the revolution have not borne the intended fruit. In my view a Republican majority governs better than the more left leaning policies that are represented by the Democrat party. However, Republicans are not the same as a conservatives, who find their roots with Barry Goldwater.
Until the policies of conservative ideas rebuild the federal government structure, as happened with Teddy Roosevelts Bull Moose movement, the revolution is still being waged. Unlike Mao, the conservative movement wants freedom. Which makes the conservative movement more like a Washington, Jefferson, Adams and the rest of the Founding Fathers in philosophy.
Nicely done, either way.
Anonymous (February 10, 2006 @ 3:17pm):
"Tupac and James Frey are related to "the left" how?"
I thought they were Moveon.org groupies. Isn't that sorta lefty-like?
Anonymous (February 12, 2006 @ 7:09pm):
All this "revolution" has done was convince lower income rural voters to vote against their own economic well being. Every economic law that the republicans have pushed through since reagan has left "the flyover" states in ruins.
