Sep.13

electoral-vote.com

Dem 51

   

GOP 49

There Is No Republican Party

Now that you've had a dumb take from a conservative about the modern Republican Party, how about a more reasonable take from a conservative? There is little doubt that former federal judge J. Michael Luttig is staunchly conservative. There is also little doubt that he despises Donald Trump and Trumpism. Recently, Luttig sat for an interview and opined: "American democracy simply cannot function without two equally healthy and equally strong political parties. So today, in my view, there is no Republican Party to counter the Democratic Party in the country. And for that reason, American democracy is in grave peril."

Luttig's assessment is based on policy and principles. That is to say, he thinks (rightly) that a political party is supposed to be a vessel by which disparate interest groups are unified in support of a reasonably cohesive policy agenda. Since the modern Republican Party has virtually no substantive policy goals, it's not a party in the customary sense. Hence the conclusion that there is no Republican Party.

About a month ago, we wrote an item in which we said much the same thing as Luttig, observing that the Republican party has largely become a party without principles. In support of that, we listed the 25 most important Republicans in the country, in our view, along with notes about the undemocratic, unprincipled behavior from most of them. The only two principled folks to make our Top 25 were Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) and Gov. Chris Sununu (R-NH). We welcomed comments from readers, and we thought we would take this opportunity to run down some of those.

To start with, numerous Republican (or formerly Republican) readers wrote in to agree with us (and Luttig):

• C.S. in Philadelphia, PA: As a Never Trump Republican, I have gone over several replies in my head. My first was to do something snarky by looking up the definition of slime "any substance of a dirty nature, that is moist, soft, and adhesive," only to realize your description sticks.
  
  I then reflected on Sununu's endorsement of Senatorial candidate and election denier Don Bolduc because of the (R) next to his name.
  
  I then looked more at the list. You chose to exclude out-of-office former Governors (Larry Hogan and Asa Hutchinson) but included Never-a-Governor Kari Lake. Perhaps former Governor Chris Christie should have been included, as now one of the few to so publicly and loudly target his former patron. And for all of Mitch McConnell's warts, he is still better than any other Senator (other than Romney) on the list... which is sad.
  
  Okay, what has happened to my party is depressing me.
  
  
• C.T.P. in Lancaster, PA: As a "Reagan Republican" who had no problem voting for President Obama, and President Biden (I found them both to be well-balanced in their political philosophies), I describe the "Republican Party" politicians as "con-artists, grifters, money-grubs, and thieves." But one word a relative used recently, to describe a photo she saw of someone online, works best of all: "Seedy."
  
  
• J.D. in Breckenridge, CO: Overall, I feel your point holds that it is a challenge to name many important Republicans who have not enabled or looked the other way at undemocratic behavior (for the record, I voted for Bush 41 twice). I've stared at the lists of governors, senators and other luminaries. People like Jim Baker and Dick Cheney are too detached at this point and I don't know how to think about Bush 43 in this exercise. If you did this for Democrats, you might have both Barack and Michele Obama on that list and maybe one of the Clintons. Just an observation.

It would seem we are on to something.

There were also numerous readers who wrote in to point out we did not define our parameters properly:

• B.G. in Kalamazoo, MI: I realize that you're not the only ones using "election denial" to cover a whole host of, well, betrayals of the country, but there is a distinction between "telling lies about who won/lost an election" and "taking active, verifiable steps to try and overturn the results of an election." I suspect you're using the same term for both, which means someone could read the first entry on your list and think that Kari Lake merely lied about losing the Arizona election, when in fact she tried, and is still trying, to steal it.
  
  
• J.T. in Marietta, GA: I think the problem with your question about the "25 most important Republicans" is the definition of "important." For example, in no way is Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) an "important" Republican, if you ask me. She's famous, yes—but famous for being loud and extreme. She's not influential. Same for Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) and several others. And you reject the suggestion of Larry Hogan because he's a "medium-state former governor," and yet you include Kristi Noem, who—while a current governor—presides over a small state with no influence. Sen. John Thune (R-SD)—the Republican Senate whip—is left out, but Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) is included? I feel like this list is more about "famous" Republicans than "important" Republicans.
  
  So maybe this question should be approached in another way? Or refined somehow?
  
  
• T.M. in New York City, NY: I don't disagree with your overall premise about the fundamentals of the Republicans nowadays, but I feel like something is off with your list. I think it boils down to the definition of "importance." Had you said "Republicans most likely to make headlines," I would have exactly one qualm with your reasoning—including a medium-to-large-state former gubernatorial candidate who never held office while excluding medium-state former governors (one of whom is a current presidential candidate, however quixotic that may be). But if "importance" means actual governance, I would expect to see a few more governors or senators on the list, and fewer Freedom Caucus folks.

We should indeed have done a better job. We intended to include a paragraph in that piece in which we explained that because so much of modern Republican politicking is purely performative, we assigned high ranks to the most skilled performers.

There were also, of course, many suggestions for additions to the list:

• E.B. in Denver, CO: I've been thinking since the original question to try and list five Republicans who could save the party from blanket slimeballery, but just kept coming up short, on the grounds that reasonable people just aren't welcome in the party any longer, at least in positions of Top 25 importance. The best I could do, beyond Mittens, was Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Susan Collins (R-ME). Murkowski, I believe, makes the Top 25 because in a closely divided Senate, she is a vote that could potentially affect the course of legislation. Collins less so since she is more reliably party-line, but maybe she gets an "honorable mention." As much as I can't stand the guy, Chris Christie probably should be in the discussion, too. He got off the Trump bandwagon early on, which should count for something, and if he can play spoiler (he probably can't) that would put him in the Top 25.
  
  
• S.Y. in Skokie, IL: Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger. Both are out of office but they have scruples, and a sense of decency. I don't agree with Kinzinger's positions on the Second Amendment, but I would seriously consider voting for him if he runs for the Senate in Illinois (and the Senate majority wasn't at stake).
  
  
• W.V. in Andover, MN: I would have to suggest replacing two of these three—Noem, Sununu or Lake—and replacing them with Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, who seem to be driving the Republican legal agenda, with a touch of ethical impropriety, from the nation's highest Court. Frankly I'd put them in at 16 and 17, then re-order the remainder of the list.
  
  
• K.C. in Augusta, ME: Susan Collins and the rest of us Mainers are very concerned you feel Kari Lake and Matt Gaetz are more important Republicans than someone in the middle of a fifth senatorial term.
  
  
• S.B. in Berkshire, England, UK: I do think that some "emeritus" names need to appear as well. My short list: (1) Newt Gingrich, (2) Lee Atwater and (3) Ken Starr.
  
  
• J.S. in Bellevue, WA: I'm in the difficult position of agreeing with your list, but also thinking there's at least one person missing: Rep Jim Comer (R-KY) and his parade of tragically underwhelming whistleblowers and eyewitnesses (when he can find them). I just don't know where you might add him to the list. In any event, it's still a race to the bottom.
  
  Also, I laughed at your "Example of Undemocratic Behavior" for Greene. Her abuses of House procedures have been very gross.
  
  
• A.M. in Miami, FL: I'd suggest Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) deserves a place on the list, since he was a key player during the Jan. 6 coup attempt, and apologist, but I'm not sure who he would supplant from your list.
  
  
• M.H. in Carlisle, KY: You left out Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) and James Comer; both are big time Trump apologists and care nothing about their constituents.

We are irritated with ourselves that we forgot to add the Supreme Court justices to the list. We will point out, however, that Ken Starr and Lee Atwater are dead. If we're allowed to pick from the Ouija Board set, then surely St. Ronnie of Reagan is the first to make the cut.

And, finally, one last word:

• J.R. in Grand Rapids, MI: This exercise reminds me of Lot pleading with God not to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah; he got it down to finding five good men would be enough to avoid the destruction. He lost.

Maybe next week, we'll do a list of the Top 25 Democrats. (Z)