The Regional Republican Divide

[Still Sensible]

From Political Wire...

Jacob Weisberg: "One way to understand the divisions in the Republican Party is as a clash of regional philosophies. Northeastern conservatism is moderate, accepts the modern welfare state, and dislikes mixing religion with politics. Western conservatism is hawkish, hates government, and embraces individual freedom. Southern conservatism is populist, draws on evangelical Christianity, and plays upon racial resentments. The big drama of the GOP over the past several decades has been the Northeastern view giving way to the Southern one. To see this transformation in a single family, witness the shift from George H.W. Bush to George W. Bush."

This view is true enough, but leaves out the common denominator--that is the way the big money interests have arranged the marriage of these groups and used a variety of wedge issues to create a polarized, us-versus-them party that really has few common goals other than demonizing the other side.

[David__77]

1. Both Bushes were right-wing - no "moderates."

Bush I was a "moderate" only in the Rockefeller sense, and prior to 1980. And Rockefeller, to me, was no "moderate" with his economic austerity and draconian drug laws. This whole narrative about yesterday's "moderate" Republicans is, to an extent, a mirage. There were some moderates like Jacob Javits and Lowell Weicker but they were a distinct minority at all times. The Republicans stopped being a "moderate" party since the 1920's at the very latest.

[Kat45]

2. There used to be moderate republicans in Massachusetts, and

in other parts of New England as well (such as Weicker in Conn.) In the seventies, I remember voting for moderate Republicans on occasion. We had a governor, Frank Sargent, who was one of them. I'm pretty sure there were others, but I can't think of them at this moment. But I don't think there have been any for a long, long time.