The prevalence of non-aligned voters in American electoral demography follows the high value many place on their remaining unobligated to party physics. A sound political organization is parliamentary in its business, broadly soliciting constituencies whose many parishional ends can make common cause with the whole. Ecumenism, of course, only goes so far as to satisfy rules of order, and a policy question is called to establish a center of gravity — derived from the party's charter and set concurrent to the majority's wishes, done most visibly on the eve of a national convention. Coalitions can be coincidental, or cynical; they work best when principled. But they must make declarations of one thing and by that rejections of other things, so — physics, again — most constituents will enjoy a cozy relation to party platform while the minority caucuses orbit in degrees approaching apogee. Those who weren't followed can take it like gentlemen, looking to better persuade at the next convening; they can give up for lost and leave; or they can move to dissension and warn that the party's operating resolution is a betrayal of code, or founded on an illegitimate tally, or otherwise faulty. Unappealing choices: no one but a heckler likes to sit backbench in his own party for long.
For many, it seems, a win can come from any horse — hence a nation with two major parties whose membership count settles for plurality. But if one of those parties is especially dominant and the other is unfriendly to the aims of a given bloc, cries foul get loud. And if heated debate appears to be coming from within the party to which the media and intellectual elite does not belong, those cries will be amplified.
Newspapers, television and websites would like to direct our attention to the lament of Republicans and rightists who believe the GOP-led United States Congress should not have intervened in the Florida jurisdiction of Terri Schiavo's fate, neither by principle of the supremacy clause as per Article VI of the Constitution nor by practice of federally instructed jurisdiction of Article III. A bevy of polls has sprung up to show, on command, overwhelming opposition to Washington's actions, with some accompanying numbers suggesting President Bush's party has suffered popularity on unrelated matters. A lot of maledictory souls are craning to watch President Bush's party choke on its electoral reward, and a few commentators are genuinely interested in the results of a majority political party's grapple with controversy; from both groups we get "Republican" and "crack-up" in the same sentence.
One hypothesis comes from rightist Glenn Reynolds. "National security is the glue that has held Bush's coalition together," he says, and "one may argue that libertarians and small-government conservatives aren't a big part of Bush's coalition, but his victory wasn't so huge that the Republicans can surrender very many votes and still expect to win." Dread words from somebody who voted Bush-Cheney in 2004. Still, Glenn, neither Republican nor Democrat, would probably bet on any good horse than invest in a single one. Dissolving the GOP's coalition might suit him just fine. So then we ask: is the argument over Terri Schiavo between strong and vital Republican caucuses, is it widespread, is it about more than one bench having not heard what it wanted to hear? Is anything awry?
The last time Glenn suggested the Republican Party might be significantly weakening at a seam — one between the respective moralism/traditionalism and objectivism/individualism of the party's base and libertarian corner — he was mistaken, evident at the time and borne out in the 2004 presidential election. Statements of discontent today sound familiar to those of one year ago: what the party has done is not only aslant our wishes, says the backbench, but in contempt of the party's own by-laws.
The malcontents never arrived in the voting booth; in November, the Republican Party won seats nearly everywhere. I have argued that political parties can and do go deaf before they go mad and fall apart — and that is certainly the diagnosis for the Republicans we hear right now. Yet even if the GOP is cut away from circumstances and put under the microscope alone, it's party solidarity that is extant. Nowhere but in politics can you be so timid and reckless at the same time: Which party, in spite of an enormous, growing tent, with wildly popular figures standing in stark contrast to base "fundamentalists," celebrates both the variety among its participants and the merits of ideas that become party policy? Which party, in spite of rigid constraints from ideology to racial composition, could not muster more than fifty percent positive support for its 2004 presidential candidate? A party that gladly steps to one side or the other of a bitter divide is confident in the results of its intramural contest and its priorities to constituents.
Is that confidence warranted? Place the Republican Party back in context. One party might be heading over a cliff — but both? When one is increasingly reflexive in its opposition, and more than capable of mustering party-line votes in both chambers? It may be apostasy to suggest that we see ourselves through politicians but Congressional action to keep Terri Schiavo alive told us a great deal about what both parties think of it. The United States Senate passed S. 686 on a voice vote, and prominent Democrats were most noted not for their resistance but their silence or absence. The House of Representatives took up the Senate bill; Democrats asked for a roll call. Before debate ended television viewers were treated to some fiery language from the left but when all stood to be counted, nearly half of Democrats present voted in favor. One thirtieth of Republicans present voted against. Legislation "For the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo" passed with over three-quarters of the chamber.
Either Republicans have passed into their own stubborn incoherence, devoting but three percent of their number to a burgeoning mutiny or they — like unreconstructed leftist Ralph Nader, who last week publicly denounced the "profound injustice" suffered by Terri Schiavo and bid Florida Governor Jeb Bush preserve the woman's life under any legal auspice — have a mind as to what most people want. There's an uncontrived breadth to those trying to keep Terri Schiavo alive, one that resembles the alliance for President Bush's reelection. In the first moments after the voice vote, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist thanked Democrats Harry Reid, Tom Harkin and Kent Conrad "for their dedication in shepherding this legislation. This is bipartisan, bicameral legislation."