NOW THAT I think about it, there was something noteworthy that occurred at last week’s Republican presidential debate. My initial take was the race for the 2008 nomination was unchanged, and indeed it was. But when you compare what was said at the Republican debate with what Democratic presidential candidates said at their debate a week earlier, you discover something interesting. The parties have, in one significant respect, changed places.
Republicans used to be the consensus party, Democrats the coalition party. If you were conservative on most issues, you were in sync with the Republican consensus. Among Republicans, there wasn’t much diversity of opinion. As a coalition party, Democrats tolerated a lot of diversity. Each group in the coalition–labor, liberals, feminists, gays, minorities, even a shrinking band of moderates–was free to pursue its separate agenda. Now, however, there’s a Democratic consensus, often strictly enforced.
It’s true that Democrats remain more diverse than Republicans in the identity group sense. But ideologically, Republicans are more diverse–and more tolerant of diversity. This was not only plainly on display in the two debates, but it’s also reflected in national politics more broadly and in congressional debates.
Start with abortion. The eight Democratic presidential candidates were questioned by NBC’s Brian Williams about the Supreme Court’s decision upholding the ban on partial birth abortion. “Most of the people of this stage put out statements and criticized the ruling,” Williams noted, but a majority of Americans approved of it.
Not one of the Democrats voiced qualms about partial birth abortion. That included Senator Joe Biden of Delaware, who had voted for the ban. He didn’t rise in defense of his vote or even mention it. Instead, he said the court’s decision was “intellectually dishonest. I think it is a rare procedure that should only be available when the woman’s life and health is at stake.” The ban–the one Biden voted for–doesn’t have a health exception.
Republicans were not as lockstep when asked about abortion–in their case, about Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision legalizing abortion. Most said they would be delighted if Roe were overturned. But there were permutations. Former Governor Jim Gilmore of Virginia said Roe was wrongly decided, but he stuck to his view that abortion should be legal in the first 8 to 12 weeks of pregnancy. Gilmore calls himself a pro-lifer, but that’s not the standard pro-life position.
Rudy Giuliani, the ex-mayor of New York, said it “would be O.K. to repeal” Roe, but “it would be also if a strict constructionist judge viewed it as precedent” and upheld Roe. In other words, he played it both ways. Giuliani said he hates abortion, but then he reaffirmed his support for a woman’s right to choose an abortion. “You have to respect a woman’s right to make that choice differently than my conscience,” he said.
Now, here’s the important point. For two decades, Democrats with pro-life leanings have become pro-abortion when deciding to run for the presidential nomination. The party–at least the presidential wing–doesn’t tolerate diversity on abortion. It’s worth noting that while a few dozen pro-life Democrats are elected to Congress, they remain largely silent on the issue once they get to Washington. Pro-choice Republicans routinely sound off.
And Republicans don’t demonize them. Giuliani wasn’t attacked in the debate by the pro-life candidates, nor was Gilmore. The pro-choice position has simply become tolerable, though hardly preferable, to Republicans.
The same is true for federal funding for embryonic stem cell research: Democrats are uniformly in favor of it, Republicans are divided. In fact, the Republican candidates were all over the lot. Senator John McCain said he was for it. Giuliani said he was “as long as we’re not creating life in order to destroy it.” Congressman Ron Paul of Texas said such funding was unconstitutional. Gilmore said the research job is “getting done” with adult stem cells. Former Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson said “you cannot answer that question yes or no.”
On same sex marriage or civil unions, Democrats line up in support of one or the other. None backs the Federal Marriage Amendment that would limit marriage to a man and a woman. Republicans, again, are split between a ban on gay marriage and accepting civil unions.
And it’s not only social issues on which Republicans are diverse and Democrats aren’t. On immigration reform, Democrats mostly favor stepped-up border security, a temporary worker’s program, and a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants now in this country. Some Republicans agree with that–McCain, Giuliani, President Bush–but many don’t.
On Iraq, Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin was correct in what he told the New York Times: “There is virtually no one in our caucus who does not want to be associated with trying to get us out of this war.” That’s true as well for the Democratic presidential candidates.
Republicans, nearly all of them anyway, back Bush’s “surge” strategy and oppose a set date for withdrawing troops. But that hasn’t stopped criticism of Bush for his management of the war. Former Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas zinged Bush at the debate for paying too much attention to “civilians in suit and silk ties” and not enough to “generals with mud and blood on their boots and medals on their chest.”
So the case is strong that the parties have flipped. Why has it happened? Perhaps Republicans have become more diverse and tolerant because they are suddenly the minority party. In truth, though, they’d been moving in this direction well before the 2006 election, just as Democrats had been gradually becoming a consensus party.
There’s an overriding question: Is it better for a political party to be a consensus or a coalition party? Democrats thrived for decades as a broad coalition. An ideological consensus, however, was instrumental in the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994. Party unity is useful at times, not at others. It didn’t let Republicans escape disaster in last fall’s election. And it won’t save congressional Democrats either if they overreach or stumble badly. I suspect a party benefits from a tolerable amount of diversity. But what constitutes a tolerable amount is anybody’s guess.
Fred Barnes is executive editor of THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
