For my 2301s as we start to discuss elections and parties. This author argues that the Republican Party is currently being defined by "state activists and governors, " not by potential presidential candidates. This may not serve the party well in 2012. It does introduce a major point we will hit when we discuss the decentralized nature of political parties in the United States. At any one point in time it can be tough to determine who or what is in charge, what the party truly stands for, and who made that decision.
From Along for the Ride:
With the 2012 class coalescing so slowly, the initiative has flowed elsewhere. On Capitol Hill and in the states, Republican legislators and governors empowered by the party’s historic gains in 2010 are advancing aggressive agendas with major 2012 implications. Rather than influencing those ideas, the potential GOP presidential candidates are mostly racing after them.
The best example is in Wisconsin, where newly elected Gov. Scott Walker is seeking to revoke most collective-bargaining rights for public employees. Every major Republican presidential hopeful has endorsed Walker’s initiative—which has galvanized conservatives but ignited volcanic resistance from organized labor. The eventual Republican nominee may still consider that issue a winner in 2012. But regardless, he (or she) has already locked onto a position that will allow union leaders to present a GOP White House victory as a threat to the very existence of organized labor. That could electrify rank-and-file mobilization.
Something similar has already happened with Hispanics. Most of the major 2012 candidates have embraced Arizona’s tough anti-immigration law (except for Huckabee and Romney, who hedged). Again, the eventual nominee might consider that to be a winning issue next year. But if Republicans choose an Arizona-style hard-liner, Democrats will undoubtedly find it easier to portray the GOP ticket as hostile to a burgeoning Hispanic population.
