I am rapidly becoming a big fan of Megan McCardle's McArdle's blog. I don't always agree with what I read, but it's always well-written and extremely thought-provoking.
This post from late last week really captured my imagination. Guest poster Jon Henke listed four factions within the Republican Party -- Progressive Republicans, Goldwater Republicans, Bush Republicans, and Status Quo Republicans -- and wondered aloud which would be alpha in the years ahead.
I have some quibbles with the four factions Henke listed. Bush and Status Quo Rs are basically the same group. I'm also sure a few others could be added.
But that's largely beside the point. The only thing these four groups really seem to have in common is that they all use the name "Republican." Other than than, the only real reason they have to work together is that they are opposed what each sees as comming from the Democratic Party.
I suspect we could do a Henke-like analysis on the Democrats and find at least four analogous factions.
your friendly typo spotter at your service...
I'm "a big fan of Megan McCardle's blog" too, except I spell her surname "McArdle";-)
Republicans
The Rs are a mixture of several groups who hate each others' guts, but know that they must work together if they are to achieve their own agenda:
- Texas Taliban (abortion, homershecksuals, evolution)
- NeoCons (perpetual war against the wog)
- Funding Wing (the folks on the hill: cut top marginal rates; tug your forelock)
- Maistriennes (civilization of the hangman. Miracle, mystery, authority.)
The D's, in contrast, are a group of disparate interests who generally respect the other. The main split is over immigration/free trade. It's a real divide, but they still respect each other.
Republicans
The Republicans actually have that big tent the Democrats used to brag about. It's a fractious scne funder the canvas, but that's diversity for you.
Post new comment