That’s what Dave Weigel asks at end of an article explaining why he thinks teatardism is good for the GOP. One answer is pretty obvious: when that active, powerful base consists entirely of people from a shrinking demographic and blocks efforts to reach out to other demographic groups. BurlingtonGate and the Arizona law make it clear that the Tea Party will make it damned near impossible for the Republican party to get on the smart side of the inclusion/exclusion debate on immigration and other related issues. And that’s probably the whole ballgame, in the big picture, for the next 30 years. You’re not going to win national elections getting less than a third of the Latino vote. I just don’t see how you can do it.
Teatardism may help this fall, it motivates the base, and, even if the candidates are nuts, they at least adhere to the Derek Sanderson “Hit, fight, do something” philosophy of hockey/politics, which, as any former Eric Massa volunteer can tell you, is at least half the battle in House races (in Senate races, teh crazy is more problematic). But having Republican Congressmen and Senators ranting about anchor babies and the amero for the next 20 years isn’t something that’s good for the GOP.
I don’t know why smart people like Dave Weigel ignore the GOP’s obvious demographic challenges and the ways in which teatardism exacerbates them long-term.
When is an active and powerful base bad for a political party?Post + Comments (143)