When moderate-to-liberal Republicans have gotten into trouble
with their liberal constituents, it has generally been because of
their support for more-conservative Republican presidents and
other national GOP leaders than because of their opposition to
Democratic presidents. When such Republicans alternate between
voting with a Democratic president and voting against him, it
actually bolsters their reputation for independence. Some of the
worst years for liberal Republicans have been 1974, 1982, and
2006 -- all years when Republican presidents were unpopular. The
moderate Republicans who went down in 1996 were attacked more for
their support of Newt Gingrich than their opposition to Bill
Clinton.
The only major exception to this trend has been the ladies from
Maine, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. They managed to prosper
in the 1990s despite Gingrich and they were reelected in 2006 and
2008, respectively, despite Bush. Maine still seems to be a place
where Rockefeller Republicanism is generally popular, as
evidenced by Snowe, Collins, William Cohen, and John McKernan.
What happened to liberal Republicans, who almost exclusively
represented districts in the North, is the same thing that
happened to conservative Democrats in the South in '94. The local
districts caught up with the voting patterns that had been
apparent at the national level for a while. Northerners started
voting Democrat at the local level as they had been at the
national level, and Southerners vice versa.
Bob| 1.8.10 @ 7:09AM
While I agree with your comments, the fact remains that the only
reason we don't have "Rockefeller Republicanism" today is that
those of us who are fiscal conservatives but social libertarians
have left the party. The party is smaller today than it has ever
been in modern history. If you don't think size matters in this
analysis......
Just started a similar discussion over at my blog entitle
appropriately enough, The Rockefeller
Republican. There may be a kind of evolution happening
whereby the traditional Rockefeller is turning into a
Live-Free-or-Die Republican a la Scott Brown.
Red Phillips| 1.7.10 @ 1:58PM
What happened to liberal Republicans, who almost exclusively represented districts in the North, is the same thing that happened to conservative Democrats in the South in '94. The local districts caught up with the voting patterns that had been apparent at the national level for a while. Northerners started voting Democrat at the local level as they had been at the national level, and Southerners vice versa.
Bob| 1.8.10 @ 7:09AM
While I agree with your comments, the fact remains that the only reason we don't have "Rockefeller Republicanism" today is that those of us who are fiscal conservatives but social libertarians have left the party. The party is smaller today than it has ever been in modern history. If you don't think size matters in this analysis......
Steve| 1.21.10 @ 6:20AM
Just started a similar discussion over at my blog entitle appropriately enough, The Rockefeller Republican. There may be a kind of evolution happening whereby the traditional Rockefeller is turning into a Live-Free-or-Die Republican a la Scott Brown.