I’ve pretty well abdicated my normal blogging activity for the Indiana Bicentennial history posts. So, it’s probably not surprising today’s news about Kasich and Cruz put me in mind of Indiana’s political history — mainly that we’ve fallen long and hard. Kasich is basically trading Indiana to Cruz in return for Oregon and New Mexico. He’s suspending his campaign in Indiana and urging his supporters to vote for Cruz while Cruz is apparently doing the same in New Mexico and Oregon. The notion that Cruz would have any appeal at all to your average Kasich supporter is a little tough to buy. Additionally, this reminds me of one of those “Survivor” strategic moves attempted by players who are: a) in a weak position; and b) think they’re smarter than they are. If electoral politics has completely transformed into a reality show, you have to like Trump’s odds.
In any event, the fact that Indiana can be casually traded like a late round draft pick was jarring to me after having spent some time this weekend reading about Indiana’s role in the political campaigns of the 1880s. It was a hotly contested state that Democrat Grover Cleveland won in 1884 with former Indiana governor, Thomas Hendricks as his running mate and that Republican, Benjamin Harrison won in 1888. The state was very evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats and, apparently, wildly corrupt in its voting.
Intensely polarized and almost perfectly balanced in partisan strength, “venal Indiana” was notorious during this period for bitterly contested, frequently corrupt elections with miniscule margins between victory and defeat, margins often secured with the votes of nonresident or irregular floaters at two to five dollars each. In a perceptive and persuasive study of the Dudley scandal, historian James L. Baumgardner has argued that aggressive but surreptitious pursuit of the floater vote, while simultaneously accusing the opposition of similar conduct, was standard practice for both parties in Gilded Age Indiana.
The state became important after Reconstruction ended and the white Democrats in the South took firm control of the section. In the wake of the Civil War, northern states tended to be Republican. However, Indiana has long been “the middle finger of the South thrust up into the North.” So, it was winnable and important.
Today’s announcement shows that we no longer have that kind of clout.
On the contrary, I’d say that Indiana just became critically important to Trump.
If Trump wins Indiana after this “alliance” it’ll be a much larger blow to the Cruz’s campaign and to his chances of contesting the convention in Cleveland than if he lost and could blame Kasich for stealing votes.
I disagree. This is all part of our march to equal Mississippi. It’s a grand plan.
Jay has a good point, though. It wouldn’t be the first time that political machinations have blown up. Trump could still win this thing.
And, Doug, I also have trouble with the idea of voters running to Cruz in place of Kasich. Now, Kasich is no great progressive either, but at least he doesn’t engage in too much crazy talk. On the other hand, I also have trouble imagining Kasich supporters running to Cruz. I remember one comedian, in recommending Cruz, washing his mouth out with “bleach” after his announcement.
I am greatly troubled by the idea that the best thing I can do for the Republican Party is vote for a man whose own co-workers want dead. Because, obviously, they’ll fix this mess at the convention?
I am coming around to the idea that perhaps letting the GOP run itself all the way into the ground is the best course of action.
Sometimes I’m inclined to agree with you Joe, but this is not a business that will run out of buyers. A whole bunch of folks are out there looking to belong to something and call it theirs. Another group will rise from those ashes and call themselves “Republicans”. I would like to think that the great number of sensible moderates who have thus far remained hidden will form a new, visionary and positive group, but I just don’t believe it. Where were they in the Republican primary race? It could be that the noisy hard right will assert itself and form a party that most resembles fascism, and we end up with three parties: fascist, moderate and Democrat. For sure, 1/3 of the group tends to be authoritarian right wing people who would be dangerous to the republic. I would be very interested in seeing some projections about where all this is going.
Stuart, I do not believe that American government could function well with a meaningful third party, unless that party caucused with one of the current two main parties. It might work with four, but that is for a different post.
First, the rules of the House and Senate are written for a two-party system. Can you imagine the chaos if the next House or Senate consisted of three parties, none with a clear majority? How would rules be agreed upon in this tripartite tug-of-war? With enough intransigence, a quorum might not even be reachable in the House or Senate.
My best recollection is that the founders, or at least Madison, did not foresee a government dominated by two political parties. But when you look at the division of power mechanisms inherent in the constitution (lower house, upper house, population-based representation in the House, state equalized representation in the Senate, super-majority requirements for certain matters, the House and Senate rules built in response to shifting majority governments, the veto, and committee structure and leadership) you see a system that seems to require few, or more likely two, major parties.
And when you factor in elections every two years for all of the House and a 1/3 of the Senate, the potential is there for substantial turnover every election. A potentially very unstable system like those weak parlimentary systems that hold elections everytime a jerry rigged coalition breaks apart. But the party system is a good mechanism to promote predictability and incumbency against this unpredictibility and instability. Partisanship is still aided by the parties, but to a lesser extent now that even some house races cost in the millions. But those parties still wield tremendous electoral power. Money, earmarks, promises of committee appointments.
I personally believe that the founders, in their well understood efforts to prevent a monarchy from ever taking root in the colonies, left us with a system of governance than can no longer function. When one of the two parties forgets that it is the loyal opposition and not a government in exile, the Rebe Goidberg contraption breaks down.
And as Staff Sargent Barnes said in the Vietnam war class “Platoon,” “when the machine breaks down, we break down.”
The way I see it is Republicans are reaping what they have sown.
And it could not be happening to a more deserving group.
Really. What is it Republicans are even running on? Trying to resurrect the battle they lost 40 years ago (abortion) and 3 years ago (equal rights to all even those who prefer a same sex spouse)?
And ObamaCare. That they have failed to produce any alternative after promising one 6 years ago.
Good riddance to bad rubbish. Maybe Indiana can finally join the rest of the modern world and rid ourselves of the bigotry, racism, and not giving a fuck about our fellow man that Republicans won’t let die.