Lessons from the SDP

As the GOP stares into the abyss, driven there by the Frankenstein monster it has created after 20 years of appealing to peoples' baser instincts, some have called for the setting up of another party, one that embodies "conservative principles" without the overt racism and infantile attacks, one that remains aligned with, and beholden to, the special interests that have sustained it for so long. History, is never a perfect predictor of the future, but the fate of the SDP in the in the late 70s and early 80s provides a cautionary tale.

The two main political parties in Britain at the turn of the 20th century were the Tories and the Liberals. With the rise of the more left-of-centre Labor party in 1900, the Liberals won their last election in 1922, shrinking to a small centrist third party by the mid 20th century.

After Labor's defeat to Margaret Thatcher in the 1979 election, four senior members of the Labor shadow cabinet broke away to form a new fourth party, the Social Democratic Party, which was intended to be to the right of an increasingly left-leaning Labor, but slightly to the left of the Liberals. The SDP effectively split the independent vote and struggled to gain any traction in the general elections of 1983 and 1987, and in 1988 merged with the Liberal Party to create the Liberal Democrats.

With Labor's fairly dramatic shift to the centre under Tony Blair's leadership, which brought Labor to power in 1997, the LibDems found themselves hung out to dry on the left of the political spectrum. A deal with the minority Tories in 2010 gave the LibDems access to the levers of power for the first time in almost a century but undermined their support from those in the SDP who felt that they were the last of the left of centre political parties.

The lesson, if there is one, is that breaking away from a well established political party is a risky decision and likely will end in failure. What it would leave in its wake is hard to predict, but it could amount to the "political revolution" others have predicted.

The Frankenstein Monster

The GOP is panicking. Mitt Romney was wheeled out lasts week to assail Trump, (a man whose money and endorsement he was only too happy to have 4 years ago). The irony is that they (or at least the establishment wing of the GOP) have been steadily sowing the seeds of their own destruction for at least the last 8 years. After stoking racist sentiment and mean spirited, xenophobic nationalism, Trump realized that by using the very memes the GOP had crated and pushing  them past when most people thought were acceptable limits, he could outflank them on the right - which he has done very deftly. While much of his rhetoric is utterly deplorable, one must acknowledge the sophistication of his strategy.

So what happens next? The pundits seem to favour a Trump nomination, though whether the establishment can put the genie they conjured up back in the bottle is up for debate. No one really know where Trump stands on the issues since as a businessman he donated to very politician he thought  me might need to further his business empire. He's been all over the map and the primary season is simple an stage for his reality publicity show. Strangely he often sounds a bit like Sarah Palin; but she wasn't acting. He could once he gets the nomination simply say "Look, this was all an act to get round the establishment gate-keepers, I'm actually a reasonable centrist".

If as now seems likely, Hilary wins for the Dems, she would then have a fight on her hands. They've been BFFs so she can't disown him; that means she's fighting on the high ground which, in the new Trumpian alternate universe, is a disadvantage. Trump can shift positions and attack her from any angle and she can't respond in kind (one only has to look at Rubio's futile attempt to see how well that will work). Does Trump need a centrist running mate?  Probably not, but I suspect Christie is angling for that job, and Trump might seem him as simpatico.      

Another possibility is that the GOP manages to put the genie back in the bottle. The most likely nominee would probably be Ted Cruz. Then the race looks fairly "traditional" two establishment nominees (though its interesting that one is now thinking of Rubio and Cruz as establishment when 6 years ago they were the Tea Party home-wreckers). we will then have the traditional mundane mud-slinging and all that will probably matter is party allegiance and turnout. Hilary, with a better ground game, will probably win.   

Who she picks as her running mate ill matter. Assuming Bernie either isn't offered the job or turns it down, a good choice would be Liz Warren, who would bring Bernie supporters and hopefully keep Hilary from backsliding on the things she said after Bernie entered the race. Should she pick another establishment Democrat, she may well lose to Trump and might lose to Cruz and Rubio. It's going to be an interesting 9 months.

...on Super Tuesday

Cruz and Rubio are in a bit of a bind; if one drops out the other might get the nomination; but if neither do, Trump will. I don't expect either to back down. Christie looks like he's grinning and bearing it in order to be Trump's running mate, get to be Veep and then run again in 8 years if Trump is elected, or 4 if he isn't.

On the other side, Hilary looks set to get the nomination. But it may be a pyrrhic victory. Bernie's army might just pack up and go home (it's predominantly young) and not come out to vote in November. Worse still, some may even defect (in common with many of Trump's supporters, they are thoroughly fed up with the Washington establishment). That might just cost her the White House.

Batten down the hatches; the next 5 years may be highly unpredictable.