Op-Ed: The allure of the Republican Party is baffling. Voters will regret falling for it (and for having been seduced by it) because it is so unelectable.
The other day, the New York Times asked voters to vote for a new Republican running mate in the 2016 election. By the Times’ estimation, that person should be a billionaire, and preferably an Ivy League-educated one.
As I wrote in an earlier piece, these kinds of people are rare in contemporary politics. The party has become a breeding ground for those who’ve taken a different path from the one on which most of their forebears arrived. But what does this mean for the party? Will it continue to be a safe seat for the same people who have come to dominate it? The Times article seems to be asking the wrong question.
We’ve witnessed this phenomenon in recent months. Some prominent Democrats have been talking about “new” candidates for the 2016 election, like Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia and Representative Xavier Becerra of California. Both Kaine and Becerra are former Democratic politicians (Kaine, a former Governor, and Becerra a former Representative), but in recent years, they’ve changed course, and are now Republicans. Now they’re on both sides of the aisle, but both of them are Republicans for whom it is almost impossible to imagine getting elected in the near future. Both men would be better candidates for Democrats to run against Hillary Clinton than for Republicans, however.
Why? Because they’re wealthy, Ivy League-trained and white. Not exactly party material.
The other day I took some time from my research on the future of the Republican Party to reflect on recent developments in the Democratic Party.
It’s easy to confuse the two parties. They’re not really distinct. They share the same ideological core — at least most of