'Business Groups See Loss of Sway Over House G.O.P.'

[Popular Front of Judea]

I would be enjoying this brawl in the "executive committee of the bourgeoisie" much more if I and those I care about weren't potential collateral damage.

As the government shutdown grinds toward a potential debt default, some of the country’s most influential business executives have come to a conclusion all but unthinkable a few years ago: Their voices are carrying little weight with the House majority that their millions of dollars in campaign contributions helped build and sustain.

Their frustration has grown so intense in recent days that several trade association officials warned in interviews on Wednesday that they were considering helping wage primary campaigns against Republican lawmakers who had worked to engineer the political standoff in Washington.

Such an effort would thrust Washington’s traditionally cautious and pragmatic business lobby into open warfare with the Tea Party faction, which has grown in influence since the 2010 election and won a series of skirmishes with the Republican establishment in the last two years.

“We are looking at ways to counter the rise of an ideological brand of conservatism that, for lack of a better word, is more anti-establishment than it has been in the past,” said David French, the top lobbyist at the National Retail Federation. “We have come to the conclusion that sitting on the sidelines is not good enough.”

Some warned that a default could spur a shift in the relationship between the corporate world and the Republican Party. Long intertwined by mutual self-interest on deregulation and lower taxes, the business lobby and Republicans are diverging not only over the fiscal crisis, but on other major issues like immigration reform, which was favored by business groups and party leaders but stymied in the House by many of the same lawmakers now leading the debt fight.

Business Groups See Loss of Sway Over House G.O.P. | New York Times

[piet11111]

Aha so they are afraid that the republicans are becoming so rabidly against government that they are undermining the traditional tools of capitalist rule.

[Jimmie Higgins]

This is an interesting question and there's been a lot of talk about the Republicans "commiting suicide" or "imploding" at various points since the last National election. I feel like I have a better grip at understanding the Democrats and their role (and what they see their role as and how they sell their role to their bases) than I do with the Republicans, so I'd love to hear some ideas about this.

To take a stab: I don't think the Republicans are anti-government at all - even in a meaningful right-libertarian sense. But their electoral coalition has been built by uniting right-wing social issues with pro-business economic ones and the "base" of the Republicans have been causing them problems, first with the religious-right and now with the tea-party. Republican policies tend not to be generally popular, but they also have to mobilize a "rabid" base to get elected. This puts them in a strange position in National elections where their nominee runs a primary for the far-right and then has to drastically moderate in the general election (until it looks like maybe they'll loose and then they will sometimes make a last-ditch effort to whip-up their own bases even if it means sacrificing some "swing" voters). So my guess is that the last decade(s) of gerry-rigging and creating congressional districts which vote overwhelmingly one way or the other creates a sort of ideological inbreeding. But because their base (unlike the demoralized and accomodating social-democratic base and even outright liberal base of Democratic party voters) has expectations and feels (ironically) politically "entitled" to get their way all the time, they aren't happy with just rehtoric and will actually turn against Republicans asking for "moderation". US mainstream Republican rehtoric has been "THEY'RE destroying America, THEY'RE a threat" for decades whereas Democratic rehtoric to their own base has been at the same time: "We have to meet them half-way, we have to be realistic, we have to make some sacrifices". So even though both parties have the same agenda, how they relate to their electoral bases is different and I think that probably explains why the far-right would challenge Republicans talking about "compromise" whereas Democratic voters exepct compromises and just sigh and throw their hands up - or even apologize - when the people they voted for do the opposite of what they expected.

I don't know - maybe there is something deeper going on and this is all superficial. But I also think that within capitalism things aren't always as clear as what's in the ruling class's interest: sometimes things have a limited sort of beurocratic (or in this case, Party) logic of their own that will put them out of step with the demands of the system.

On the bigger picture I also feel like another possibility is that the Republican party might be happy to not win national elections if they can just play a sort of loyal opposition that keeps austerity and neoliberalism going.

[Sasha]

i think the article in this thread made a lot of sense: http://www.revleft.com/vb/tea-party-...790/index.html
the tea-party side of the repubs is basically an new form of the secessionist movement, and thanks to their highly successful gerrymandering of house districts these house reps have escaped any and all effective control from the national party. the monster is eating its creators.

[Catma]

Then there's this Rolling Stone article which outlines the finances. Thanks to citizens united, there's little point getting money from the RNC when you can get much more from independent donors. Then you owe nothing to the party...

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...chine-20131009

[Popular Front of Judea]

Then there's this Rolling Stone article which outlines the finances. Thanks to citizens united, there's little point getting money from the RNC when you can get much more from independent donors. Then you owe nothing to the party...

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...chine-20131009

Yeah the current Rolling Stone has a pair of great, multi-page articles. You know times are getting crazy when Rolling Stone resembles the New Yorker.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...story-20131010