Krugman explains the Cantor defeat

Paul Krugman, writing for the New York Times, examined the larger meaning and consequences of the landslide defeat of Eric Cantor in Virginia.   He says that it is really the repudiation of "movement conservatism," a term that refers to the historic conservative movement that "won elections by stoking cultural and racial anxiety but used these victories mainly to push an elitist economic agenda, meanwhile providing a support network for political and ideological loyalists."

Krugman explains that "By rejecting Mr. Cantor, the Republican base showed that it has gotten wise to the electoral bait and switch, and, by his fall, Mr. Cantor showed that the support network can no longer guarantee job security. For around three decades, the conservative fix was in; but no more."

In other words, they won elections "by posing as the defenders of national security and social values;"  but once elected they pivoted to serving the interests of corporations and the 1 percent. . . .  In return for this service, businesses and the wealthy provided both lavish financial support for right-minded (in both senses) politicians and a safety net . . . for loyalists. In particular, there were always comfortable berths waiting for those who left office, voluntarily or otherwise. There were lobbying jobs; there were commentator spots at Fox News . . . ; there were “research” positions [at conservative think tanks].

Eric Cantor had become the epitome of that.   He posed as the Tea Party puppet, but he acted like one of the establishment Washington insiders with higher ambitions.   The base didn't like him and didn't trust him to be for them, as opposed to corporate interests.  And specifically they didn't trust him on immigration.  They thought, perhaps rightly, that he intended to rush through an immigration bill as soon as the election was over -- trying to have it both ways.   The people saw through that -- both the Tea Party stalwarts and others as well.

Krugman concludes:

So whither movement conservatism? Before the Virginia upset, there was a widespread media narrative to the effect that the Republican establishment was regaining control from the Tea Party, which was really a claim that good old-fashioned movement conservatism was on its way back.

In reality, however, establishment figures who won primaries did so only by reinventing themselves as extremists. And Mr. Cantor’s defeat shows that lip service to extremism isn’t enough; the base needs to believe that you really mean it.

In the long run — which probably begins in 2016 — this will be bad news for the G.O.P., because the party is moving right on social issues at a time when the country at large is moving left. (Think about how quickly the ground has shifted on gay marriage.) Meanwhile, however, what we’re looking at is a party that will be even more extreme, even less interested in participating in normal governance, than it has been since 2008. An ugly political scene is about to get even uglier.

This seems right on target, and it does not bode well for the re-emergence of a reasonable opposition party.   Perhaps eventually they will split.   Could we exist and function with a genuine three party system?    Perhaps if the Republican Party is taken over by the radicals and the moderate/rational Republicans join with the Independents to form a real party?

Ralph