Many Men, Many Supporters, United in Anger

By John W. Patty

The GOP presidential field is simply stunning in its breadth and the concomitant prevalence of delusion among many candidates and their supporters.  There are 15 declared and qualified candidates, plus Donald Trump.  The question at hand in this race, for many, is what does this lead to? How will it sort out? Who will win the nomination?

The more important, and I think easier, question is, "What is this breadth all about?"  Partly this is because the GOP is not facing particularly awesome prospects for 2016.  The demographics are still breaking against the Republicans, and Hillary is currently the odds-on favorite. Banks and Kiewiet (1989) provide a very good theory for why candidates challenge strong opponents, but this theory predicts that weak candidates will do so.  Scott Walker and Jeb Bush are not weak candidates (which is why they are the leading qualified candidates).

I think the breadth is about the inchoate nature of the GOP coalition.  The simple version of the story is the now well understood divide between the Tea Party and the "establishment" Republicans. But that gets you to only 2, maybe 3, qualified contenders.

We have 15 qualified contenders.

The reason for this, as I see it, is that there are a number of tangible objets de la colère (objects of anger) for the GOP base.  Obama, Obamacare, Immigrants, Unions, Gay Marriage, Budget Deficits, just to name a few.  These are all very different now in a way that wasn't always true.  For example, Obama is not really an issue---thanks to the 22nd Amendment.  But man, he still raises Republican voters' pique. Obamacare, well---it's obviously still an issue, but the Supreme Court has dodged two opportunities to overturn it, putting the onus definitively on the GOP to do the heavy lifting, by which I mean beating something with something rather than with nothing.  Scott Walker has fought unions. ...

I won't continue on a granular level: the point is that the broad and deep slate of GOP candidates reifies the constellation of discord and discontent within part of the GOP's base.  To be clear, this type of mutli-faceted cleavage is not unusual in "the opposition"---when a party has been in the wilderness for a sustained period, it is frequently the case that none of the various factions has a sustained and acclaimed position of primacy.  

...But what is unusual is that the GOP has not been in the wilderness.  This is the United States, which is based on both separation of powers and federalism---and the GOP has controlled at least one chamber Congress for 6 years and currently controls almost 70% of state legislatures.  

The problem for the GOP is that there are so many policies and other issues that are induisant la colère (anger inducing) to their natural electoral base.  Simply put, the GOP seems like a party that, at the base, is mad.  Speaker Boehner has dealt with this anger for six years.  The Republican National Committee (RNC) is now having to deal with it in the guise of a high-profile unqualified "candidate."

What to make of this?  As demonstrated by the craziness of the unqualified GOP candidate's current media frenzy, it is completely reasonable to suppose that the establishment Republicans opened Pandora's box by so clearly, stridently, and unthinkingly aimed at opposing all things coming from the other side of the aisle (arguably, the best recent example of such a stance came from then-Minority Leader and now-Majority Leader Mitch McConnell).

Succoring anger solicits serious squabbles.

What does political science say about this?  I think it's easy: the GOP as a "national party" focused very narrowly/short-term for the past 6 or so years, and the currently broad, voluble, and volatile field is the price they pay for what probably seemed like a worthwhile bet to block/repeal the Affordable Care Act.  That bet didn't pay off, but it's still coming due, and will be paid over the next 3-12 months.