Death of the Rockefeller Republicans?

The Boston Globe prints an interesting article this morning about the disappearance of Republicanism from New England, pointing to the embattled Christopher Shays of CT as the political equivalent of the passenger pigeon. The fact that the Republicans are becoming regionalized is hardly a startling new fact. The flip of the "Solid South" began in the 1960s (just as LBJ predicted).

But what has always bothered me about these complaints is that calling these people "Rockefeller Republicans" is like saying John McCain has Whiggish tendencies -- the arcane reference to Rocky, who died thirty years ago, doesn't resonate outside university lecture halls and plucks the late New York governor and those like him entirely out of their mid-twentieth century context. You might as well say Dewey Republicanism is also dead, along with Eisenhower Republicanism, and Stassen Republicanism. Most Americans will say, "who?"

In addition, bemoaning the loss of a certain type of Republican avoids the obvious question (which the Globe barely touches), what made these people Republican? Here is what the paper says:

The "Rockefellers" are generally known for being tight-fisted with the public's money, for strong environmental policies, and for holding liberal views on social issues. They generally favor abortion rights and keeping religion out of politics, two points of disagreement with the GOPs religious right.

Outside being "tight-fisted" with money, how are these people any different from Democrats? Voters in a booth like choices. When they see parties that both have "strong environmental policies" (whatever that means), are liberal on social issues like abortion and gay marriage, and exhibit a general discomfort with any whiff of religion in politics, the party system collapses. If there is no difference between a Democrat and Republican candidate, outside slogans and personality, one party will fold and a new one emerge that offers voters real choices. Just ask the Federalists in 1820, or the Whigs in 1856. Put another way, Rockefeller Republicanism died because it began to mirror the emerging liberal Democratic Party of the 1960s and 1970s that preferred George McGovern to Scoop Jackson. Stinginess with tax revenue wasn't enough.

So what kind of Republicanism will play in Blue America? I think the question is wrong. We should be asking, what kind of conservatism will play in Blue America? For too long "conservative" has equaled the Chamber of Commerce, strip malls, McMansions, and a host of libertarian policies that prefer economic growth to the preservation of families, communities, and all the "little platoons" of our lives. "Damn the torpedoes" economic growth conserves nothing. If Republicans want to begin winning bicoastal votes, stop telling people all their problems will be solved if the Capital Gains tax is 15% and start proposing policies meant to foster a humane society -- a politics, economy, and society of human scale. Democrats don't offer this. Republicans can.

That should be the task of the next two years, after Tuesday's gnashing of teeth.