GOP’s desperate money craze: The real reason Kevin McCarthy is moving up
Forget about ideological purity. Republicans want a leader who can raise lots of dough and spread it around
Forget about ideological purity. Republicans want a leader who can raise lots of dough and spread it around
It’s interesting that in the midst of an alleged populist uprising that destroyed the career of a GOP leader perceived by the voters as being an establishment man too close to the Big Money boys, the Beltway has coalesced around the idea that the ascension of his successor as an alleged “amnesty” supporter shows that the establishment is pushing ahead toward reform. Indeed, quite a few commentators take this as a sign that the grass roots don’t really care about “amnesty” either, despite the energetic push from talk radio (not to mention the internal polling that obviously spooked Cantor into sending out mailings that made him sound like one of those people who wants to put a moat filled with alligators around the border). And for all we know, this may be true. There are a lot of reasons why Eric Cantor was sacked by his constituents and perhaps his temporary and tepid support for some accommodation to young immigrants was the least of it.
But any idea that the consequence of Cantor’s defeat would be a new leadership decided on the basis of ideology misunderstands what drives the choice of partisan leaders. Whenever a powerful member of the party leadership retires or goes down to defeat, the rest of the members lose a very important resource: money. And lots of it. The way these people ascend in partisan politics isn’t through their “beliefs” or any kind of ideological purity, it’s through their ability to raise money from big donors and industry and their strategic sense of how best to spread it around. Cantor may have been a jerk — everyone says so. But he was the majority leader because he had bought partisan loyalty over the years from being in bed with big money and judiciously spreading it around. The Tea Party might think Kevin McCarthy is a squish on immigration but everybody in the GOP caucus knows that their own futures rest on made men like him.
But it isn’t just money. It’s also organization. As Robert Costa reported last Friday, McCarthy had it in spades. Not that he built it himself, mind you. He inherited the chief of staff of the most ruthlessly effective House majority leader in GOP history:
But any idea that the consequence of Cantor’s defeat would be a new leadership decided on the basis of ideology misunderstands what drives the choice of partisan leaders. Whenever a powerful member of the party leadership retires or goes down to defeat, the rest of the members lose a very important resource: money. And lots of it. The way these people ascend in partisan politics isn’t through their “beliefs” or any kind of ideological purity, it’s through their ability to raise money from big donors and industry and their strategic sense of how best to spread it around. Cantor may have been a jerk — everyone says so. But he was the majority leader because he had bought partisan loyalty over the years from being in bed with big money and judiciously spreading it around. The Tea Party might think Kevin McCarthy is a squish on immigration but everybody in the GOP caucus knows that their own futures rest on made men like him.
But it isn’t just money. It’s also organization. As Robert Costa reported last Friday, McCarthy had it in spades. Not that he built it himself, mind you. He inherited the chief of staff of the most ruthlessly effective House majority leader in GOP history:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.