The defining characteristic of modern American politics is the growing conservatism, even radicalisation, of the Republican party. Beginning in 2009 with the birth of the Tea Party movement, a party that was already fairly conservative began moving to an even more isolated spot on the American political spectrum. The result was, and is, an unprecedented period of legislative obstructionism, pronounced political polarisation and a party that is more ideologically conservative than perhaps at any point in history.
It's a process unlikely to be reversed in the near future. The party's rightward tilt is going to get worse before it gets better and the polarisation of American politics and the extremism of the Republican party looks increasingly like the rule, rather than the exception.
To explain why, move past the presidential election for a moment. Start in Texas where, in a Republican primary, Tea Party darling Ted Cruz defeated the state's Republican lieutenant governor, David Dewhurst. Cruz's victory was not necessarily the result of him being more conservative than his opponent. In fact, one would be hard pressed to find many policy differences between them. But Dewhurst was seen as a fixture of the Republican establishment while Cruz was viewed as a member of the party's insurgent, anti-establishment wing, vehemently opposed to any compromise of core values.
Next we go to Kansas, where in Tuesday's Republican primaries for the state Senate, conservative candidates, pushed by the state's Republican governor, Sam Brownback, and backed by dollars from the infamous Koch brothers, trounced all but one of the body's remaining moderate Republicans. Then Missouri, where congressman Todd Akin, another conservative darling, won a Republican Senate primary versus two more moderate contenders. Now a grain of salt is necessary here. In several of these races, Republican "establishment" candidates were beaten for reasons other than just ideology. None the less, it's simply impossible to ignore the unmistakable signs of ideological transformation in the party. Outside money, from anti-tax and anti-government zealots such as the Koch brothers' Americans for Prosperity, the Tea Party Express and Club for Growth as well as from social conservative groups such as Ralph Reed's Faith and Freedom Coalition, was a decisive factor – and not simply in advertising dollars, but also in improving conservative turnout. So too was the support of Tea Party favourites such as former Alaska governor and 2008 vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin and South Carolina senator Jim DeMint.
The larger message from these political events is hard to ignore. If you are a Republican officeholder, what is the incentive to risk crossing the Tea Party or the Koch brothers? Is there any reason to consider political compromise or conciliation with Democrats, knowing that to do so means tempting a Tea Party challenge and millions of dollars in out-of-state cash being used to end your political career? The smart move for Republicans, indeed the only move, is to stay on the "right" side of the political fence. While this lesson has been hammered into the heads of Republican politicians over the last two election cycles, it is also evident on the presidential level. When Mitt Romney first ran for elected office in Massachusetts in 1994, he cast himself as a relatively centrist, technocratic businessman. He took more moderate positions on divisive social issues such as abortion and in a year in which Republicans had the political momentum at their back assiduously avoided being linked to Newt Gingrich and the national party.
When he ran for governor of Massachusetts in 2002, he strayed only marginally from those positions, continuing to stress his pro-choice bona fides and even adopted a position on gun control that ran counter to the powerful National Rifle Association. As late as 2008, when he first ran for president, Romney was prone to tout his one major domestic policy initiative – healthcare reform.
Those were the days. As the Republicans have moved consistently further to the right Romney has followed the crowd, adopting increasingly strident political positions. This was true throughout the Republican primary season as Romney, facing off against a motley collection of Tea Party-approved also-rans, was forced to take stances on immigration, government spending, taxes, abortion and a host of other issues favoured by the party's most conservative members but that left him vulnerable to Democratic counterattack.
Illegal immigration is perhaps the best example. It's an issue that is a veritable cri de coeur for the Tea Party and Romney embraced their views to the point where he attacked unpopular Texan governor Rick Perry for insufficient rigour in cutting social services for illegal immigrants in the state. It gave Romney a boost in the Republican primaries but also provides a hint as to why he is losing Hispanic voters to Obama by a 2-1 margin.
But the romancing of the Tea Party continues. Just last week, the Romney campaign ran two controversial ads, one attacking Obama on welfare benefits, the other accusing the president of declaring a war on religion, because of his backing of a provision of the healthcare law that forces businesses to provides contraceptive services to their employees. Both ads are basically made-up attacks; lies for lack of a better word. But the mendacity of the Romney campaign is by now well chronicled.
What's more interesting is the target for them: conservative voters who recoil at the thought of welfare cheats absconding with their taxpayer dollars and religious voters convinced by years of Republican rhetoric that their faith is under assault. Just as Republicans in the Senate have reason to be fearful of the wrath of the Tea Party, so does Romney. Just three weeks before his convention, he is in the uncomfortable position of reassuring the right about his conservative bona fides.
With confirmation that Romney has selected a conservative favourite, Wisconsin congressman Paul Ryan, to be his running mate the capturing of Romney by the far right is complete. While Ryan is popular on the right, he is the author of the so-called Ryan budget, a House of Representatives-passed bill that would eviscerate the social safety net and end the federal senior health programme, Medicare. His selection allows the Obama campaign to attack Romney even more directly over the most unpopular elements of the Ryan budget (which the candidate has already foolishly endorsed). It is a disastrous pick, but is emblematic of the extent to which Romney's hands have been tied by the Tea Party. Pacifying them is as important as reaching out to less conservative voters. Rather than leading the GOP, Romney is simply following the herd.
But why should he be any different from the rest of the Republican party? In just four short years, any ideological variance has been washed almost completely out of the party. Republican moderates are something one reads about in history books rather than sees with one's own eyes.
The Tea Party has become the Republican party. And if Romney should win in November his moderate political instincts (if they haven't been completely eroded by years of pandering to the right) will be no match for the sound and fury of Congressional Republicans who will demand fealty to their agenda. If that happens, Americans can say goodbye to large chunks of the social welfare state they often deride in the abstract but love in its specifics, such as Medicare, federal education funding, environmental and workplace regulation.
If Romney loses in November, which increasingly appears likely, don't expect soul-searching within the Republican party. Instead, conservatives will likely convince themselves their mistake was failing to nominate a true rightwinger rather than Romney's brand of wannabe conservatism. As for Congress, the primary wins for Cruz, Akin, Richard Mourdock – even if they lose in November – will mean that a body full of Republican politicians will toe the new party line. There will be zero political incentive to compromise with Obama and risk a challenge from the right. Ongoing challenges from a crumbling infrastructure – under-performing schools, growing environmental challenges and, above all, chronically high unemployment and an inadequate economic recovery – will likely see precious little attention from Washington.
In short, the polarisation and dysfunction that have wrecked American politics over the past three and a half years will almost certainly continue. Through a combination of fear and intimidation, the far right of the Republican Party is today enforcing ideological rigidness in its purest and most uncompromising form, where even the slightest variation from the norm is reason for expulsion and exclusion. In the process, it is holding the US government hostage to its ideological whims. Welcome to the new normal in American politics.