Divide and conquer

In today's New York Times, Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, whistling past the Democratic graveyard that will be tomorrow's election results in his state, finds a glimmer of hope: The "divide between moderate Republicans" and the party's conservatives "is going to be around for a while." Yes it is. But is that a bad thing for Republicans? The moderate-conservative divide in the GOP was never more evident than in 1976-1980. Ronald Reagan challenged President Gerald Ford for the nomination in 1976, conservatives knocked of Republicans in Senate primaries in 1978 in New Jersey and in 1980 in New York, and there were bitter fights on economic policy (supply-siders vs. traditionalists), social policy (pro-life/pro-choice), and foreign policy (Reaganites vs. Kissingerians). It all turned out okay in 1980 with Reagan's victory and the GOP capture of the Senate. Now, obviously, there are times when divisions in parties can be damaging. But what's happening in the GOP right now looks to me more like healthy turmoil than destructive recklessness, more like vigorous competition than bitter fratricide. It could get out of hand. But for now, the ideas are more Reaganite than Buchananite, and the spirit more problem-solving populism than demonizing demagoguery. So interested observers should consider the possibility -- in light of tomorrow's likely election results -- that the populist energy and political debate newly evident in the GOP are signs of strength, not decline. After all, in history, internal divisions and external vigor often go together, whether in the case of religions or nation-states or political parties. And the longer Democratic pols and liberal pundits seek faux reassurance in GOP splits rather than re-thinking nanny state liberalism, the better things will continue to get for conservatives and Republicans.