I dont' want to put words in Ian's mouth, but I believe what he is saying is that the GOP as a party is adopting more conservative positions over time, i.e. that conservatives, while not necessarily increasing in numbers, are increasing in influence within the party. There is some good evidence to support his contention IF you believe that the party platform has any real meaning. Conservatives clearly dominate the platform comittee within the GOP the same way that liberals do in the Democratic party. The significance of this is questionable, however, as platforms tend to be honored more in the breach than anything else. It is very difficult to find a liberal wing in the GOP anymore (these used to be called "Rockefeller Republicans"), the same way that conservative democrats have pretty much disappeared. There are a few of each still around (Christine Todd Whitman on the GOP side, and Charles Stenholm (sp?) on the Democratic side), but by and large, they are few and far between.
Now, does this mean that the parties are truly moving to the fringe, or staying in the center? I would suggest that the evidence provides some mixed answers. Clearly at the national level, there seems to be a general drift to the center, as more and more areas of policy seem to move by inertia. An excellent example of this is abortion, where despite the election of a conservative president with strong personal feelings about abortion (feelings tht I do NOT share, by the way), the only significant change in abortion policy at the federal level has been the 'partial-birth' abortion ban (note that this ban had very large majorities in both houses of congress BEFORE Bush came to office, but died after being vetoed by Clinton), and the so-called 'gag-rule' on public funding for medical advice. Hyperventialating by both sides notwithstanding (and I am NOT trying to argue the merits of these policies), these are astonishingly marginal and limited changes, given the fact that the GOP has majorities in both houses, the presidency, and friendly courts. In an similar vein, most of Clinton's presidency (post-Hillarycare) was reasonably moderate, with no truly 'lefty' proposals surfacing.
I know...too much detail...sorry, we ex-wonks don't give it up easily...smile...
Now, does this mean that the parties are truly moving to the fringe, or staying in the center? I would suggest that the evidence provides some mixed answers. Clearly at the national level, there seems to be a general drift to the center, as more and more areas of policy seem to move by inertia. An excellent example of this is abortion, where despite the election of a conservative president with strong personal feelings about abortion (feelings tht I do NOT share, by the way), the only significant change in abortion policy at the federal level has been the 'partial-birth' abortion ban (note that this ban had very large majorities in both houses of congress BEFORE Bush came to office, but died after being vetoed by Clinton), and the so-called 'gag-rule' on public funding for medical advice. Hyperventialating by both sides notwithstanding (and I am NOT trying to argue the merits of these policies), these are astonishingly marginal and limited changes, given the fact that the GOP has majorities in both houses, the presidency, and friendly courts. In an similar vein, most of Clinton's presidency (post-Hillarycare) was reasonably moderate, with no truly 'lefty' proposals surfacing.
I know...too much detail...sorry, we ex-wonks don't give it up easily...smile...