WHEN CAMELS, DIXIECRATS AND ROCKEFELLER REPUBLICANS GOT COZY IN THE DEMOCRATIC TENT
"A man seeks shelter from a sandstorm in his tent but leaves his camel outside. The camel asks permission to put his nose in the tent, and the man gives it. The camel then progressively asks permission to put more and more of his body in the tent and finally the man has to leave the tent because his camel is taking all the space." Old Arabian proverb
Ah, the curious tale of the Rockefeller Republicans—a breed of moderate, socially liberal, fiscally responsible politicians who once roamed the Republican Party like well-dressed unicorns grazing in a bipartisan utopia. They were the kind of Republicans who could talk about environmental conservation without breaking out in hives, advocate for civil rights without clutching their pearls, and even support public healthcare initiatives without being accused of socialism. But then, like a plot twist in a soap opera, the 1964 Republican National Convention happened, Barry Goldwater was crowned the conservative king, and the moderate wing of the GOP began its slow fade into political extinction. What followed was not merely a shift but an ideological migration that would eventually transform America's political landscape—and give rise to a new faction: the center-right Democrats, better known today as Establishment Liberals.
The Camel’s Nose Under the Tent: Goldwater’s Conservative Revolution
Let’s start with the idiom that perfectly encapsulates what happened to the Rockefeller Republicans: "the camel’s nose under the tent." For those unfamiliar, it’s an Arabian fable warning against gradual encroachments—the camel gets its nose under the tent flap, and before you know it, the whole camel is inside, eating your snacks and rearranging your furniture. In this case, Barry Goldwater was the camel. His 1964 presidential campaign marked the moment when conservatism began to push its way into the Republican tent. Goldwater’s staunch opposition to civil rights legislation and his "small government" ethos alienated moderates like Nelson Rockefeller, who represented a more inclusive and pragmatic Republicanism.
Goldwater lost the election in a landslide to Lyndon B. Johnson, but he won something far more enduring: the soul of the Republican Party. The moderates were now outnumbered by conservatives who were ready to fight tooth and nail for their vision of America. And so began the exodus of Rockefeller Republicans—some to political retirement, others to the Democratic Party, where they found themselves oddly comfortable among centrist Democrats.
Dixiecrats Join the Party: A Marriage of Convenience
While Rockefeller Republicans were fleeing their increasingly hostile GOP home, another group was undergoing its own identity crisis: the Dixiecrats. These Southern Democrats had been loyal to their party for generations but found themselves at odds with its growing push for racial integration and civil rights. The Democratic Party’s embrace of civil rights legislation in the 1960s was a dealbreaker for many Dixiecrats, who began searching for a new political home.
Enter stage right: the Republican Party, newly energized by Goldwater conservatism and eager to court disgruntled Southern voters. The Dixiecrats’ defection to the GOP is well-documented, but what’s often overlooked is how their departure left behind a void in the Democratic Party—a void that would soon be filled by none other than those wandering Rockefeller Republicans.
It was an odd alliance at first—a shotgun wedding between two factions that didn’t seem to have much in common. But as time went on, Dixiecrats and Rockefeller Republicans found common ground in their mutual distaste for ideological extremes. Together, they formed a new center-right coalition within the Democratic Party that prioritized incremental change, corporate interests, and a pragmatic approach to governance.
Establishment Liberals: The Camel Fully Moves In
Fast forward a few decades, and this center-right coalition has evolved into what we now call Establishment Liberals—the ruling caucus of the Democratic Party. These are the politicians who prefer compromise over confrontation, incrementalism over revolution, and business-friendly policies over populist rhetoric. They are the heirs of both Rockefeller Republicanism and Dixiecrat pragmatism, united by their ability to straddle ideological divides while keeping one foot firmly planted in corporate America.
But let’s not pretend this transformation was seamless. The Democratic tent grew crowded with competing factions—progressives demanding bold reforms like Medicare for All, outsiders skeptical of government altogether, and mainstays clinging to traditional party values. Establishment Liberals often found themselves caught in the crossfire, accused by progressives of being too cozy with Wall Street and by conservatives of being too liberal. It’s a tough gig being a centrist in an era of polarization.
Lessons from "Send in the Clowns": The Democratic Circus
The Democratic Party today resembles less a unified political force and more an elaborate circus act trying to balance on a tightrope while juggling flaming torches. As highlighted in "Send in the Clowns," it’s a party divided into four main factions:
1. **Progressive Left**: The firebrands who want sweeping reforms yesterday.
2. **Establishment Liberals**: The pragmatists who prefer baby steps and bipartisan handshakes.
3. **Democratic Mainstays**: The reliable voters who just want things to stay moderately sane.
4. **Outsider Left**: The disenchanted youth who’d rather tweet about revolution than trust politicians.
Establishment Liberals have become the ringmasters of this circus—not because they’re particularly inspiring but because they know how to keep the show running without burning down the tent. Their strategy is simple: avoid alienating corporate donors while placating just enough of the progressive base to prevent a mutiny.
The GOP’s Chaos Theory vs. Democratic Incrementalism
Meanwhile, over in GOP-land, things are less circus and more demolition derby. The party has fully embraced chaos as a governing philosophy, rallying its base with fiery rhetoric and culture wars while quietly advancing conservative policies behind the scenes. It’s messy, but it works—Republicans have mastered the art of messaging in ways that Democrats often struggle to replicate.
Democrats, on the other hand, are still chasing that mythical center-right voter—the unicorn who will somehow bridge their ideological divides and deliver electoral victories without alienating progressives or moderates. Spoiler alert: this unicorn doesn’t exist. Instead of trying to please everyone (and pleasing no one), Democrats might do well to embrace their progressive wing more fully—after all, bold messaging wins elections far more often than tepid compromise.
Conclusion: Whither Rockefeller Republicanism?
The story of Rockefeller Republicans is ultimately one of adaptation—or perhaps survival. Faced with an increasingly conservative GOP, they found refuge in the Democratic Party and helped shape its center-right faction into what we now call Establishment Liberals. But as both parties continue to polarize, one has to wonder: is there still room for moderates in American politics? Or have they become relics of a bygone era?
In any case, let’s not forget the camel’s nose under the tent—the cautionary tale that reminds us how small changes can lead to seismic shifts. Whether it’s Goldwater conservatism reshaping the GOP or Rockefeller Republicans transforming into Establishment Liberals, political evolution is rarely subtle. So next time you hear someone lamenting the state of American politics, just remember: it all started with a camel sticking its nose where it didn’t belong.
Big Education Ape: Send in the Clowns: The Democratic Circus https://bigeducationape.blogspot.com/2025/05/send-in-clowns-democratic-circus.html