With Barack Obama on the verge of winning the highest office in the United States and Democrats gaining in both legislative bodies, the GOP is going to need to plot a new course - one free from holding some power in D.C. Democrats have capitalized on the momentum of an unpopular war and a rough economic period and are poised to have firm control of the Capital. How did this happen?
(BTW, I will exclude from this discussion the big-government Republican profiteers in the last Congress who probably damaged the credibility of the GOP for generations because the Dem's have a rich history in the same type of behavior. In the end, it just makes ALL voters more cynical and will not specifically hurt the GOP as time passes).
Barack Obama has been able to capture "the people's" attention more than anyone on the GOP side for more than two years now. Although a very hard thing to do, getting "the people's" attention on an issue or cause is what winning these elections is all about and is something the GOP was doing better than the Dem's for the past 15 years.
The Democrats get "the people's" attention by playing the social "war"-fare card. Almost every issue the Left cares about can be summed up in those terms and, through repetition, the Dem's try to win "the war" against the "powerful forces" who oppose helping "the people."
For example, the environment issue is a war against greedy corporations who "don't care about our world - only about their money" - and against thoughtless "yuppie" consumers who don't think about the longterm consequences of the Hummer - only about satisfying their selfish "needs." The mass of America can relate to that message.
Universal Healthcare's cause is a war against greedy HMOs ("evil corporations," of course), the rich business owners and CEO's who refuse to cover "hardworking Americans," as well as the average rich person who doesn't want to "pay taxes to cover the prescription drugs of the needy", etc...another message readily recieved by the mass of this country.
Every issue the Left cares about can be expressed in those clear terms.
Alternatively, the GOP has used the cause of social conservatism, in all it's forms, as their central theme. The GOP could make a "social war" for every cause and at every level. Abortion, the schools, the media, the Courts, Faith-based initiatives, etc...again, a message recieved well by the mass of America - or at least the previous Electoral College-map mass of America.
This election cycle, the social conservative cause has waned in value - something many of us in the GOP were predicting.
The Cause of Social Conservatism gave the Republican Party clarity for many, many years. It worked to get "the people's" attention enough to win most elections for nearly a decade and a half. But those days are over.
Is this because the GOP did not deliver on much, if any, of their promises related to that issue? Only during the election years did you hear much about the GOP's central cause - and, of course, when a nominee for Supreme Court was up for appointment. Did the GOP finally disappoint it's base by doing so little?
Fortunately, and not to be outdone, the Democrats have been equally as unsuccessful in following through on thier promises to "the people." The best example of this is the failure of Nancy Pelosi to EVEN bring a vote on the issue she became Speaker over - ending "the War" in Iraq.
"The people" are easily pandered to - and both sides are guilty of it. In truth, that is the best way to get control our democracy today and, sadly, not much can be done to improve the situation going forward. It is best to just accept the circumstances as they are and adjust to them accordingly.
Where does the GOP go next? What will get the people's attention again? More Guiliani's or more Huckabees? More McCain's or more Romney's? Should the GOP just copy the style and issues of their more popular opponents?
One thing is for sure: the GOP needs a NEW direction.
In my opinion, the best counter to the Democrats' successful social warfare effort is for the GOP to re-embrace the cause of "fiscal conservatism." Make the "reduction in government and the increasing of liberty" the central causes of the Party. Put the Republican Party's efforts into demonstrating the failure of the social welfare state - and the misery it's expansion will ultimately bring on the people - especially the working poor of America.
With a troubled economy and a soon-to-be directionless, overspending Democratic Congress coming to power, the GOP should express a clear view for the public. Reinforce small government principles now, so in a year or two after the Democrats have not delived on thier promises and the economic situation worsens, the GOP will be able to get the people's attention once again...
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by greg vitarbo , October 21, 2008
The old direction could have still worked, Jay. if Huckabee was the nominee, the Republicans would have been able to rally around him because he was pro-life. early support for social-liberal Rudy in the Primary made some of the social conservatives apathetic about this race. McCain wasn't our first choice.
Next time, nominate a social conservative and the GOP will win.
written by Daniel Peterson , October 21, 2008
I don't believe we put forward one candidate that would appeal to a broad base of Republicans. There were characteristics from many that we needed in one.nn1. We needed the economic intellect of Mitt Romney, without the plasticine presentation.n2. We needed the smoth style of Mike Huckabee, without the feeling one got that he would create a nanny state similar to Mayor Bloomberg, only with a religious twist.n3. We needed the executive experience of Rudy Giuliani, but without it being Rudy Giuliani.n4. We needed someone who has shown they could work with Democrats like McCain has, but one with more conviction in adhering to the principles of the Republican Party. nnAll in all, we've described one person who I think could make up about 80% of these four points. And we may see the man run in 2012.
written by Jay Golub , October 21, 2008
Spunky, the old direction can't work anylonger - at least to win the Presidency.
The country has changed demographically. The Old South is not the same as it used to be. the mid-west's composition has changed as well. The Left is competitive even in states like Colorado these days!
With a victory this year, the Dem's will take the country in a different direction - and the GOP needs to be able to counter that direction.
Also, the GOP has been divided because of the push for a social conservative agenda as the central theme of the party. By pushing for fiscal conservatism first and foremost, the GOP can unify on a theme that has solid agreement throughout the base of the party.
Huckabee would have been a disaster as a candidate and would have done much worse than it appears McCain is about to do.
Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist is what the two parties should represent. They haven't for a while. It's time to get back to basics...
written by alice Lemos , October 21, 2008
I am not. (And neither are Laura Ingraham and Mark Levin). The Schumer playbook is called "depress GOP turnout" and I am not going to let that happen. Joe Biden has already announced that we "will face a major crisis and that B. Obama will not be able to handle it"!!!! Very nice, Joe! Very reassuring. The problem is the media which is driving this truly mediocre Chicago politician towards the finish line and destroying anybody who stands in the Messiah's way - especially people such as Joe the Plumber, who is ALL OF US. Nobody has an answer on the economy and many of the experts have been wrong. One thing for sure: you think things are bad now, wait until Obama tries to expand government programs - yes, things will become much worse. In the last few days of the election, the GOP must get that message out. And the Demos will crush free speech via the so called "Fairness Doctrine". The American people must not allow a thugocracy to take over. It will take decades to recover. John McCain and the Republlicans mus also run against Mommy Pelosi and Dingi Harry Reid who will be without checks and balances if they succeed.
written by Jay Golub , October 21, 2008
"One thing for sure: you think things are bad now, wait until Obama tries to expand government programs - yes, things will become much worse."
That's what i'm saying Alibaba - be prepared to respond to the soon-to-come expansion of government with a solid, unified message of fiscal conservatism.
I'm glad you agree...
written by alice Lemos , October 21, 2008
some terrible, terrible judges - and these are jobs for life!
written by Daniel Peterson , October 21, 2008
I thought they would be judges against Life?
written by alice Lemos , October 21, 2008
judges against life! The 527s had better run ads on this. There are so many issues against Obama: how he would destroy the economy; the crazy judges he would appoint; his cozy relationships with crazed dictators - and yet these have barely been touched! And yes, his appearance at the Al Smith dinner was a disgrace. What next - dinner with Himmler?
written by Andrew Roman , October 21, 2008
How is it that Barack Obama, with the unbabashed support he has from practically every nook and cranny of the main-stream media behind him, the endless magazine covers he graces at checkout stands across the star-spangled map, the ringing endorsements from just about all elements of popular culture, has only a 5 to 6 point lead in the polls? (That is, if you believe the polls to begin with. Ten points in Virginia?? Come on .... )
How is it "the One" can only manage that kind of modest lead when almost anything and everything is working against Senator McCain?
I'm not using this as any sort of leverage toward making the argument that a McCain victory is likely ... but I do think there is too much time left to have Obama start hanging up his pictures in the Oval Office just yet.
Jay, while I agree with you whole-heartedly about the economic realities you write about, I have a tendency to disagree with you fundamentally on the other issues.
Welcome to 2008. It is about articulation, presentation - making it all sound good. And this election is about the Annointd One - Barack Obama.
Indeed, one could make a case that no matter who was out there running against him, Obama would be ahead now. The media would do whatever was necessary to assure Obama's victory - they'd downplay past associations, mischaracterize his policies, ignore his lack of experience - whatever was needed to elevate Obama, or at the very least, paint him in the most positive light possible.
I know it's too simplistic to assert that Obama would be ahead no matter who the Republicans had out there now - however, it isn't a completely ridiculous claim. If McCain was more socially liberal, it wouldn't matter at this point, would it? If McCain was a staunch hard-lined conservative, it wouldn't matter now - not to the purveyors of main-stream crap.
Would any other candidate besides Obama have been able to get the World Series pushed back nine minutes to facilitate a paid TV commercial?
As I have argued before - and this will just have to be a fundamental diagreement between two people on the same side - I think it is necessary for the Republican Party to keep its socially conservative foundation. It is up to the "moderates" and "middle-grounders" to come to the Party - not the other way around. Those who might be "drawn" to the Republican cause because of an agenda that is more moderate would not offset those who would turn away because of a shift-leftward on these peripheral issues. Note I said "perpipheral," not because they aren't relevant. They are. I say "peripheral" because the Presidency is not the place where matters like abortion and same-sex marriage are dealt with - except indirectly through the APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES. That reason ALONE is a reason to elect a Republicam.
Of course, the Party must be inclusive of those who agree on the bigger issues - which you have talked about - like the economy.
And it will.
I just hate - I mean HATE - to give up four (maybe eight) years of this country just to prove a point.
written by Jay Golub , October 21, 2008
ARoman, I never said that the more than likely victory of Obama was SOLELY McCain's fault. He inherited the deficit he's found hard to overcome.
The deficit was created by Bush and the last GOP Congress.
I too agree that the GOP should keep the social conservative base as "part of" it's foundation. But most social conservatives have spent much effort trying to "exclude" those who are not strict social conservatives. The treatment of Rudy is a perfect example of this - let alone the fact that i'm called a "baby-killer" from time to time.
The essential problem of having the social issues as THE foundation for the GOP is that you give away the largest and most influential states in the country and, unlike 8 or 12 years ago, states like PA, Ohio and FL can't be won on social issues alone.
The history of the GOP has NOTHING TO DO WITH the social issues - and ALL to do with individual liberty. Abe Lincoln's justification for leading the GOP had nothing to do with preserving "tradtional" values - actually he was working to change the most central of traditional valiues, ie. racial equality.
I agree that the President has nothing to do with these social issues except for the nomiination of Federal Judges. Yet, one can kill more than two birds with one stone when appointing a state's rights, original intent Justice, as they normally will side with the limiting the role the federal government has over social issues - reserving them for the States to decide.
The "peripheral" issues ARE the social issues. Taxes, government spending, the role of the Feds in our daily lives, safety and security and energy policy ARE the real issues that the GOP should be focused on.
As i've always said about the social conservatives, they should be a part of the GOP. But they should take their place in the back of the room while the important issues are dealt with at the forefront...
written by alice Lemos , October 21, 2008
- unfortunately, some New York Republicans would like to kick out the social conservatives so that they can lose EVEN MORE. I have a great idea for a bumper sticker: "Annoy Jay Golub - Vote Pro Life".
written by alice Lemos , October 21, 2008
not going to sit in the back of the bus! And we can think and chew gum at the same time. Nobody called you a "baby killer" - you are the only one weho has used those words. As for Rudy, he was doomed because our plank thankfully is a pro life plank and he would not budge on that issue. He also ran a truly lousy campaign.
written by Andrew Roman , October 21, 2008
Jay, if I did imply that you said Obama's "likely" victory was the sole fault of McCain, I am incorrect. I don't believe you said that, nor do I believe you mean that. I certainly don't mean that either.
And while I don't disagree with your assesment of what Republicans need to do to win in the future, I will argue vehemently (and respectfully) that social issues do matter a great deal - primarily because human beings are involved. We are social beings and societal standards are of the utmost importance to a great deal of people. They always have been. Personal liberty is so very often tied to relevant social issues. Having a Party stand up for given values is just as germane as standing up for proposed policies because they are often directly tied. Values very often determine those policies.
While America is not a zero-sum game economically, as liberals would have you believe, it almost certainly is in terms of liberty. In short, the bigger government gets, the less liberty we have.
During the Saddleback Presidential forum, when Senator Obama said that he could not properly comment on when human life began because the answer was "above his pay grade," it resonated (predictably) with those who would rather not have to deal with the issue. A clever-sounding, convoluted cop-out answer fit the lefty bill perfectly. Obama later explained that he simply didn't know enough to be able to make that determination. Isn’t it ironic that Obama knew enough to be able to determine that killing the unborn was a reasonable option? It is precisely that type of judgment on so-called "peripheral" issue that is very relevant, very important and very telling.
Stands on social issues can certainly effect policy. Recall that Obama said his first act as President - as confirmed by Nancy Pelosi - would be to instate the Freedom of Choice Act, which undeniably allows for government funded abortions. It’s a social stand that directly affects so-called “non-peripheral” issues – and it matters to a lot of people.
Now, your over-arching point is valid, Jay – and a very important one. Abortion is not a stump-speech rally-stirrer. It shouldn’t be. To have McCain – or anyone – in Pennsylvania today stumping on the pro-life issue while Obama hammers away at his 95% tax cut lie would be akin to conceding defeat, strategically. My point is - human beings do not live in a vacuum. Where candidates stand on given social issues matter - even if not on the front burner, then on the back burner (because eventually, back burner stuff can make its way to the front burner).
written by alice Lemos , October 21, 2008
many of us believe that culture and values matter. And there are people who are voting for John McCain mostly because of Sarah Palin - people such as Mark Levin of WABC Radio.
written by Jay Golub , October 21, 2008
"Personal liberty is so very often tied to relevant social issues."
I agree, but there are two sides to that philosophical coin. Is not reproductive choice a form of personal liberty? Is it not a relevant social issue?
I know the pro-life community does not recognize such a right when an innocent life is involved, but for those in America who do not share that exact view of "life," the question of "choice" IS a fundamental issue of personal liberty. In that context, i can agree with your point.
"In short, the bigger government gets, the less liberty we have."
Wonderful point, ARoman - and that is the EXACT area of liberty Republicans should be focusing on going forward. Of course, that will include - albeit tangentially - a defense of the rights social conservatives hold so dear. By supporting a reduction in both the size and scope of government, we achieve a broad enough reach to start winning elections again - pleasing MOST of the GOP base.
"To have McCain – or anyone – in Pennsylvania today stumping on the pro-life issue while Obama hammers away at his 95% tax cut lie would be akin to conceding defeat, strategically...Where candidates stand on given social issues matter - even if not on the front burner, then on the back burner."
Again, that's my point. I've never said that there should not be socially conservative GOP candidates. I support those efforts fully.
But during this election cycle, the GOP and it's most ardent supporters, put the social issues on the front burner. All other issues were tossed aside - as they have been for a few decades now. How else would Huckabee even be in the race for the Presidency, when his tax plans would be not much different that Obama's?
The GOP essentially put an issue that we all agree is useless for this General Election as the single most important issue in selecting it's candidate. That makes absolutely no sense for a party looking to attract a majority of Americans to support it's candidate.
Let's put the social issues on "the back burner" where they belong and let's work together to create a GOP whose central foundation is in individual liberty and a smaller and less invasive government. That's the best message to combat the social welfare state arguments being made on the campaign trail by Barack Obama and Liberals running for Congress, now and in the future...
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
