In the aftermath of a decisive defeat, Republicans and conservatives are nursing their wounds and wondering what went wrong. Many have come up with an easy answer: the GOP has drifted from its core principles; consequently, the voters have handed it the pink slip.
But is the drift more to blame than the principles?
Let's look at one example of this argument. Michael Steele, the former Maryland lieutenant governor and an unsuccessful candidate for Senate in 2006, is running to become the new head of the Republican Party. In a statement he released on Thursday, he said,
The Republican Party must present a vision for the future of America that relies on our conservative values and core principles. It is wrong to believe the voters have suddenly become liberal. They have just lost any sense of confidence that the Republican Party holds the answers to their problems. We must face the fact that our party has failed in recent years to live up to our own principles -- we have failed to be 'solutions oriented' in addressing the concerns of all Americans.
Does Steele have it right? Has his party failed to present "solutions" in recent years? Not really. The Republicans have presented plenty of "solutions," but the voters have not cared for them.
What are the two core principles of the Republican Party? Cutting taxes (to ensure a smaller government) and swinging a big stick when it comes to national security. There's also the social issues, such as opposing abortion rights and gay rights. But those lifestyle issues have often been a second-tier matter for many Republican leaders.
Now look at the George W. Bush presidency and the John McCain campaign. The core issues were tended to by both. Bush pushed tax cuts and started two wars (one of them elective!). How loyal to the core was that? He didn't crusade against abortion rights and gay marriage, but he said the right things (from a social conservative perspective). Sure, government spending did go up on his watch--as did the deficit and the national debt (due to his tax cuts)--but much of that was attributed to increased military spending (another conservative idea) and expanding Medicare benefits. Does Steele and his fellow GOP handwringers believe they can get back to the White House by downsizing the Pentagon and undoing that Medicare expansion?
Bush has ended up an unpopular president because he was both conservative and incompetent. He launched an unnecessary war in Iraq and then mismanaged it. He lost an American city. On economic policies, he was a market-oriented fellow who snorted at regulation. For most of his presidency, his economic policy was essentially tax cuts, tax, cuts, tax cuts--and let the market sort out the rest. That conservative approach didn't work. Now he's a corporate socialist, throwing hundreds of billions of dollars at corporations that screwed up. But he had turned off the public long before making that lurch.
As for John McCain, he, too, ran on core conservative principles. He called for an across-the-board freeze on federal spending. He supported supply-side tax cuts (that he had once opposed). He called for a robust national security posture. And he did what many conservatives do: he accused the Democrats of being tax-and-spend liberals ("socialists," his running mate called them) and claimed the Ds were dangerously weak on national security. On health care, he proposed market-oriented tax credits. He and Sarah Palin opposed abortion rights.
So what was there for a voter seeking Republicans loyal to core conservative principles not to like? McCain was offering lots of solutions. He had his (erratically-derived) proposals for addressing the economic meltdown and housing crisis. He said he had a plan for nabbing Osama bin Laden.
It seems that voters just aren't keen on conservative solutions now. They do not appear to be yearning for a smaller government that does less. Many actually are hoping that the government will take steps to help them and their fellow citizens in these tough (and getting tougher) times. If conservatives are going to claim, as Palin explicitly did, that government is the problem and an obstacle to freedom, they can be credited for sticking to their ideological guns, but they're not likely to put together a governing coalition at this moment.
There certainly have been periods when the conservatives' siren song of lower taxes and less government appealed to many Americans. But it's easier for conservatives to sell those core notions either (a) during not-so-hard times or (b) after a left-of-center administration has messed up. (For the latter, think Jimmy Carter.) In a vacuum, American voters don't crave conservative solutions. For many Americans, ideology is relative. That is, what they want depends on what is happening around them.
So Steele and his comrades are stuck--with a lousy brand (thank you, President Bush) and with core principles that are not in sync with the current market demand. This is not to say that the party is dead. There are no permanent majorities in the United States. If the Democrats botch the job in the next two years, that ol' pendulum could swing back and knock them on their backsides. But for the time being, the Republicans must move beyond this return-to-core-principles line--unless they are content to tread water in a pool of self-delusion.
If Steele truly believes his back-to-the-future rhetoric, Democrats ought to be rooting for him.
![[RSS]](http://67.192.49.194/templates/images/rss_icon.gif){kind=icon}
Comments
If the republicans can get past the tired old rhetoric of God, guns and gays they might find some support from younger people.
The fact that McCain's support was so rabid scares most normal people.
When the shadow thrown down by so many troubles darkens our future the people know change is required.
I think it will be many years before people think "swagger" and intransigence in a chief executive is acceptable - let alone desirable.
One angel I haven't heard discussed much is the impact of the internet? Does that favor the left?
Posted by: capt
| November 14, 2008 4:34 PM
""Many have come up with an easy answer: the GOP has drifted from its core principles""
""The Republican Party must present a vision for the future of America that relies on our conservative values and core principles.""
what exactly ARE the GOP's core principles?
it seems to me that the GOP diverted from conservative to corporatism a long long time ago.
""What are the two core principles of the Republican Party? Cutting taxes (to ensure a smaller government) and swinging a big stick when it comes to national security.""
what good does cutting taxes do? (other than pandering!)
things have to be paid for (with taxes!) - such as wars, and GOP bushco has increased the size of the govt by almost 60%.
wow 'swinging a big stick when it comes to national security'!
you mean like creating a heinous incident (9/11) and blaming it on fictitious evil other guys in order to foment an illegal war of aggression against said evil other guys?
get a clue, corn - todays troubles go way deeper than you will ever let on.
some people are not as stupid as you would probably like to think they are.
Posted by: as_if!
| November 14, 2008 4:54 PM
Damn, palin was brushed aside for a leadership position with the repug governors assoc. I hope she hangs in there so we'll have a for sure loser to run against in '12.
*addendum - I'm wondering if mcsame will tell Obama his secret plan to nab bin Laden. haha
Posted by: Alan
| November 14, 2008 5:41 PM
Vladimir Putin 'wanted to hang Georgian President Saakashvili by the balls'
\
Nicolas Sarkozy saved the President of Georgia from being hanged "by the balls" — a threat made last summer by Vladimir Putin, according to an account that emerged yesterday from the Élysée Palace. . . .
The Russian seemed unconcerned by international reaction. "I am going to hang Saakashvili by the balls," Mr Putin declared.
Mr Sarkozy thought he had misheard. "Hang him?" — he asked.
"Why not?" Mr Putin replied. "The Americans hanged Saddam Hussein."
Mr Sarkozy, using the familiar tu, tried to reason with him: "Yes but do you want to end up like [President] Bush?"
Mr Putin was briefly lost for words, then said: "Ah -- you have scored a point there."
http://tinyurl.com/6hwzcu
Posted by: capt
| November 14, 2008 6:21 PM
I think capt's comment on the last post sums up the Republicans value system.
"If all the rich people in the world divided up their money among themselves there wouldn't be enough to go around."
Christina Stead (1903 - 1983), House of All Nations (1938) "Credo"
McCain ran around mouthing "Tax cuts for the Rich and spending cuts from pork", like we would rather see our money go to assholes than build bridges and schools.
For 28 years we have had so much trickle down we are now known around the world as the Urine Nation.
I've been in business for the 28 years. I've never paid taxes and I've never felt there was a government creating an economy that was conducive for business.
It has yet to occur to GM/Ford/Chrysler that they have laid off their customer base. 5,000,000 manufacturing jobs and 20,000,000 supported occupations.
It has yet to occur to Washington that there's a jobs crisis, and Republicans are still; 1. Blame the Economy on Unions, 2. Blame the Recession on Obama, 3. Blame everything else on Gay Marriage.
"A forklift driver is making $93 per hour with costs and benefits". True, if you factor in upper managements contribution to overall costs. The forklift driver supports about 12 other jobs in the economy. The Republican philosophy is to gut his job.
Their next plan: Sarah Palin.
And they don't even know how ridiculous that is.
Posted by: geof01
| November 14, 2008 8:56 PM
1. republicans drifted from their principals in 1876 when they sold away reconstruction and the civil rights of black folks for the keys to the White House. The party hasn't stood for anything but unbridled White greed since then.
2. a. As for national security, they haven't won a war since 1898. b. They were against hardening cockpits against hijackers before 9/11 because it would have cost millions. That cost the lives of 3,800 Americans. c. They put off strengthening the seawall and levees, allowing Katrina to destroy New Orleans and kill 1,000 Americans
3. As for abortion, for 6 years they had massive majorities in the House Senate and Supreme Court simultaneously, with bush in the White House. All they did was ban partial birth abortions, stopping no more than 20 per year. Pretty lean pickings considering the $ B!LL!ON that pro-lifers have foolishly tossed into republican campaigns.
Posted by: xrepublican
| November 15, 2008 12:25 AM
yeah X, on #3, repugs don't wanna overturn Roe v Wade. It's their carrot dangling on a string they use to get money and votes. That mule never got the carrot and neither will the non-thinkers.
======================
Here's a 20-question news quiz that's pretty fun.
http://news.aol.com/news-quiz?icid=200100397x1212886627x1200866279
Posted by: Alan
| November 15, 2008 12:40 AM
Obama mosaic from over 600 newspaper headlines on Nov. 5th. Wow.
http://www.obamanewsmosaic.com/
Posted by: Alan
| November 15, 2008 12:45 AM
I used to be the student representative to the board of the college of arts & Sciences. I would sit in a meeting and be amazed that students were never mentioned. Education was never mentioned. Money, more of it, and more time off from work were the hot topics.
When I pointed this out, I was no longer invited to attend any meetings of the dean and department heads.
Such is the Republican view of ruling a nation. They don't care much for governing. The nation's citizens are of no consequence. Once they have voted, they can no longer have any influence unless they can raise vast sums and buy some attention.
Posted by: kalpal
| November 15, 2008 9:26 AM
It has to be hard, if not impossible to effectively govern if a strongly held core belief is that government doesn't work.
If one cannot see how and when government is the solution to certain problems they will never be able to find the problems let alone the potential solutions.
Posted by: capt
| November 15, 2008 9:46 AM
GOP Senators Already Planning to Filibuster Justice and Fight Obama Court Picks
In an about-face on procedural policy in Congress, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) recently promised to aggressively filibuster judicial candidates proposed by President-elect Barack Obama.
"I will lead a filibuster if the nominee is the kind of radical leftist who decides cases based on empathy rather than the Constitution or the law. And if that's what [Obama] intends to do, then I'll try to get my colleagues to join in that as well," Kyl said in a speech at a Federalist Society meeting last week.
http://tinyurl.com/6dzrvc
Posted by: as_if!
| November 15, 2008 12:04 PM
I no longer think of differences with the GOP as ideological - I no longer disagree. I just think they have lost it and are off the deep end insane.
Some of them are really thinking we need more tax cuts and less regulation.
That's not dumb or simply mistaken - it is crazy talk from crazy town.
IMO
Posted by: capt
| November 15, 2008 12:59 PM
Case in point:
GOP senator: McCain betrayed Republican principles
http://tinyurl.com/6mhx5y
::::::
As if they would say this if McCain had won?
Cheesus - it would be like someone ressurected Ronny from the grave, they would be singing the virture of the maverick brand of new neoconservatism - la la la.
Are there any voices from the Reich-wingnuttia calling gramps out for the lies and dirty low brow crud? Any true neocons calling him out for his choice of Caribou Barbie? (crickets)
Posted by: capt
| November 15, 2008 1:08 PM
David. Forgive us if we don't turn to the liberal elite for advice on how to get back the Reagan Democrats and expand Republican Party base.
McCain had a tough row to hoe but he might actually have won if he had articulated Reagan populism (I know that you think that Reagan and Populism are antithetical. Shows what YOU know!)
A disciplined Obama articulated a simple, Reaganistic idea. A tax cut for 95%. A highly palatable and easily digestible offering to most of the bottom 95% of tax payers.
(Never mind that upper 5% have tax loopholes as big as the Grand Canyon. Why even President-Elect Obama - yes, he's my President & starts off with a 100% approval rating -- paid ZERO income tax in 2007, according to his 2008 Tax Returns.) The POINT is not that he's going to DELIVER on those promises, but that he used a good measure of CONSERVATIVE rhetoric to sell himself.
Bush and McCain already tried -- in vain -- to expand the party by acting like liberals with their quasi-amnesty plans for illegals and their medicare prescription drug fiasco and their big ticket government bailout initiatives.
Under Michael Steele's leadership the party will expand, but they sure as hell won't do it by listening to you!
Posted by: Jackson Clay
| November 15, 2008 2:35 PM
"Don't be afraid to see what you see."
~ Ronald Reagan
:::::::::::
Obama Releases 2007 Tax Returns
Sen. Barack Obama released his 2007 tax returns this evening, hours before his debate with Sen. Hillary Clinton.
The tax returns show he made $4,238,165 last year, most of it ($3.9 million) a result of profits from his best selling books. He reported paying $1,396,772 in federal taxes and making charitable contributions totaling $240,370.
http://tinyurl.com/5ldxur
******
About $1.4 million paid in federal taxes in 2007.
Not that facts matter to a true Reaganite - never did and never will.
Posted by: capt
| November 15, 2008 2:49 PM
"Facts are stupid things."
Ronald Reagan
Posted by: capt
| November 15, 2008 2:54 PM
World leaders dine in style as they discuss financial crisis
(CNN) – The global economy may be undergoing a significant downturn, but the White House's dinner budget still appears flush with cash.
After all, world leaders who are in town to discuss the economic crisis are set to dine in style Friday night while sipping wine listed at nearly $500 a bottle.
According to the White House, tonight's dinner to kick off the G-20 summit includes such dishes as "Fruitwood-smoked Quail," "Thyme-roasted Rack of Lamb," and "Tomato, Fennel and Eggplant Fondue Chanterelle Jus."
To wash it all down, world leaders will be served Shafer Cabernet “Hillside Select” 2003, a wine that sells at $499 on Wine.com.
http://tinyurl.com/6om2hc
*****
I get the feeling these "leaders" are willing to save their lifestyle no matter how much is costs us.
Posted by: capt
| November 15, 2008 7:40 PM
This analysis goes off track right at the beginning when the two "core principals" of the Republican Party are incorrectly defined. According to the RNC, the first two principals are: 1) ..the strength of our nation lies with the individual and that each person’s dignity, freedom, ability and responsibility must be honored, and 2) Republicans believe "...in equal rights, equal justice and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, sex, age or disability. "
Bush is a fiscal conservative? Hmmm, not according to most conservatives. As David Corn knows, John McCain isn't considered a true conservative either and thus couldn't adequately articulate conservative values to the voters. He was even vocally opposed by key conservative figures in the media early in the campaign. Social conservative values are out of step with the mainstream? Hmmm, not in California where African American and Hispanic voters overwhelmingly showed that assertion to be false. Is David Corn saying the African American and Hispanic voters in California are out of step with the mainstream? Why would he write a piece that he knows is misleading? Is this the way Democrats persuaded so many American voters to vote for a ticket that's long on smooth talk, but short on substance?
Voting for someone who wants to raise taxes on what he considers to be the wealthy, while he himself gives less to charity (percentage-wise) than many conservatives who make less than the $250,000 figure he talks about so much is schizophrenic. I would like to see a piece by David Corn explaining why hypocrisy is so acceptable in the Democratic Party.
Posted by: The3Ltrwd
| November 15, 2008 10:16 PM
Best 'toon I've seen in awhile...
http://extras.sltrib.com/bagley/content/11062008.jpg
Posted by: Alan
| November 16, 2008 12:42 AM
RAHM EMANUEL: Ardent Zionist called Obama’s ‘Svengali’
More sinister than Karl Rove and potentially deadlier than Dick “Darth Vader” Cheney, his name is Rahm Emanuel, and he was recently appointed chief of staff in the president-elect’s White House. This first official act should send waves of alarm through people because Barack Obama promised change, but what we’re getting is the exact same cabal that brought us 9-11 and endless war in the Middle East.
http://tinyurl.com/69zzm2
Posted by: as_if!
| November 16, 2008 6:03 PM
Pawlenty: GOP must adapt to changing country
Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) said Sunday that Republicans must focus more on winning over Democratic and independent voters on pocketbook issues if the GOP wishes to return to power.
“We have to be a conservative party, and we should be. But we have to apply those principles in the context of a changing country,” Pawlenty said on “Fox News Sunday”. “And we have to learn to do a better job of applying our conservative principles to this new marketplace.”
http://tinyurl.com/5jvkvy
*****
No problem with the ideology or the message - the GOP just has to do a better job of applying their failures to the marketplace they destroyed?
lolololo
Posted by: capt
| November 16, 2008 9:30 PM
Post A Comment