A Republican Revival
Steven Greenhut argues that it’s time for the Republican Party to suffer a major defeat this year. The GOP has turned into (as one conservative who’s voting for Obama said) a “dead rotting carcass with a few decrepit old leaders stumbling around like zombies in a horror version of ‘Weekend at Bernie,’ handcuffed to a corpse.”
As Greenhut points out, Thomas Jefferson once wrote that “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” According to Greenhut, one can also take this sentence less literally; the GOP has turned into a party of zombies, of hacks; an electoral bloodshed is necessary to ‘refresh’ the party.
It’s one of the major reasons why quite some conservatives haven chosen to support Obama over McCain. They fear that if McCain wins, or comes close, the Republican Party will not reform itself. This while the old guard has to go, and a new, fresh leadership has to take over. More important than figures, though, is the party’s general message and approach to politics.
Greenhut then goes on to suggest something I have said time and again as well: ‘Republicans need to revive what I call the Politics of Aspiration. Instead of promoting an agenda that a) echoes what Democrats offer, only not so much; or b) is based on negativity and fear (of illegal immigration, terrorists, Godless liberals, etc.), they need to tap into the entrepreneurial feelings and desire to get ahead that lies deep within us all – rich, middle class and poor. Winning parties offer hopeful messages and sound ideas.’
If Republicans had any political knowledge and understanding, they would understand the above. They’re going up against a man who sells a message of inspiration, hope and change for a living. Countering that by saying ‘we’ll do a lot of the same things, but less of it!’ and ‘if you elect him, we’ll suffer terrorist attacks!’ isn’t going to suffice. Not now, not ever. Even if the Republican Party would be able to pull it off this time, it would suffer tremendously in the coming years.
The Grand Old Party has, from the perspective of an outsider at least, a grumpy old party, with grumpy old man, who offer fear, sarcasm and cynicism. Now, there’s reason to be cynical about politics, but if you want your country to make progress, cynicism won’t get you anywhere. You need a healthy dose of cynicism in order to be able to say what plans will and won’t work, and to point out to voters that they should not expect miracles from the government – they’ve got to do it themselves in the end, but you also need a positive message to progress. You need to work towards something, a goal, a vision.
This ‘vision thing’ is sorely lacking. And if Republicans do have a vision, it’s a negative one. Republicans should use their strengths and not just exploit the weaknesses of the Democratic Party. Conservative policies can revive the economy and encourage entrepreneurship. They can increase competition and give people the feeling that they can get ahead in life, they can succeed, if they want to and work hard for it. And when you do, the message and policy should be, you’re rewarded.
You’re absolutely right about the cynicism and lack of vision; the GOP is nearly dead and needs a major defeat to allow itself to reform.
But I disagree with you about the need for the GOP to emphasize entrepreneurship. It seems to me that the economic conservatives have already gotten what they’ve wanted, reduced taxes, regulations and trade barriers, even if they were accompanied by a few expansions of big government.
Social conservatives, on the other hand, have largely gotten promises but little action. The GOP may talk a good game about abortion and gay marriage and Christian morals but then don’t really do anything. The Democrats seem to be getting their way on those issues. And now we have a Republican candidate who doesn’t seem at all comfortable with many Christian leaders.
I hope that a reformed GOP would rededicate itself to socially and well as economically conservative goals. If not, maybe they need to be replaced by a genuinely conservative party.
I disagree with this analysis. The worst thing the GOP needs is a blood bath and the worst thing that can happen to this country is a coat tail election in which the Democrats become the party in power with UNCHECKED majority.
At least when Bush was in control of all 3 branchs the Dems could just filabuster till the GOP relented if it was something that they disagreed with. With a veto proof majority the dems can do whatever they want.
One potential concept hanging in the balance if the Dems are handed a veto proof majority.
Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), member of the House Appropriations Committee and one of the most-ardent opponents of off-shore drilling We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how much gets out into the market. House Democrats responded to President’s Bush’s call for Congress to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling. This was at an on-camera press conference fed back live. Among other things, the Democrats called for the government to own refineries so it could better control the flow of the oil supply. See Maxine Waters threaten to Socialize the Oil industries.Watch this link…..dont be turned off that it is Fox news. It is her speaking in congress.
The Democrats will not have a veto-proof majority in Congress.
According to the latest projections from Charlie Cook, they’ll get a maximum of 20 more seats in the House and 7 more in the Senate. That’s no where near the two-thirds needed to over ride a veto. That’s not even enough to block a Senate filibuster.
And the Democrats are hardly a united bunch; you have the more extreme liberals like Waters and then you have some who are pro-life and favor gun rights.
And most likely this will be the high water mark of Democratic dominance. Chances are that they’ll gradually lose their Congressional majority under an Obama presidency (which seems fairly certain by now).
There is some truth to what he is saying, but perhaps the issue of Supreme Court appointments overcomes this issue.
Sorry, Connor, but I must disagree with you. Without Newt Gingrich’s years of rebel leadership (plus Bill Kristol’s inspirational faxes and Grover Norquist’s ideas in the first two years of Clinton), the GOP would not have recaptured Congress in the 1994 midterm elections. Losing the White House and suffering significant losses in both the Senate and House will not lead to a Republican revival unless there is BOTH a message and, more importantly, a messenger. Look closely, particularly in the House, and you will find that the cupboard is pretty much bare. That is why we have to hold our noses while trying to elect McCain.
I don’t think the GOP needs a bloodbath. Even if McCain wins the party knows that they need to retool themselves because they will have lost Congressional, Senate and Gubernatorial seats.
Economic conservatives may have gotten what they wanted but besides social conservatives, fiscal/small gov’t conservatives have been severely let down too. Clinton was more of a fiscal/small gov’t leader than Bush ever was.
In a post in response to Pete Abel on Donklephant, he was wondering about was still undecided on who he wanted to vote for. MW from DWSUWF responded about what he thought would be the future of the GOP.
http://donklephant.com/2008/07/06/resigned-to-indecision/#comments
"As far as reforming the Republicans, even if McCain wins I think they are done as a major party. That may be good thing. The way our system works, there is only room for two major parties and everyone else is a spoiler (if successful). To make room for something that better represents the liberty coalition and classic conservative constituencies, the Republican Party may have to die. One can envision the centrist Republicans like yourself, old-school Goldwater “live and let live” conservatives, limited government advocates, small “l” libertarians, and conservative and blue dog Democrats (who are already under fire from the left with active campaigns to drive them out) coming together to form a principled opposition party. It’ll take a few years for that to happen and a devastating defeat for Republicans in Congress as a prequisite. But in the meantime, it’ll be prudent to hold your nose and get behind McCain just to keep things from spinning too far out of control under our new Democratic Party Overlords."
While I disagree with the end of the GOP name (and gave my reasons in that post) I do think that the party makeup will have to change.
I am 29 years old and I am in the minority of people my age or younger who don’t think the GOP is the devil or at the very least have an unfavorable view of it. But I do know a bunch of people who don’t really love the Democrats either. They are more libertarian. I think the party has to become less seen as socially conservative and tied to the religious right. It can have those voices but it just can’t keep being since as a vehicle for the religious right (even if they ended up not getting what they wanted from Bush). The big wrench in that is abortion which hasn’t moved much in poplar opinion. Younger people are still split while even a large group of young evangelicals think gay marriage is fine. So the party would probably still be the party of pro-life but open to those who are pro-choice. That part is tricky, one that the Democrats have had to deal with too.
You’re probably right Bob, that a more libertarian-leaning GOP would be more appealing than what exists presently. I too have seen the increased libertarian sentiments among my peers too (I’m 36).
But that still leaves people like me in a bind: Vote for a liberal Democrat or a libertarian Republican? While they may differ on economic policy they’ll probably both be liberal on social policy. I guess they’re just following the trend in society, but those of us who are genuinely socially conservative are getting left behind…
I almost wish there was a third, socially conservative party, but that would almost certainly give an advantage to the Democrats.
Biggest thing I wish we could take from Europe was multi-party system. One could imagine a party more like the DLC or RLC socially moderate, economically center right. Something like Germany’s CDU except more conservative on social issues. A Progressive party that is a combination of Social Democrats of Europe and Greens. Maybe another that is Libertarian.
But we have the system we have. So I would say you have to pick your battles. If I was socially more conservative (I tend to be moderate), I would say working towards more restrictions for abortion instead of trying to overturn Roe v Wade and compromising on gay marriage by allowing civil unions. But maybe that’s why I am moderate and not conservative on those issues.
I agree with the first two points and, sadly, also with the last point ("that’s why I am moderate"). Then again… one can be moderately conservative. That is, it is my belief, ‘true conservatism,’ the conservatism of Edmund Burke (not exactly a dogmatic person).
only takes 3/5ths of the senators to bring cloture to a filibuster……or 60 senators. What once seemed ludicrous to consider is now distinctly possible: Democrats could win a 60-seat, filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. That would give them enough votes to exercise real control over the chamber, significantly reducing the ability of the minority to relegate Democratic priorities to the legislative graveyard.