Whining about Being Left Out is Not a Solution to Revitalizing GOP
I read two posts yesterday which reminded me of a notion I’d been pondering for some time. Here’s the idea in a nutshell: While the Democrats continue to lose favor with the American people as they propose increased government spending and regulation as the solution to every problem, the GOP (while taking some important strides in the right direction) has not yet presented itself as a viable alternative.
Given Democratic control of Congress and the White House, Republicans still have time to come up with solutions. After all, Republican Congressmen and congressional candidates did not sign the Contract with America until September 27, 1994, just six weeks before the fall elections which would return control of Congress to the GOP for the first time in forty years.
In the first post, Jim Geraghty reflected on the decline on Obama’s fortunes, but cautioned that this may not be a boon for the opposing party:
On Election Day 2008, many Americans didn’t like where they were. Nearly a year later, they still don’t like where they are; they feel like they’re stuck with the same problems or that they’re worsening. But they’re not convinced that the Republicans have the solutions. For the Right, the job is barely halfway done.
Emphasis added.
The second had a more peevish tone, almost like that of a child upset that he didn’t get an engraved invitation to a public forum advertised on the Internet (and in the local paper). Bruce Bartlett, who makes some good points about the GOP going off track during the George W. Bush years, repeats a lot of nonsense about the state of the party, suggesting he gets his news from left-wing blogs and a hostile media:
I think the Republican Party is in the same boat the Democrats were in in the early eighties — dominated by extremists unable to see how badly their party was alienating moderates and independents. . . . I will know that the party is on the path to recovery when someone in a position of influence reaches out to former Republicans like me. We are the most likely group among independents to vote Republican. But I see no effort to do so. All I see is pandering to the party’s crazies like the birthers .
(H/t: Instapundit.)
Pandering to the birthers? Huh? Who? Where? Didn’t the GOP caucus in the House vote overwhelmingly (with no opposition) vote in favor of a bill recognizing Hawai’i as the President’s birth place?
If Bartlett really wants to influence the GOP, why is he waiting for an invitation? Why doesn’t he craft some position papers and write some op-eds on what he thinks the party should be doing and where it should be going instead of whining about how bad it is. (Or suggesting just what the GOP needs to do to reach out to alienated Reaganites like him.)
He’s a smart guy and has done a lot of good work for our party. A lot.
The GOP needs solutions if we are ever to recapture and retain the majority. And we need smart thinkers in the Reaganite mold, to held craft them. Whining about how bad things are won’t help the party correct its faults.
Offering constructive solutions will.
Consider this: The Democrats did well in ’06 and ’08 in large part by being the non-Republicans at a time when the party in power was becoming increasingly unpopular. Yet, once in power, their numbers have plummeted. It is entirely likely that the GOP could do well in 2010 merely by being the “not Democrats”
But, if the GOP wants to use that party to good end, we need to become more than just the “not Democrats.” That’s why we need solutions. Bartlett is right to some extent. Republicans have not yet done the work they need to do.
He’s wrong, however, to see them pandering to the extremists. Republicans need develop solutions to today’s problems based on the principles which Ronald Reagan articulated so eloquently (and persuasively) in the last third of the Twentieth Century.
RELATED: Right Doesn’t Need Leader to Revitalize Itself: We already have a Galvanizing Idea, Freedom
Small Government Principles Key To Republican Revival
UPDATE, another related post, Republican Voters Say GOP Reps in Congress Still Out of Touch
16 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
The GOP has to come up with a credible plan for reducing the debt and scaling back government. I haven’t seen one yet.
I did a quick calculation using CBO estimates of what would happen if Federal Government Spending 2010 – 2019 were frozen at 2008 levels. Guess what? The ten year deficit drops from 10 Trill to less than 0.5 Trillion. This would involve some serious restraints, including entitlement cuts and interest on the debt would have to be renegotiated. But it is doable.
Comment by V the K — September 1, 2009 @ 12:35 pm - September 1, 2009
Newmajority-dot-com is a website devoted to advancing “moderate” (read: RINO) Republicanism. Bartlett is part of the problem, in that he wants to alienate the people who have been the backbone of the Republican Party for the past 20+ years in favor of the ‘moderate’ vote.
Bartlett and his ilk had their chance in ’08, with a candidate and a message tailor-made just for them and a completely inexperienced opponent. How did that work out, again?
If the Republican Party wants to advance itself it can start standing for something instead of just being “Democrats with different friends”, ditch the class-conscious elitist nonsense that Bartlett (and Noonan, and a host of others) hold in the heart of their positions, and get back to the (Reaganite) ideal of representing and talking to the productive middle classes of America.
Comment by DaveP. — September 1, 2009 @ 2:26 pm - September 1, 2009
I haven’t paid attention to “New Majority” or Bartlett, so perhaps I’ve missed a lot. Other than bickering about who True Conservatives are, this does raise the question: what positions should the GOP take? I for one am not willing to hold hands and ignore what the social cons have been doing and obstructing for years now. Well, I do make exceptions for the presidency. No doubt many of them feel the same about me. Seems to me that the GOP will win again someday, but only because a majority of the electorate is pissed off at the Dems. This back-and-forth with no real change, no real consensus and both parties seemingly beholden to their extremes we ain’t gonna see anything new.
Comment by John — September 1, 2009 @ 6:46 pm - September 1, 2009
“I for one am not willing to hold hands and ignore what the social cons have been doing …for years now.”
Winning elections?
Comment by DaveP. — September 1, 2009 @ 8:51 pm - September 1, 2009
Dave: If they truly believe that all of their pet issues are the key to victory in future elections, the social cons are free to do so without me when and where they can. ‘Tis (still) a free country.
Comment by John — September 1, 2009 @ 10:32 pm - September 1, 2009
That doesn’t answer my question about what constitutes True Conservativsm now…
Comment by John — September 1, 2009 @ 10:32 pm - September 1, 2009
Actually, John, my point was that if you think you can win an election without us hated social cons, go right ahead- I’ll sit here and watch. But, to repeat myself, y’all tried that- John McCain crafted his message out of the idea that, by ‘sista soulja-ing’ the social cons, he could appeal to the mythical moderate voters.
Didn’t work… in fact, running as a kinder, gentler social-mod-republican led to the biggest electoral shellacking for the Republican Party in modern times. Moderates- not just ‘identify-Moderate’, but ‘identify-Democrat’ Moderates and ‘identify-Republican’ Moderates, voted for the Socialist.
(who, BTW, held publicly stated opinions on gay unions and Christianity that were inseperable from the Other Guy… and has called upon God more times per day in office than either of his predecessors have).
Now from this you draw the idea that, since it can’t appeal to Moderates by being more moderate, the Republican Party must drive out the only voting group it has left… and THEN the Moderates will show up to the party, as long as no-one says Grace or offers to hold any kind of opinons different in any way from the Other Party (or at least different from what the Other Party says and not what it actually does).
The lesson I draw is that the ideas that you identify with are a lot further out of the mainstream than you’d like to think, and even Democrats understand that they just don’t play nationally. Go ask John Kerry, Bill Clinton, and- yes- Barack Obama why they ‘ran to the right’ on many if not most social issues if you don’t believe me.
The Conservative Party in England has been trying that idea out for the past twenty-plus years, ever since they did what you suggested and kicked Maggie Thatcher out in favor of John Major. They’ve been an electoral joke ever since.
Someone once said that insanity lies in doing the same thing every time and expecting a different result.
And I think that I’d gladly do without you, and in exchange win against the Socialist; rather than compromise with failure once again… and fail.
Comment by DaveP. — September 1, 2009 @ 11:45 pm - September 1, 2009
Well Dave, feel free to keep trying to win elections without non-social cons all you like. Oh you’ll win some for sure, but it won’t be because of social con issues this will happen because A) The Dems suck and enough voters are pissed off at them to give the GOP another shot or B) Fiscal cons and defense cons win the day. Social cons on their own? Good luck with that…
Comment by John — September 2, 2009 @ 12:07 am - September 2, 2009
Well, John, thanks for admitting that we do not in fact need you or need to compromise with you to win elections.
…And if we win on our own, without your help … to quote Shepard Book, where does that leave you? It’s not like we’ll owe you anything or have any need to placate you- after all, you left.
Go back through the archives and look at the posts about the LCR’s and how they blew their chance at influence in the RNC in 2004 by doing exactly what you are planning.
Want to have your opinions taken on board? Stop whining and volunteer, canvass, petition. Want to complain about the evil social-cons (who, let us not forget, are the majority not just in the Party but in America at large- or at least in those parts not completely under Democratic hegemony) who don’t want to compromise their firmly-held beliefs to meet your unattainable standard of ‘tolerance’? Don’t expect anyone to care.
Comment by DaveP. — September 2, 2009 @ 1:16 am - September 2, 2009
Um, Mr. Bartlett, while I love your pears, I would point out that the Democrats are CURRENTLY dominated by extremists with a disapproval rating among independents of 66%!
Sounds like he gets his news from his douchebag boss, David Frumpy.
What the party needs to do is tell Frumpy and cling-ons, that it is precisely their brand of big-government, moderate “conservatism” that broke the conservative coalition. And instead of insisting they be put back in charge of the party they destroyed, they need to accept that the reason nobody listens to them is because we know their vision, we know its a losing one, and we reject it.
Comment by American Elephant — September 2, 2009 @ 4:28 am - September 2, 2009
I keep hearing that to win, Republicans need to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative. But look at the main example at that philosophy, Arnold Schwarzaeneggar. He grew the state’s budget 40% and his state is now bankrupt. His governing has been a disaster.
I don’t really think there are any honestly socially liberal fiscally conservative politicians, and far fewer voters really are those things than claim to be.
Comment by V the K — September 2, 2009 @ 12:42 pm - September 2, 2009
What’s to “admit”? It called political reality in that social cons and non-social cons win some and lose some. Keep truckin’ along as you please.
Oh puh-leeze. Like you guys ever did before. Nope, it’s all been about “shut up and support our guy and by God you’ll smile while we deep-six anyone who supports change”.
ROFL!!! Like the LCR ever had any real influence in the GOP with the social cons dismissing them as “RINOs” and “godless perverts” loooooong before the group’s principled stand in 2004.
Nope, Dave, I’ve listened to this song and dance for too long now and won’t play the game anymore. When I’m able to I’ll gladly continue voting against your guys or at least sit the election out when their opponent is equally untenable.
Comment by John — September 2, 2009 @ 5:48 pm - September 2, 2009
VtheK: Schwarzenegger was about as much of a fiscal con as George W. Bush. Both talked the talk but didn’t walk the walk.
Comment by John — September 2, 2009 @ 5:49 pm - September 2, 2009
John thinks the LCR’s “stand” to support a candidate who said pointblank that he supported the Defense of Marriage Act is “principled”.
What more can I say?
Comment by DaveP. — September 2, 2009 @ 11:34 pm - September 2, 2009
No, I’m talking about their refusal to endorse Bush in 2004. I voted for the man myself despite his FMA BS because of the strong antipathy I have for Kerry, among other things, but I never would have endorsed him especially were I in charge of a gay group like LCR. Were we not in a war at the time I probably would have voted third party.
As for Kerry, from the same statement on not endorsing Bush:
I would have rather had a different choice in 2004 but these two clowns were all we had to choose from.
Comment by John — September 3, 2009 @ 9:37 am - September 3, 2009
Oh yeah, here’s a link to LCR’s 2004 statement:
http://www.logcabin.org/logcabin/press_090804.html
Comment by John — September 3, 2009 @ 9:37 am - September 3, 2009