Being an independent, I don't usually get bogged down in the success or failure of a given party. But I admit that I'm not wild on the idea of one hand clapping, either.Several factions have appeared on the Republican landscape, but it was only this year, with McCain's nomination as the Republican Presidential candidate, that those factions first seemed to represent real division within the Grand Old Party. Presently, this seems to have resulted in finger pointing. Some of it has been aimed at Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and, clearly, George W. Bush no longer en vogue (Jonah Goldberg even pretended to have never liked him yesterday: "Bush's brand of conservatism was always a controversial innovation on the right") . On the 
other hand, a full 65% of Republicans like Sarah Palin for President in 2012. Newt Gingrich has re-emerged as a hopeful. Mitt Romney's name has also come up. And let's not forget about Mike Huckabee, Michael Steele and Chip Saltsman.
other hand, a full 65% of Republicans like Sarah Palin for President in 2012. Newt Gingrich has re-emerged as a hopeful. Mitt Romney's name has also come up. And let's not forget about Mike Huckabee, Michael Steele and Chip Saltsman.For those of you who think your political position on the left means that the next leader of the GOP doesn't concern you, think again. The odds of Obama succeeding at turning the economy around in his first, or even his second term, aren't very good. According to economist and Nobel Lauriat, Paul Krugman, "[w]hat saved the economy [from the Great Depression], and [Roosevelt's] New Deal, was the enormous public works project known as World War II, which finally provided a fiscal stimulus adequate to the 
economy’s needs." While another World War would rescue the economy, the fact that so many of the players involved, at present, wield a nuclear arsenal makes this Orwellian notion a non-starter. Even with a Democratically controlled Congress, the type of stimulus needed to correct the economy might not occur within a four, or even an eight year period. Hence, public opinion is likely to swing back to favor the right. More importantly, particularly if Obama is successful, a return of conservatism is inevitable.
economy’s needs." While another World War would rescue the economy, the fact that so many of the players involved, at present, wield a nuclear arsenal makes this Orwellian notion a non-starter. Even with a Democratically controlled Congress, the type of stimulus needed to correct the economy might not occur within a four, or even an eight year period. Hence, public opinion is likely to swing back to favor the right. More importantly, particularly if Obama is successful, a return of conservatism is inevitable.Who do you think should lead the GOP and why?
2 comments:
The Reps have a dilemma. The issue is whether Reps should stay true to their conservative roots or shift to the Center to appeal more to moderates and swing voters. Here's my reasoning:
1. I do NOT think this election represents a permanant shift to the Left among the electorate. IMO Obama's solid win was due to a terrible Bush administration (unpopular war, inarticulate Pres, ballooning deficits), the fiscal crisis blamed primarily on Reps, and the tendency to throw the bums out when things aren't going well.
2. The composition of the electorate is changing. By 2050, Hispanics will have increased from 12% to 25% of the population. People under 30 voted for Obama
2:1.
3. The electorate is slowly sliding Left on many key issues like religion, abortion, gay rights, the environment, etc.
If the above is correct, IMO the Reps must find a way to appeal to tomorrow's electorate, while still staying true to "enough" conservative principles that they can maintain the Base. The only way to do this is to play the race/gender card. In particular, they must find charismatic female or hispanic candidates who are able to articulate conservative princicples while (ever so softly) shifting the tone of their rhetoric on those social issues the electorate is moving Left on. Female/hispanic candidates will draw Centrists in droves and hopefully they can hold on to the Base.
So, who should it be? Most presidents win reelection, so for 2012 I'd recommend Romney just as a one-time deal. Romney could focus on the economy with the goal of winning back a few congressional seats in 10/12, assuming Obama will win reelection.
But, for 2016 they must look for a female/hispanic. Sarah Palin is the obvious choice today....but I have serious questions about her depth/breadth of knowledge and overall intelligence. She has also become a figure of ridicule in the media and has huge (and IMO permanant) negative ratings among voters. If she can't exponentially improve her "smarts" in the next 4-8 years, they'll have to look elsewhere. The Rep party needs to have an all-out drive to recruit young conservative females/hispanics. And they better hurry.
John,
I agree with you that neoconservativism, a la Bush, didn't fall in line with traditional conservative values; Jonah Goldberg wasn't wrong about that. The problem is that fiscal responsibility, one of the more attractive components of traditional conservatism, has not been practiced by Republican executives since before Reagan. Secondly, if (and this is a really big if) Obama manages to significantly reduce deficit spending by the end of his second term, there will be an historic tendency of fiscal conservatism by liberal executives, contrasting with a record of government largess by Republicans.
My thinking is that liberals shouldn't hold their breath. Paul Krugman has suggested that fiscal conservatism was what prevented FDR from getting us out of the Great Depression sooner. In other words, if Obama really wants to save the economy, he will have to accept that the White House is forfeit to the Republicans in 2016; however, if he adopts a fiscally conservative stance (again, not likely), the economy won't improve and the electorate is likely to shift heavily to the right, as it did with Reagan.
I'm afraid you're right about Romney: they'll run him in 2012, and he'll trot out his standard wedge-issues and, "is it liberal or conservative?" call to the base.
But I think that, rhetorically, at least, the Republicans might do well to rethink their internal rivalry over who it is among them whose positions on issues place them furthest to the political right. Honestly, what's with that? To those of us who don't subscribe to such thinking, it has roughly the same effect as the rivalry between Ford men and Chevy men: both are trucks, and both produce quality automobiles versus lemons in equal measure. However, it is exactly this kind of debate, sparked by Tom Tancredo over immigration, that reduced the campaigns of Giuliani and Romney from front-runners to drop-outs.
This had a chilling effect on Latinos, who a natural fit for the GOP on social issues and who Bush was able to attract by making television ads, in which he addressed them directly in Spanish. On social issues, Hispanics broke evenly on California's Proposition 8, indicating that this voting group could be moving "left," to use your term. In contrast, 70% of African Americans voted in favor of banning same-sex marriage in California, indicating that while the Obama candidacy inspired high-voter turnout, conservatives have the potential to create a broad appeal among this voting group. Whether or not they choose to capitalize on this remains to be seen. Certainly, it's within the realm of possibility.
I'm not sure about the female/Hispanic candidate angle. Hillary Clinton wasn't such a great candidate because of her sex, but for a plethora of other reasons: her proximity to former President Bill Clinton, who many equate with the strong economy of the nineties; her leadership role in the Democratic Party (which, ironically, also worked against her); her obvious intellect, grasp of issues, and clear articulation of proposed solutions; and her stoic, never-say-die persistence on the trail. Conversely, to many of us, Sarah Palin came off as a gimmick: she was neither well-informed, nor did she seem to possess the ability to convey real solutions. She seemed to have achieved her position, not through hard work or grasp of important issues, but because she was good-looking. Her looks are no reason to resent her, but in a nation that likes to think of itself as a meritocracy, the idea of placing on a former beauty queen (who was astonishingly uninformed) the authority of President, well this smacked a little too much of the old high school student oligarchies that most of us despised since tenth grade. The women I know who took exception to her, viewed the pick of someone, so clearly unqualified AND pretty, as misogynistic and insulting. The Republicans risk making the same mistake by running an ethnic minority.
No one who has watched the Bush Administration these last eight years thinks he's racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, or even anti-Islam--he may be a lot of things, but George W. Bush is not a bigot. Yet these are abiding stereotypes (except anti-Semitism) of the GOP itself, and simply running a "token" to get back in the game risks more than betraying core conservative values, it risks indelibly damaging the credibility of the Republican Party.
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. George W. Bush knew a thing or two about building a broad appeal, and while neoconservatism's "permanent campaign" is a resounding failure, the big tent, alluded to by Colin Powell at the 2000 RNC, is the GOP's ticket to a strong and lasting comeback.
Post a Comment