Now that the 2008 election is behind us and the Democrats are firmly in control of the federal government, the Republicans are starting to raise their head above the ruble and look around.Usually, when an army has been badly defeated, there are clear tactical lessons to be learned. The next time the troops take the field the generals won't make the same mistakes. But this time, even though the McCain campaign was not well run, the loss was less about tactics, and more about the cause. At times the troops didn't even seem to know what they were fighting for.
While the Republican Party tries to regroup, they appear to continue to lose ground. In a Gallup poll titled, "GOP Takes Another Image Hit Post-Election", conducted in mid-November, only 34% of Americans surveyed had a positive image of the Republican Party, down 6 points from just the month before. 61% now hold an unfavorable view of Republicans, the highest negatives recorded since the survey began in 1992...the year Bill Clinton was first elected.
The fact that the top ranking member of the Party is himself ratings challenged, does not help, but the problems within the Republican establishment go much deeper than an unpopular President.
Depending on your philosophical location on the Republican continuum line, you probably believe that the Party is in disarray because it did not position itself where you are: The moderates are saying, "We need to move more to the center", and the conservatives are saying, "We've got to move to the right".
There's been a lot of rhetoric about "core principles". Perhaps it's not the principles that are in question, perhaps it's the ability to make them relevant to the world we live in that is turning people away from the GOP.
The anecdotal evidence that I hear and read every day makes me fear for the future of the political party I have believed in and supported all my adult life. If the tent is not made larger and more inclusive of the divergent points of view on that continuum line, then we may have to fold the tent and leave the field.
Posts
7 comments:
There's much better than anecdotal evidence. Review hard voting statistics which define the rejection of GOP philosophy at a time of great national crisis.
See here and here.
George,
The maps provided by your links are very enlightening. The statistics from the last election support my point but they are the past.
My point is about moving forward. The Republicans need to find a message that's relevant to the world we live in today.
To the moderates who think the Party should move more toward the center:
How much more to the center should the party move? We just had an election where one of the most "moderate" senators in the Republican party lost to one of the most inexperienced presidential candidates in history.
This election could have been McCain's for the taking if he had even an ounce of conservative principles in him. After complaining about earmarks throughout the campaign, he voted for the biggest earmark in the history of the nation - the bailout - and only after the senate had loaded it up with even more earmarks.
The bailout that was supposed to cost only $700 billion now looks like it's heading towards several TRILLION. Obama is proposing billions more of government spending to stimulate the economy.
I don't need Republican moderates agreeing to more spending. I think the majority of people would be open to the conservative (whether from Democrats or Republicans) message that spending like this cannot continue.
The bill will come due and we'll all be left holding the bag.
Anon 9:50,
The philosophical waters have been greatly muddied by the financial meltdown...we're in uncharted territory.
With the exception of Pat Buchanan, most high profile Republicans appear to be in agreement that we need a stimulus package...a very un-Republican, Keynesian position.
Once this crisis has eased, the Party will still be in no-mans-land, and will still need to find its voice and its message. The question is, from whom and from what end of the spectrum will that message come?
"If the tent is not made larger and more inclusive of the divergent points of view on that continuum line, then we may have to fold the tent and leave the field."
Pam, with all due respect, I tend to take another position. Rather than being inclusive of divergent points of view, the Republican Party needs a leader who can communicate the core pronciples of conservatism...can educate about the wisdom of a better way.
The operative word here is "lead," and not poll our way to a viewpoint or viewpoints that will increase our numbers but water down those principles fore the expedient result of increasing our numbers.
Unfortunately, being more conservative -- as a solution -- just reads now as being more hardcore and intolerant, the issues which got the GOP into trouble in the first place.
Economically, John Kenneth Galbraith is coming back into style in a big way. People are scared now, big time, and they're open to changes in the way of doing things. They would perhaps like a little socialism to come their way, things only government has the resources to do. They want what's left of their retirements preserved, not looted and/or turned over to the private sector.
They'd like a better guarantee of health care, one which befits a nation as large and allegedly as generous as ours. They'd like to see the infrastructure preserved and improved, not allowed to decay until bridges collapse or a natural disaster destroys and displaces the poor of an entire city.
They'd like to see that if Detroit must be bailed out, and it must, the auto industry is compelled to advance quickly and furnish affordable and radically improved fuel efficient autos for the real world. They don't want to see it revert to business as usual through predatory manipulation of the government and the preservation of outdated fuel efficiencies designed for the status quo.
These are all things only planning and big government can provide.
And, of course, there's the war.
I'd think the GOP has to abandon its strategy of dividing and polarizing voters on social and class issues, too. At least until the economy improves and people can go back to worrying about important stuff like how many babies did the abortionites kill today or whether creationism as an alternative to evolution gets its fair share of time in public school.
Seems like there's a wide open playing field to exploit in all that.
Pam,
The Party was founded on two core principles. Limited government and individual liberty.
We must get back to those.
Reagan was right - we can disagree 20% of the time on some issues.
But are we to be the Limited/Big Government Party?
The Less/More Tax Party?
The More/Less Public Debt Party?
As Reagan said, "A party cannot be all things to all people."
If there are GOP members who like Bigger Government, more taxes and more public debt I also agree with Reagan when he said, "Then let them go their own way."
The "moderate" "move to the Left" pro-Big Government crowd has been destroying the GOP. Instead of dragging the base in that direction, why don't they just become Democrats?
I always assumed that almost ALL Republicans believed in less government. Is this not true anymore? Perhaps, that is our problem.
If that is the case, a limited government party will arise. Politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum. And if the choice is between a Huge Government party and a Big Government party, natural tendencies will produce a third, viable alternative. But I have faith that the GOP will get back to its roots. There is a "revolt" that has been starting in PA and across the nation. I have been, and will be, blogging about this.
Post a Comment