Gallup quizzed the public about five Republican contenders. What they found suggests that the Republican base is very much in tune with its leaders and not with talk radio. Consider these numbers on how Republicans responded:
First, that suggests broad acceptance (if not endorsement) of immigration reform by the Republican base, otherwise Rubio’s disapprovals would be higher. This is consistent with the large and growing number of conservatives who support the initiative and the polls which show surprisingly high support for the measure. This further suggests that Rubio won’t be hurt by pursuing immigration reform, or else his disapprovals already would be higher.
Secondly, it suggests that the talk radio base is not the supermajority within the Republican base they like to think they are... not even close. Consider this: Rubio has been blasted for months with near 100% vehement opposition from the talk radio base. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that some high proportion of the talk radio base disapproves of Rubio. Yet, he only polls 11% disapproval. That means that only 11% of the Republican base is following the talk radio line. Similarly, look at Christie. Christie is viewed favorably (52% - 25%) by the Republican base despite being attacked daily for several years now as a RINO traitor by talk radio. Thus, only 25% of the Republican base toes the talk radio line on Christie.
Think about what this says about the size of the base. Talk radio has blasted Christie so long, so harshly and so universally that it is likely that everyone in the talk radio base disapproves of him as well as a good number of conservatives who don’t align with the talk radio base. That means not only that it’s logical to see his 25% disapproval as the upper cap on the potential size of the talk radio base, but it also means that 25% likely overstates the size of the talk radio base. Looking at these numbers suggests to me that the talk radio base is somewhere between 11% and 25% and I would place them at around 16% (Rubio disapproval times 1.5 or Christie disapproval times 2/3). Again, that is not consistent with the picture painted by talk radio of a silent conservative majority oppressed by a small RINO leadership. Why does this matter? Well, I think it explains why the Republican leadership seems to be willing to decouple themselves from the talk radio base. I see hints of this everywhere, everything from a change in the agenda to a change in the rhetoric to the pushing aside of bomb throwers like Michelle Bachmann. And I don’t think the Republicans would be doing this if these numbers were reversed.
Other thoughts on this data:
● This data suggests that Paul Ryan (69% - 12%) would be the leader if he chooses to run, but I actually doubt he will. I like Ryan a lot, but he just never looked comfortable in 2012. I think he will happily stay in the House and run the budgets.I guess we’ll see.
● This data suggests that Christie is stronger than I would have guessed last year, though I wonder how far his appeal really runs? I suspect a lot of his support is at the level of “Oh, I like him in New Jersey, but not nationally.” In either event though, he must be considered a serious contender. Ultimately, I interpret his approval rating as a sign that the base is being much more practical than they been have in the past. This seems to be a statement that they will accept people who aren’t ideologues if they can win in places Republicans don’t win and they can bring some conservatism to the table in those areas.
● Rand Paul’s support (56% - 13%) is interesting too. Paul embraces issues that sit uneasily with the Republican base. His foreign policy and defense policy make the neocons angry, the religious right is suspicious of his claims to social conservatism, and his attempts to appeal to minorities and youths through civil liberties issues are upsetting to many conservatives. Yet, six in ten approve and only one in ten disapprove. That suggests that the Republican base is much more open to new ideas than you hear.
● Finally, the data suggest that Ted Cruz may have a problem. He has hooked his star to the talk radio base and they have rewarded him with an intense amount of coverage and praise. He is the anti-Rubio. Yet, all of this has resulted in only 40% approval and 52% indifference. Those aren’t great numbers when the guy you’ve cited as your mortal enemy is 20% higher than you. Even worse, if the “not Rubio” agenda hasn’t worked so far, there is little reason to think it will work any better in the coming two years, and Cruz doesn’t really offer more than that. If he wants to win, he’ll need an agenda, not just opposition to the new Republican agenda.
49 comments:
I don't disagree about Ryan. He is a solid policy and budget man, but he doesn't have the excitement, perhaps charisma is a better word to be the leader. It is, after all, a leadership and sales job. Rubio, on the other hand has that quality. I think he is young and exciting, and SHOULD get better as he gains experience over the next 3-4 years.
Jed, I agree. Ryan lacked the charisma it takes to win an election these days. It's possible he will gain it with experience if he learns to loosen up, but I get the feeling he really doesn't want to run. He strikes me as a guy who wants to retire from the House after a 50 year run as the man who controlled the budget for half a century.
As for Rubio, I wasn't initially sure he was ready, but he's really shown a tremendous amount of skill in this process and I am very impressed. I was happy to see the poll results above.
Rubio already has more experience and is better qualified than the current nimrod in office.
Koshcat, Isn't that the truth. Of course, that's not a high standard.
What's funny is that even after four years on the job, I still get the feeling that Obama is a dangerously unqualified amateur.
Andrew.....A thought. I have always looked at talk radio (Limbaugh especially) as entertainers with a politics as their shtick. And many/most of their listeners as people who are finally offered a perspective that differs from the b.s. they hear every day from the left/libs. Perhaps that is why they are so "popular" with so many, rather than as "leaders" of the "right" as many would have us believe.
Why do we assume talk radio listeners all think and vote as a bloc? If so, then we are no better than the left who loves to place people in blocs. Just as I'm sure there are "ditto-heads" that will expect Rush to tell them how to think, there are probably more that are independent thinkers that just like a more or less conservative/traditional slant to their entertainment and therefore listen to these guys (Rush, Hannitty, Levin, Beck, Savage, etc.) Each has a particular style (You're a great American") that is fun to listen to for a while, but I believe the majority of the "mouth breathers" as detractors like to call them, are just like most Americans of the de Tocqeville bent.....idependent minded, family oriented, free thinkers.
Thus, the results of the above poll don't surprise me at all. I expect 20% of Americans are rabid Dems or Repubs no matter what. You could tell a leftie that Obama/Clinton sold defense secrets to China and Russia, thinks that $1000 bills are real and has chimpanzees as their advisors and they would still vote for them. I don't know if Repubs have the same type of fanaticism as politics is not a religion to the right, and our "leaders" are not looked upon as demi-gods.
And agree on your statement about Obama's incompetence. He always struck me as someone who ran for office for the perks and respect that the office gave him, as he couldn't get any real respect through any tangible results in his life. Lots a father and mother issues I suspect!
Patriot, I don't think the assumption is that all talk radio listeners are a voting bloc. Rather, the question is how big is the bloc that agrees with talk radio? (Regardless of their different styles, they all seem to have punched their racing cards the same way.)
But there was a conception in the 90s and 2000s that talk radio's audience numbers represented a voting bloc. That idea was probably only ever tenuous at best, but it pretty much went unquestioned by GOP leaders until 2012.
Contrary to what the radio talkers like to assert, the GOP leadership was probably the only bloc they ever had. Now that the leaders are rediscovering the base, the talkers are having a hissy. They thought they could control audiences and elections.
So, more than anything, the Gallup poll serves as proof to your liberal friends that Republicans aren't the mouth breathers they might think. It also serves to assure some on the right that it is okay to disagree with Rush.
Patriot, Certainly, I don't think that all talk radio listeners are zombies who will do as they are told. I do know listeners who are like that, but I also know listeners who are independent minded and thoughtful, AND I eve3n know listeners who are actually liberals who listen because they enjoy it. So their audience is definitely not one bloc.
But my point is NOT about talk radio listeners being misled... it's about the size of the portion of the base that shares their view. In other words, let's assume that everyone is an independent thinker. Given that assumption, these numbers suggest that only 11% of the Republican base shares the views of talk radio.
Here's my point: If you listen to talk radio or follow blogs like HotAir, Breitbart, Daily Caller, etc., you get the impression that 90% of the Republican Party (i.e. "the base") has the same views as the talk radio guys. These people claim repeatedly that they are the voice of the vast majority of the base, and they are speaking on behalf of that base against a party that is controlled by RINOs against the will of the base and which acts contrary to their beliefs. They will rail constantly for the need for the party to throw over the leadership and pick leaders who will finally "represent the base."
What these poll numbers tell us is that this is entirely false... they have entirely misidentified the Republican base.
Think about it. For the past six months, all of these groups -- talk radio and these blogs -- have been on a jihad against Rubio. Lies, smears, distortions, name calling. There isn't a day they don't run with some new rumor about his treacherous intentions -- 100% negative coverage. Yet, only 11% of Republicans dislike Rubio. That strongly suggests that the size of the part of the base that agrees with talk radio is only 11%.
What that means is that when these guys say, "We represent the real base!" or when you see 100% groupthink at HotAir, that is really only 11% of Republicans talking.
That's my point: the base is not at all what it has been made out to be. The base is much more inline with the party leadership than the guys on the radio or the blogs. And that is why the party is no longer afraid to offend that part of the base because they have realized that the perception of the majority of the party being these people is wrong.
Tryanmax.......Good point. I always felt that when the talkers started bringing on repub leaders like Boehner, Rubio, Schwarzenegger, Ryan, etc... that they sold out and were now just like any other mouthpiece for oily politicians.
Sure wish we could get rid of both parties and just start over, but that is in the realm of wishful thinking and I left that dream years ago.
Still...interesting how the people are rising up against gov'ts recently. Brazil the most recent. Wonder what Obama and the left would do if a couple million tea partiers descended on Washington DC for a weekend or more demanding resignations?
BTW, Patriot, I'm not saying that only 11% of the base is conservative -- far from it. What I'm saying is that only 11% of the base is this angry, reactionary "reel 'merikan" that talk radio/conservative blogs claim to be.
I think this is significant in many ways. I think this means the party has much more flexibility than it seems. I think it explains why the primaries never turn out the way talk radio wants. And I think it suggests that the party won't hurt itself if it distances itself from the radio talkers.
P.S. I totally think Obama just ran because of ego and the perks. I see no other motivation... or abilities.
tryanmax, I agree. Despite the fact Rush calls himself an entertainer, most of these guys claim to speak for the vast majority of the party base, i.e. they claim to be leaders who speak for the silent/angry majority who aren't heard "in Washington." I think that the party leadership fell for that and they decided that "the base" must be these people because (1) all the radio talkers said the same things and held the same views, (2) all the magazines and blogs said the same things and held the same views, and (3) interest groups were led by people like Ralph Reed and Grover Norquist who said the same things. So from their perspective, the base seemed to be Rush/Hannity/Levin/etc.
Because of that they pandered to these people for a long time. They've elevated people like Michelle Bachmann who represents the same point of view and the same attitude. They introduce legislation consistent with that point of view and fight anything that doesn't. And they went into "party of no" mode because that was what the talkers wanted.
Yet, since 2008, they've gotten nothing in return except anger from talk radio day in and day out. The problem is that the talk radio "schtick" requires being an outsider railing against "the establishment," even when the establishment is you. So no matter how much they tried to win these people, they just got called RINOs and were threatened with things like third parties and primary challengers.
I think 2012 changed that. 2012 told the Republicans that they cannot win following this model and it told them that they didn't need to. Since that time, they've embarked on a different course and polls like this are evidence why the think they can do it.
Actually, Andrew, I just won't speak to you. I aschew putting physical threats in writing especially since the NSA and IRS are watching us.
That being said, I don't think that it is a bad thing to be watching the trajectory of the youngin's in the party. We are going into a change from old warhorse RINO's to the young innovative new stallions. Let's see what they can do. All of them are taking command and the RINO's don't like being relegated to the sideshow. That includes the talk show and pundit set as well. These younger kids are more media and tech savvy too which is refreshing.
Well, and then there's Chris Christie...God bless him, he really thinks because he's popular amongst the Yankee "Republicans" and Democrats in NJ/NY that he can play Buloxi and Houston too.
Patriot, The people have found a voice because of modern communications technology which lets them organize and share news that the official channels won't. The thing is, that only works when the public at large agrees. Otherwise, it just ends up as a protest and then it ends.
Bev, See, the NSA spying does stop violence! :) I'll have to send NSA a thank you letter!
I am actually really happy with the generational shift. Rubio, Ryan, Jindal, Rand Paul, etc. -- they are much more politically and media savvy. They have tried to put their finger on the pulse of the public and see how to bring new people into the fold rather than just trying to whip up the faithful. I just wish we had a couple women in that group who were out there reaching out to young women.
Also on the generational shift, I've been paying attention to "young Republicans/conservatives" and I can tell you that they are a very different animal. They are much more libertarian in outlook and they aren't interested in fighting the same battles as the past. They are also tech savvy, in tune with the culture, and they like to be hip. This has brought tremendous consternation in some articles I've read at HotAir, but it is the future because they will become the party majority over the next 10-15 years.
On Christie, I suspect that his support in the poll is soft. I think there is a caveat with his support, which is "I like him as long as he stays in New Jersey." The best thing he could do would be remain governor and then run for Senate. He should not run for President.
Andrew (even though I am not talking to you), I would like to see more women too. Unfortunately ever time a young Conservative woman comes on the scene she is trampled to death by stampede of demeaning sexist B.S. from the left. It is appalling that they are treated that way and that liberals get away with it. But I have faith that one will be strong enough to withstand the onslaught. It's the same for minority candidates.
Bev, Don't worry, I'll pretend you said this to someone else. ;)
I think women face several problems.
First, the ones that get held up as examples of "see, here's a conservative woman!" are often the dipsh*ts. Rather than looking for competent, impressive women, our side too often looks for bomb throwers. Palin and Bachmann are perfect examples of this. Honestly, both women are morons. Yet, they got elevated to pedestal status because they said hard-core things with reckless abandon which made the base giddy. People like that (male or female) always implode... as both did.
Compare that to the successful conservative women like Margaret Thatcher or Gene Kirkpatrick. They weren't like that at all. They were smart as hell, impressive and impossible to dismiss. And they earned their positions through years of hard political work. In other words, they earned the respect they received... they weren't handed it because of a couple zingers.
Secondly, every time a conservative woman comes along, conservatives rush to stick her out front like a shield. Rather than letting these women develop their careers naturally, we basically throw them to the wolves and hope they survive. That's a career killer.
Third, there just aren't enough of them. Since we only get them one at a time, that makes it really easy for the left to focus on them and destroy them because they can concentrate their fire. If we had 10-15 at once, then it would be impossible for the media to get them all.
Fourth, the people doing the picking of which conservative women to elevate are the very people who are so far out of touch with the public. Thus, they pick women who fit the stereotype the media has set up as a go-to way of mocking conservatives because that is the type of woman they like: "Why yes, my master-husband and I run a gay conversion clinic..."
If you want to reach an audience, i.e. the American public, you need to speak their language. That means finding women who are strongly independent, well-educated at real colleges, have real careers, and don't hate the culture.
Andrew, I find this fascinating. I sometimes check out places like Breitbart and DC and they take it as a given that Rubio is finished because the base will never support him now. These results are really eye opening.
On women conservatives, I think it would help if conservatives started recruiting a lot of conservative women and in the process acknowledged that there are many types of conservative women. I've met them in law, in engineering, and in medicine. I've met them working retail. I've met them pretty much everywhere. And one thing I can absolutely tell you is that they are all very different with different interests. Yet, the conservative movement only seems to want June Cleaver.
Ellen, I think it's fascinating as well. I've seen similar articles and comments. In fact, it seems to be the "in" thing now to comment that Rubio has ruined his chance to be president, but this poll shows that's not even true.
June Cleaver -- good way to put it. I think that is definitely a problem. The idea of "the professional woman" still freaks out a lot of conservatives. I am hopeful about some of the women who are quietly making their way through Congress now that they are actually learning and sharpening their craft, but we'll see. Experience is key to success.
If I were running the show, I would do my best to find a large number of varied women to run all over the country right now. And do you know where I would start? Litigators. Litigators have all the skills you need to be an effective politician, and there are some very good female litigators.
Bev, it's "eschew," not "aschew." I know I can get away with correcting your terms since you're afraid of making written threats against people. :-)
Meanwhile, Andrew, I think you're making too much of these numbers. So far as the popularity of Rubio et al. is concerned, well, the figures speak for themselves. Keep in mind, though, that these are overall numbers, and not a measurement of agreement with each person on immigration or any other single issue. I would be curious to see the results of a poll broken down by issue; it might say the same thing, but we just don't know.
What I suspect is happening is that there are a lot of Republicans (a lot more than 11%, anyway) who really are doubtful or mildly opposed to the immigration reform bill, so far as they know about it, but their positive feelings toward and trust of Rubio have convinced them to give him a pass so far as he personally is concerned. For now.
Who knows what's really up, since the poll isn't issue-based. At any rate, I think it's worth pointing out that these numbers don't really imply the massive "repudiation of talk radio" you say they do.
T-Rav, I don't think this poll shows support for Rubio's immigration reform bill, I think it shows lack of anger at Rubio's immigration bill. That's in direct conflict with the guys on the radio and the blogs who are seething about this and calling Rubio an "enemy combatant" and spreading every conspiracy theory they can about him.
In terms of being a repudiation of talk radio, I think it has to be seen that way. Talk radio has been on a six month binge of attacking Rubio personally for pushing immigration reform. Yet, only 11% disapprove of Rubio. How can it not be a repudiation of their views if only 11% of the supposed base agrees with them -- especially when a poll like this is the perfect time to send a message that you are unhappy with him?
And it's not just the Rubio numbers. After years of attacking Christie, he only rates a negative of 25%. Cruz is the new talk radio darling, yet he only rates 40% approval -- far lower than talk radio's designated enemies. Despite talk radio absolutely tearing into Romney for two years, the "real conservatives, anybody but Romney" gang of Santorum and Newt only managed to get 34% of primary voters.
Those are numbers that show that the overwhelming majority of the Republican base does not accept the message of the talk radio crowd. To the contrary, the overhwelming majority of the base goes the opposite way of the talk radio crowd. That's a repudiation.
"Compare that to the successful conservative women like Margaret Thatcher or Jean Kirkpatrick. They weren't like that at all."
But it is important to remember that they were also in their own way very conservative. They were considered radical at the time (if you were alive, you remember). Thatcher was scary even to her own party establishment. The difference is in style and in the personal ability to master politics and influence events.
We are talking about effectiveness here, not "moderation". Right?
A GOP that is less in thrall to certain parts of the base can be a good thing. A GOP that as a result moves to the left, not good. But with the generation rising now, in Congress and as governors, I am not worried. So many good people.
Now let me add this: I´m glad there are people like Ted Cruz. Not based on a grand strategy, just my personal impression. Also, it takes all kinds. I like him and I hope he can learn over time to realize his potential and becomes the mirror-universe Chuck Schumer.
T-Rav - See's how much YOU know. I used that as a veiled threat as in "I will now throw a-shoe at you", but don't let the NSA or IRS catch on. Oh, btw, \B-P
El Gordo, Absolutely I'm talking about "effectiveness" not "moderation."
Thatcher was no moderate, but she was effective. And she was effective because she had learned her craft.
The problem is this: right now, we are in an instant-gratification age where no one wants to learn their craft. Too many politicians think that the minute they get elected to that first real office (governor, Congressman, Senator) they are qualified to be President. Even worse, there is a media culture that feeds this and that substitutes bombast for skill. Thus, once you yell "You lie!" during a Presidential address, you are instantly vaulted to the top of the A-list whether you have any skills or not.
Consider Palin versus Reagan. Reagan was a two-term governor of a real state. He led a union. He spent a decade giving political speeches all around the country and refining his ideology. He almost single-handedly reformed the conservative wing of the party that was in disarray. Only then did he run for President... and his skill showed.
Palin was a mayor of nowhere and a half-term governor of a state that is basically a ward of the Federal government. That's her whole resume -- two years of babysitting duty. Then McCain picked her as his VP and she promptly imploded and made a total fool of herself on some truly softball questions.
Rather than seeing the mistake that she just wasn't ready for prime time, a HUGE chunk of the conservative electorate suddenly decided this woman needed to run for President and they held her up as an example of the kind of women who are conservatives. That doesn't help the cause of conservative women at all.
What we need (in both men and women) are people who learn the art of politics and get good at it before we hold them up as models for our side. We need to start picking people with a track record of success rather than a moment of bombast.
On Cruz, I absolutely think that people like Cruz are good for our side. Our side needs a broad range of people. We need people who can fight, people who can mediate, people who can inspire different elements of conservatism. We need a rainbow of conservatives (to steal a liberal phrase).
And what I really do like about Cruz, unlike so many of the other bomb throwers, is that he's both highly intelligent, very savvy, and very experienced. He is not a man who is likely to implode.
Andrew - I wholeheartedly agree with you about Palin and Bachman and all the other "15-minute of famers". But I also fault the RNC for not taking them aside and "grooming" them. Though honestly, I don't think most of them were/are was "groomable" anyway. I see a lot undirected talent that needs grooming and no one to do that.
Reagan had years and years of media experience long before he ever went political, so he was extraordinarily media savvy and understood marketing an idea. And he said what he believed and not what he thought people wanted to hear which is key.
"And what I really do like about Cruz, unlike so many of the other bomb throwers, is that he's both highly intelligent, very savvy, and very experienced. He is not a man who is likely to implode."
I was just going to write that when I read your take. It's true about Cruz. Years of litigation and thinking on his feet - he listens.
Bev, except now you just said it, so, you lose. :-D
Bev, I concur. The party needs to think more in terms of grooming and building a farm team. They should have programs to teach these people the ins and outs of politics at all levels. They should assign them mentors to help them avoid mistakes and improve their craft. Basically, they need an executive training program.
And part of that program should be to teach these people how to avoid the limelight until they are ready for it.
In terms of Cruz, he impresses me. He's smart, he's capable and he's not subject to the lunacy or loose lips that normally sink people who play the fringes. And I can tell you that there really is no better training ground than litigation. You learn not only how to present things in ways to sway people, but you learn to be very receptive to cues from your audience about what will work for them and what won't. Cruz has that skill. What he needs now is an agenda that will win him more than the base.
T-Rav, Leave Bev alone! She's under a lot of pressure, what with the NSA monitoring her phone and internet usage! :P
Andrew, what it shows is merely that the GOP has a diverse base. There are low-information voters, there are news-junkie bloggers and talk radio listeners, there are people who just don't care that much about immigration in light of other issues, etc. I think that, in many ways, this poll is indeed heartening, not least because it shows a base willing to get its information from multiple sources and not rush to judgment. But that's not the same as concluding most Republicans (i.e. the smart ones) are now anti-talk radio.
Do these numbers show a base unwilling to immediately crucify Rubio for being a bit controversial on one topic? Yes, I absolutely agree with that. But it's a logical fallacy to conclude from that that the base has also rejected the claims of "talk radio" (as if it were a monolith in the first place) where his immigration bill is concerned.
Andrew, no mercy. She's been living with the black helicopters so long, she should be used to it by now! :-)
T-Rav, Let me clarify. I do NOT mean this shows that the base is "anti-Talk Radio" or acting to spite Talk Radio. What I think this shows is that the base does not agree with Talk Radio or accept their positions.
Why I think that's worth pointing out is that if you listen to talk radio or read most blogs, they really are claiming that they represent "the base." And they are now busy talking about how Rubio has lost "the base" and has no chance to win a nomination. But this data suggests that they are not the base. It suggests that their views align only with 11%+ of the base, which means they are far, far less influential than they claim.
It also suggests, and I find this heartening, that the base is much more open to an expanded agenda and new ideas that the radio guys claim.
T-Rav, LOL! Yeah, she should be used to it by now I guess!
Andrew, Bev, et al.......The suggestion we should have the RNC take promising newcomers aside and school them in the proper media skills, I believe is part of the problem! Who in the RNC (Repubs) would you choose to spearhead how to handle the media? Off the top of my head no one comes to mind as "media savvy!"
OT......I think we are looking at this NSA thing all wrong. We are having these media reports of all the good this program has done. 50 foiled attacks......ID'ing potential threats, etc. Why doesn't someone on our side step forward (Cruz maybe..or Rand Paul?) and state..."That's wonderful that you stopped 50. Couple questions for yoObama administration...1) How many of the 50 were from the Middle East region of the world?, 2) If your program is so necessary to scoop up every Americans communications, why didn't you catch the Tamerlin brothers BEFORE they blew up Boston?, and 3) Is it true that the FBI policy is to not "snoop" inside mosque's? (Refer to question #1)
Then he/she could point out that the American people EXPECT their gov't to protect us from foreign threats. THAT at least is in the Constitution! What we don't like is scooping up our personal communications with family and friends and then claiming it's part of keeping us secure! Go after the one's with a history of attacking and threatening us...NOT TEA PARTIERS!!
...and then tun around and walk away. Now THAT would be media savvy.
Patriot, You hire different people to teach different skills. There are debating coaches, writing instructors, marketing people and communications specialists, and legal/ethics experts to keep them from doing things that are illegal or will get them censured. Those are people who can teach the basic skills that many of these people lack. Then you assign mentors who can show them the ropes for things like fundraising and how to cultivate reporters and how not to make fools of themselves.
This is stuff that corporations do all the time. Presidential campaigns do it on both sides. The Democrats have done a lot of it. Athletes do it. Celebrities do it. It's how you train people to handle a new job they've never held before and how to communicate without making fools of themselves. Very few people are equipped to meet the public without some level of training.
Andrew.....Agreed! Yet, who on the Repub side has taken it to heart and can handle the media? We KNOW that most interactions will be hostile. I agree that Reagan's years in Hollywood prepared him for dealing with an antagonistic press. But, as you say, he also spent the time there and in the intervening years honing his political philosophy. What amazed me about his style, was he would always 'tell a story' to get his point across. Usually some honest American running up against an uncaring leviathan government. He did it with humor and made his point by connecting with his audience.
Who do you see in the 'farm leagues' that might have that latent skill?
Patriot, I'll tell you where Reagan got his style... talking to real people. I've seen this in my own practice. If you deal with average people as clients (as compared to working in the corporate world where you mainly just deal with lawyers), you learn very quickly how to explain complex legal ideas in ways that make sense to people with different educational and skill backgrounds. Basically, if you can't explain the law and the procedures to doctors, teachers, truck drivers, housewives, teenagers, drug addicts, etc., then you have a problem.
So you learn this very quickly and the more you do it, the more it becomes second nature to size up the person you are talking to and to put things at their level of understanding. You ALSO learn very quickly how to avoid insulting people because you learn how to avoid assumptions that offend people and off-the-cuff comments that blow up on you.
Reagan got the same experience in a different way. When he worked for the union, when he went around the state campaigning, and when he gave speeches to GE employees everywhere, he learned to do this because he met such a variety of "average" people that he had to learn to do it to be effective. He needed to speak at their level and in their language.
This is what is lacking in so many of our candidates because they never leave their little bubbles and get out and meet the rest of America. And until you do that, you will never be able to talk effectively to the public at large.
A decent program would teach these skills through trial and error by having the various students learn how to explain complex ideological points to people of different education levels and background.
In terms of who on the Republican side takes this to heart, sadly, no one. Our side still mistakenly sees communication and marketing as somehow wrong. They mistake attempts to sell the message with somehow disbelieving the message itself.
(As an aside, who I would hire to do this is simple -- look at the companies with the best PR departments and see who they hire... not political wonks.)
As for who I see in the farm league with these skills, I see (1) Rubio more and more, and (2) Cruz. Christie has it at times, except he's wins his popularity through disloyalty, which is unsustainable. I am not sure about Ayotte yet, but I've liked what I've seen. I thought Scott Brown had the skill, but he seems to be gone. I wish Bobby Jindal had it, but he doesn't. Ditto on Paul Ryan. I'm not sure about Paul Rand yet either. He speaks differently, but I'm not sure yet that it connects.
Reagan knew how to say what he believed in a way that did not threaten anyone. And Andrew, I think you are right that he learned how to sell his ideas by talking TO people and not AT people. But most importantly he believed what he was selling. He was very intelligent and smart, but didn't speak down to anyone. Bill Clinton could do this too.
BTW, this is something that Obama and most of his appointees sorely lack.
Bev...That's cause Obama and his people are smarter than normal people, so it's okay if they talk down to everyone else. As idiots lacking the right education, we don't deserve to be thought of as intelligent. More like...oh I don't know...amiable dunces maybe?
Bev, Agreed. Clinton had the same skill -- an ability to make it sound like he was talking to you. Obama stinks at it.
And on the Obama point, I have to say that professors and judges are some of the worst communicators in my experience and I think the reason is that they are in positions where they want people to think they are smarter than you, so they talk at you and above your level.
Obama speaks like a professor.
Patriot, I like the word "dunce." Good word. :)
Andrew......I believe the media used that phrase to describe Reagan. Shows you how smart they were huh?
FYI: The Congressional Budget Office has scored the Rubio bill. It found that Rubio's bill would reduce deficits by $197 billion from 2014 to 2023 and by $700 billion from 2024 to 2033.
In other words, that's an $897 billion dollar reduction... not a $6.3 trillion increase as Heritage laughably claimed.
Patriot, What annoys me is how they now claim they loved him, when they spent all their time trying to destroy him day in and day out.
Andrew, it's largely a function of increased revenue from the newly legalized population, versus the entitlement spending on their behalf.
Of course, judgment ought to be suspended until the inevitable third or fourth revision of the CBO's figures.
T-Rav, True, there are always revisions, but there isn't going to be a $7 trillion swing.
This number is actually consistent with numbers out of Texas and California, both of which found that their illegal immigrant population significantly boosted their economies far beyond what was spent on them.
Heritage ignored that factor entirely.
Andrew, with regard to the immigration bill, quite frankly I don´t know what to think anymore. I am not going to read it myself, first because I am drowning in work and second because it won´t make a difference.
I certainly value your judgement. But then I know bloggers who are not crazy - sensible people I have read for a while and respect - and they make arguments like this which would be devastating if correct:
http://theoptimisticconservative.wordpress.com/2013/06/18/scrap-the-senate-immigration-bill/
I wish the whole things was less important than it is! There must have been a time in American when you could largely ignore Washington ...
"I'll tell you where Reagan got his style... talking to real people."
Yes, and Thatcher was "only a grocer´s daughter".
It tells us something about her immense discipline, dedication, hard work and intelligence that she made it this far.
Reagan or Thatcher were high performers without ever becoming condescending or contemptuous of their country and her people. In fact Thatcher was a champion of the working and middle class. There´s a reason why she won three elections for PM.
But she did not pander to them like so many politicians do - that includes Palin but also any liberal who affects an accent when visiting the provinces. Thatcher never pretended to be "just like us" or that people in Hull represent the "real Britain" or anything like that. She was firm in her beliefs, very anti-elitist, but she didn´t practice identity politics for conservatives. There is a difference.
I have nothing against Palin (or Bachmann). I could not help but defend her against the vicious attacks. But the difference is instructive for conservatives looking for an effective defender of middle class values.
El Gordo, I'll allow Andrew to reply more specifically, but I can tell you that the article you link is incorrect at its best, misleading at its worst.
1. Tighter or looser asylum standards wouldn't have affected the Tsarnaev brothers, as it was their parents who sought asylum.
2. Gov't outsourcing is good except when it isn't. The problems with Obamacare aren't with it's outsourcing provisions (as I'm sure you know). Invoking the term "soviet" or the name "Alinsky" doesn't prove anything. But as described, this would be a barrier to illegals seeking citizenship. So wouldn't that be good by the author's position?
3. The CBO debunked the cost portion of this.
4. Assuming the only real concern is the hardship provision ("unable to work due to circumstances outside...control"), this is not only standard, but not as easily exploitable as the author insinuates. Alternatively, the author also takes issue with illegal aliens receiving education or caring for dependents.
5. PAYGo is worthless and the CBO determined the bill will be a cost savings.
6. Immigration is already handled by the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ. This is a "you can't trust 'em, so let's do nothing instead" argument.
El Gordo, I think the difference is highly instructive. Reagan and Thatcher earned their respect and the process they took to earn it gave them the skills they needed to reach people. Palin and Bachman, by comparison, got to where they got through a yo' mama so liberal contest. And once they were exposed to the attacks that are always made against leaders, they both imploded because they didn't to their positions based on skill. Obama's failed administration is the same thing in the liberal world... they chose shiny, but skill-less and the end result is an administration that has managed nothing they want.
The lesson for conservatives is to stop instantly latching onto every flash in the pan and to instead start demanding that the people they follow prove their skill first.
It reminds of the squirrels in my backyard. We have an apple tree, but it never gets good apples because once the apples become the size of golf balls, the squirrels start to pick them. They taste them, realize they are sour, and throw them away. And the end result is that they will never get an apple because they don't have the patience to wait for them to ripen.
On the "Scrap the Senate Bill" argument, I don't really buy the arguments.
First, the intro talks about Soros setting up some dummy group to deceive people. That may (or may not) be, but that's a red herring. Huge numbers of prominent conservatives (including evangelicals) support this. Whether or not Soros has set up some dummy group, doesn't change the fact and isn't relevant.
On the six points:
1. The asylum thing is meaningless. The US accepts about 16,000 asylum seekers each year. Compared to the 1.5 million who otherwise come here legally, that's not even a drop in a bucket.
2. The outsourcing thing... First, I am always suspicious of arguments that mention Alinsky. He's a boogieman, as is Soros. That said, I don't like that these groups are likely to be involved because I don't like them being funded, but that is how the system works. The alternative is hiring 200,000 new federal employees and the end result will be identical.
In fact, there seems to be an air over this point that suggests "these people will work hard to sign up as many of them as possible." That strikes me as simply opposition to legalization, not some legitimate complaint about the process.
On the education point, i.e. who will be teaching them civics, that's a bit of a false argument. Someone needs to teach them. So it's either out-sourced contractors, government bureaucrats or teachers -- each of whom are demonized by the right. So I don't see this as a legitimate argument.
MOREOVER, if conservatives don't like this, then there is a very simple solution this whole issue.... bid on the contracts and take over the process. Outsourcing is always done through competitive bidding. If you don't want ACORN II involved, then create a company and bid.
3. Two problems with this point. First, CBO just debunked this claim about costs exceeding benefits. Secondly, the numbers they are using for the number of immigrants let in each year are wrong. We are letting in more than twice the amount they claim. So the point about this taking too long and therefore needing a boost (which doesn't make a lot of sense to me in the first place) is wrong.
4. Certainly, this could be a way around the employment provision for some, but since these people are agreeing to be cut off from benefits for 10+ years, they're going to be awfully hungry with no job and no benefits.
Moreover, this relies on the false assumption conservative keep making that these people are just coming here to get benefits. Even the estimates from conservatives about the number of illegals on welfare are lower than the native population -- somewhere between 2% and 6%. So this isn't a valid concern.
5. Pay as you go is a fantasy. Not to mention that CBO has just concluded that this will actually cut costs, not raise them. Even Heritage concluded that costs would go down for the first decade.
6. I haven't seen anyone else worry about the civil rights office thing, and a great many conservatives have poured over every word trying to find anything and everything to which they could object.
In any event, ICE (just like the rest of the government) must comply with legal interpretations issued by DOJ's Civil Rights Division already. So this doesn't really change anything.
Post a Comment