Consider this. The Democrats are running a guy, Terry McAuliffe, who is a scandal-plagued Washington-insider who ran Hillary Clinton’s crappy 2008 campaign and oversaw the Democratic Party from 2001 to 2005. He’s deep in dirty business deals and shouldn’t play well in Virginia at all. Moreover, Virginia has a great chance here to register a protest vote against Obamacare. Our most important national figures are all coming to help the Republican and the Republican Governor’s Association even spent $8 million to helpout. Yet, reliable polls have McAuliffe consistently 7% ahead.
Why? Well, therein lies the problem for the GOP. As the Virginia election shows, the current GOP coalition is untenable.
The first thing you need to understand is the nature of Virginia itself. Virginia is an old Democratic state which began to trend red under Reagan, but didn’t end up in the GOP column until the 1990s. Indeed, George Allen in 1993 became the first Republican to take over the governor’s mansion since Reconstruction. He did it with a GOP that consisted mainly of Reagan-conservatives (smaller government, lower taxes, lower regulation, strong military), defense contractors, and military, plus some leftover “country club” Republicans who really are genuine RINOs right down to being disloyal to the party.
In the 1990s, the population of Northern Virginia surged. These people are more moderate than the rest of the state, but are still generally conservative compared to anything north of the border. They are also a mix of rich, poor and middle class, black, white, Asian and Hispanic... lots of Hispanics. I would say in all honesty that these people are largely Reagan Democrats and should be easy for the GOP to win. And since they have come to dominate the state mathematically, that’s a good thing... or at least, it should have been.
See, there’s a problem. The GOP is no longer the party of Reagan. After the Republicans took over the Congress in 1994, the Religious Right took over the Virginia GOP. Their issues were (1) legalizing home schooling, (2) removing gay books from libraries, (3) banning abortion, and (4) banning pornography... issues that did not appeal to the public. Economics did not matter to them, they had no interest in tech companies (which line I-66), and they had no interest in the military or defense contractors who employ most of the state. The result was that they lost the growing suburbanite population of Northern Virginia... who now decide Virginia elections, and the rightward movement of Virginia stopped and began to reverse quickly.
This led to a schism between the Religious Right and the rest of the GOP, and what you had was that one group would not support the other. Take your pick on who is to blame, the truth is that it doesn’t matter.
Even worse, conservatism nationally started embracing the ideas of Pat Buchanan over Ronald Reagan: culture wars, xenophobia, anti-immigrant, anti-free trade, isolationist, all mixed in with a paranoid mentality. This is a guaranteed loser in a state that is growing richer, more high-tech, and more diverse.
Enter the Tea Party. The Tea Party started well, but quickly went whack-a-doodle and now consists of extreme quasi-libertarians who are awash in conspiracy theories and won’t support anyone who isn’t a clone of themselves. They are the insane love child of Pat Buchanan and Mark Levine, and as I’ve warned you all before, it is impossible for the GOP to placate these people.
Into all of this steps the GOP candidate Ken Cuccinelli, the state Attorney General. In Virginia, being the Attorney General generally leads to being governor, but something has gone very wrong here. First, Cuccinelli is hard-core Religious Right. His issue is abortion. He has even had Rick Santorum campaign for him. The result has been the usual schism between Religious Right and non-Religious Right. This time, several non-Religious Right donors have wrongly refused to contribute. At the same time, Cuccinelli’s attempts to reduce the amount of time he talks about abortion has led to various Religious Right groups wrongly attacking him.
In the middle of all of this, the Tea Party people have abandoned him because of his Religious Right views and his lack of purity... an ironic result for the first AG to file suit against Obamacare. They have fled to the libertarian candidate, who is polling anywhere from 10% to 12%. To fix this, Cuccinelli has brought in Ron and Rand Paul, but that’s only upset the Religious Right more.
This is a circus. What you have here is this:
(1) You have an establishment that won’t support Religious Right or Tea Party candidates... call it the John McCain wing.This is untenable. This means it is impossible for the GOP to field a candidate who will win except under truly unusual circumstances because no matter what, two of these three groups will always oppose their own team.
(2) You have Religious Right types who don’t turn out unless the candidate not only is Religious Right, but shows the required level of obsession to suit them.
(3) You have Tea Party types who won’t support a Religious Right candidate or an establishment candidate... they only do crazy... and I’m not even sure they’re actually registered to vote.
(4) And each group disavows their own guy when he fails so they can tell themselves that their ideas weren’t what was rejected.
Who is to blame? All three.
How do we fix this? My agenda. Seriously.
Here’s the thing. The entire fringe, Religious Right and Tea Party, is about 20% of the Republican Party (about 6% of the public). How they divide doesn’t matter, what matters is that without the rest of the GOP, they are nothing. To them, the GOP is a vehicle to relevance. Ditto on the RINOs who probably count only a few hundred people and who see the GOP as a lobbying tool primarily.
These tails are trying to wag the 80% dog. It’s time for the 80% to do the smart thing. They’ve been told they can’t win without the Religious Right and the Tea Party and the Establishment’s connections. But that’s false: the truth is they can’t win as long as they are relying on these people. When parties are as evenly matched as the Democrats and Republicans, you can’t win if a chunk of your “base” (a self-serving and inaccurate word) decides to stay home in each election. When that happens, there is only one logical alternative: grow the party in a direction that lets you replace the disloyal groups.
How do you grow the Republican Party? How about moving the party back to where it was when it was most popular: Reaganism. The GOP needs to reach out to the public and win them over. That means shifting to a new agenda that addresses the things the public wants and dropping the things that drive the public away. Follow Reagan’s agenda of free market solutions to real problems to improve America for everyone and embrace all of America. Will the fringe be upset? Sure, because they have nowhere else to go and because once the party does this, none of them will have the power to hold the party hostage anymore. That’s why the party needs to do this. 42% of the voting public no longer votes. That’s 92 million eligible voters to win over. Go win them back and stop relying on people who have created a Mexican standoff.
When your present path affords no opportunity of success, change directions.
44 comments:
It's like Reagan's three legged stool has been traded for pogo sticks.
It has in a way... the three pogo sticks of the apocalypse.
In all seriousness, there is a good deal of study that says that things that are formed in threes are the most stable for a variety of reasons. This is why governments tend to have three branches (Executive, Legislature, Judicial) -- even the Soviets had Party, Army, KGB as their three branches... because that's the most stable because it prevents any one group from getting too much power because the other two can gang up on it, but then live in fear of the other two ganging up on them. It prevents any one group from dominating.
The problem here is that these three branches have created a perfectly stable structure of self-destruction. It is a Mexican standoff in a real sense. Rather than keeping each other from doing anything stupid, these three guarantee that all three will do something stupid and they will do so each time... it's impossible for them to change this.
Hence, the answer is to change the structure by adding a fourth who can knock down the existing power structure. Interestingly, you don't even need to kick anyone out, just stop catering to them and they will all get back in line. But until that happens, it will be this Mexican Standoff in election after election.
Andrew.....I live in NoVA as a gov't contractor. The other day the doorbell rang and two young girls, 15 and 12 or so, were there handing out leaflets for Cucinelli. There pitch was about pro-life, anti-abortion. How Cucinelli supports the position of no abortions after 20 weeks. This was their reason for going door to door. Not anti-O'care, not anti-sleazeball McAullife, not lower taxes and real "choice", none of the things that might appeal to the wavering potential voter. Strictly anti-abortion stance.
While it did my heart good to see these two young ladies politically active, I didn't have the heart to give them my advice on how to capture votes. They were being used to appeal to a single bloc of voters who would NEVER vote for any Dem in the first place.
Disheartening at how these two children, basically, were being used.
Living here, I have yet to hear one anti-McAuliffe radio ad (I don't get cable TV) or flyer in the mail. I hear a lot of Cucinelli's "war on women" and the usual bullshit from the McAuliffe camp, yet if the GOP doesn't inundate the airwaves and mailboxes TODAY, I fear that the Repubs will lose an easy win.
Damn it's frustrating!!
If the "naturally conservative" voters of N. Va. vote for McAuliffe, for no other reason than "waah, Cuccinelli talks about abortion too much," they can collectively f**k off. End of story.
The WH is now hawking the "free bronze plans" for the kiddies...
Under Health care Act MILLIONS Eligible for FREE Policies!!!
Some of the comments are great, like this one that starts out "Amazing to me the hatred that is pouring out for actually distributing the wealth in a compassionate and sane way in this country. Is it fair that upper management etc..." I won't go on because you pretty much can guess the rest. Yes, isn't it amazing that people get cranky when others unilaterally decide to take what isn't theirs to give to someone that did not earn it...
T-Rav - No offense, but if Republican candidates think that using abortion as their central issue is a winner, then they deserve to lose. End of story.
Patriot, That's the problem with single-issue groups: they wrongly think that other people care about their issues... they don't. They care about things that matter to their lives. And as long as our party focuses on single issues so obsessively, all we are doing is (1) missing opportunities to appeal to a broader audience and (2) turning people off.
But that's the problem. I'm not honestly sure that these groups want to appeal to a large audience. They profess a lot of martyrdom -- "I would rather lose on principle than compromise," but I think the real issue is that if the GOP added 20 million new voters, then suddenly they would lose their power and their relevance.
In any event, the real problem is not any one issue, it's this Mexican standoff problem that you have three groups who cannot work together who need to work together under the current way the GOP is structured. That needs to change. And since they won't work together, that means bringing in new people. And since 80% of the party is not represented by these three groups, that's where we should look... and not surprisingly, those people are very similar to old-school Reagan Democrats.
T-Rav, That's not the point. The point is you have three groups who cannot get along: RINOS, Religious Right and Tea Party, and because they can't get along, they have made it impossible for the party to win. The only way to turn this around is to grow the party, and the only way to grow the party is to seek out conservatives who have left the party because none of those three groups have any more people to offer.
Trying to build a Party around the Tea Party people or the Religious Right or the RINO-blue bloods simply isn't going to work because there aren't enough of them. And honestly, if any of those people really believed there were, then they would form their own party and show all the rest of us how wrong we are.
Bev, That's doesn't surprise me as a sales pitch. As an interesting aside, I wonder if any of them realize that they will still need to pay the massive deductibles? Even "free" isn't "free" in this case.
On abortion, yeah. Outside of a couple theological states, that issue is dead with voters. It appears that about 6% of voters on either side are driven by that with the rest settling on legal with restrictions.
Andrew, So you're not actually saying toss anybody out?
"They profess a lot of martyrdom -- "I would rather lose on principle than compromise..."
Andrew - It is sad to say how true that is. I have had that same discussion with conservatives around the blogosphere. They just refuse to see the bigger picture. They openly and willingly would vote for the opposition, rather than see any benefit in voting for a "RINO Republican". In this case the conversation revolved around Mitch McConnell. Even if it is pointed out that if we lose more Senate seats and risk losing the House majority, then we are back to 2009 all over again. It just doesn't matter to them. And, in some of these state/districts the margin of error can be that 6%. All you have to do is look to Virginia and the 13-14% that the Libertarians/Tea Party is pulling away from Cucinella. Maybe right or wrong, but it will be devastating if Terry McAuliffe wins...that means Hillary wins.
Kelly, No, I'm not.
What I'm saying is that the current setup is doomed. The only way to fix it is to do what parties should always be doing in the first place -- try to grow. I am saying we need to follow a Reaganesque platform that tries to pull in all those lost conservatives and Reagan Democrats... become the party of the common man, of small business, of opportunity, of a strong and prosperous America, of the American dream.
The end result will be to break this stupid Mexican standoff and make the party viable again.
And honestly, that shouldn't be objectionable to anyone if these groups really do believe that their issues are winners. It should only hurt them if they really are just fringes as I believe they are.
The problem as I see it with the abortion issue and issues like it is that it conveys a sense of misplaced priorities. Whether it be by the candidate talking obsessively about it or the media spinning his views into an obsession, it sends the message that the candidate doesn't know what is important.
In a time like this, the response to any question about abortion should be that the current election is about jobs/healthcare/immigration or whatever happens to be dogging the voters. Abortion is a "fair weather" issue. It can only really be tackled when people generally think everything else is in good order.
Furthermore, most people just don't think of abortion as a reprehensible act. You're not going to change that through politics. Not even via mandates that everyone be given a pamphlet and a waiting period. If you want people to know and/or believe something, you've got to get out there and spread the message yourself. Persuasion is for politics, not the other way around.
--------------------------------------------------
Interesting to note: on the article Bev linked, my eye landed on a comment where the writer basically conflated the Religious Right with the Tea Party. I think that is representative of how a lot of people who don't see themselves as conservatives or Republicans view the GOP from the outside. They don't see a three-way standoff. They just see a split b/w crony establishment types and religious-progressives. At best, they regard the Rand Paul types as voices in the wilderness and at worst they just try to lump them in with one side or the other b/c they're too unimaginative to do otherwise.
That's just a fact of pollution, be it real or ideological. It clouds the environment and you can't make things out anymore.
Bev, That is the problem in a nutshell -- conservatism has gone stupid.
Each of these three groups (they are all equally stupid on this -- Tea Party, Religious Right, and establishment) refuses to support the others. They are happy to lose so long as it "teaches" the other two that their issues are the right issues.
But no lesson will ever be learned because none of these groups is willing to admit when their issues fail. Once their guy goes down in flames, they first claim that he didn't run "pure" enough on their issues, so their issues were never really tried... just like liberals claim about socialism. Then they point the fingers at the other two for not turning out and stabbing them in the back. Ergo, "it wasn't our fault, we would have won if it wasn't for you two."
And what you have because of this is a vicious circle where each group is basically spending their time trying to punish the other two and none of them will admit that their views are untenable.
The end result is a disaster, and that's what Virginia is showing us. And the only way to fix it is for the 80% of the party who are not spoken for by any of these groups to find new leaders and to go out and find an agenda that lets them replace those on the fringes who would leave... which isn't nearly as many as you think it would be. Essentially, they need to add 12 million new voters (out of 92 million available) if they want to replace the entire fringe. But in reality less than 20% of the fringe will actually leave, so they only need to replace about 3 million voters... that's 30% of gays or 20% of Hispanics.
"Abortion is a "fair weather" issue. It can only really be tackled when people generally think everything else is in good order."
As a pro-lifer, I agree.
Andrew, I sent you two emails around 9-10am Boulder, CO time.
tryanmax, I concur. Let me hit this in points.
1. Whenever you obsess about a single issue, you lose the public. As I said last week, people run away from those who seem obsessed. And talking a LOT about an issue that is not on the public's radar or where the public actually disagrees or turning something most don't see as right/wrong into a litmus test does that, whether the issue is abortion, gays, end the fed, feminism, the death penalty, global warming, etc. If you appear to have only one issue you care about, then you come across as obsessed and that means dangerous. It also means you don't have good priorities because you aren't talking about the things the public wants to talk about.
2. The problem with your solution is the problem of obsession. The obvious solution is to not talk about the single issue all that much and to instead focus on other things and do the single issue stuff in the background. But single issue groups have gotten so nuts that they demand constant affirmation. If you don't say ___ every time you speak, then they start to see you as impure and they turn against you. In effect, you are suggesting that the obsessed need to start behaving rationally.
3. You are 100% correct -- you can't change minds by legislation. You need to win hearts and minds and then the legislation comes. In fact, trying to legislate your beliefs against the will of the public will only result in a backlash.
4. On abortion itself, I don't know if people view it as reprehensible or not, but I do know that they have reached a consensus and that consensus is legal early on with restrictions.
5. On separating the three groups, I think the left does that so they can smear the whole party with the worst actions of all three groups.
Kit, Let me disagree slightly with you and tryanmax.
I don't think abortion has a particular timing to it, so much as abortion is a side-issue. It is not something that influences the public and, if it does, then it likely does so negatively because you've overreached.
What that means is that the Religious Right can probably win the abortion issue by (1) burying it deep within a complete platform that actually does appeal to the public, and (2) going the incremental route. But making abortion front and center is a guaranteed turn off.
This is something the left has mastered. They only run on issues that the public likes and then they do things in the background that the public doesn't like.
Andrew......For many on the right, abortion is a VERY serious issue. Unfortunately for them, not everyone thinks so. I think it would be much more effective to state "While I personally do not condone abortion, except blah, blah, blah, I would never, like the democrats, force my beliefs on anyone else. This is one of THE most personal decisions anyone could make, between themselves, their God, if they believe, and hopefully the father of the baby. My view is that we need to get the government OUT of our lives on issues like this, and truly make it a personal 'choice.' While I pray for the little souls ended so early, what can I do as XX to change society's acceptance of this practice. Heck, the Catholic Church, and in fact most religions do not condone abortion, and I surely don't think I have more influence than religion! So join me in using my position to ensure MORE freedom of choice, in ALL our personal decisions, and keeping government out of our bedrooms and healthcare."
Whaddya think?
I agree with your essay. One technique democrats have been pulling, and successfully, is pigeon-holing candidates as crazy anti-women. You may have a candidate who doesn't even make abortion a central theme but may at one time stated that he thinks it's wrong and out come the knives. We saw it in Colorado and we saw it with Romney. In both cases there were advertisements showing concerned-looking women who were worried that xxx candidate was going to take away their birth control.
I hate it because a) they couldn't do that if he wanted to b) many women are dumb enough to fall for it. But I hate it most of all that there hasn't been a good response to this attack. Staying on topic doesn't work; coming out and saying that this attack is ridiculous doesn't work.
This is a little off your topic but plays in to the idea of associating the candidate with the "crazy". Even if the GOP where to move in a direction like you state, dems and the media would still associate them.
Patriot, I think that is a very rational stance. BUT I also think that will never fly with the Religious Right, and that's the problem. Each of these groups wants 100% conformance to their issues and they won't settle for less. And what you are suggesting is in effect a legal pro-choice regime. That won't fly with them.
In fact, consider this. Cuccinelli is very much Religious Right. His big issue is abortion. But he tried to tone down the rhetoric a bit in the campaign because he was losing voters. There was no change in policy, just less abortion rhetoric. That resulted in people like the head of the Susan B. Anthony List complaining that he was abandoning his beliefs and that he couldn't win unless he basically screamed about abortion 24/7. Another Religious Right group actually lists him as the poster boy for the problem with RINOs and says they need to start running candidates who stick with their beliefs.
In effect, advocating what they want isn't enough to satisfy them, you also need to show a high enough level of obsession to satisfy them. That's insanity. It also leaves no room for a position like yours because they will dismiss you as impure and will try to defeat you.
This is really a problem with all three groups -- none are rational, it's about emotion for all three.
Koshcat, That's a related problem. These three groups have all created their litmus tests and if you want to run, you need to please them. Thus, you need to stand up and swear that you will ban abortion and sentence people to death for even saying the word. You need to pledge to end the fed and have Bernanke dragged naked through the streets. You need to promise to shut down the government on principle. You need to promise the money RINOs that you will let Big Business rape small business.
If you make those promises, the moderates will flee you like Frankenstein's monster. Moreover, each of the groups will turn against you for pledging the other groups's obsessions. But if you don't make those promises, then these groups will fight you and won't turn out to support you. It's a no win situation -- damned if you do, damned if you don't. This is why this situation can't continue.
Further, this is why we need a bigger platform. If we had a functioning platform, then moderates could accept some of the crazy. Why? Because the voter decision process involves adding up what they like and subtracting what they dislike. Right now we offer only a couple things, all things the public hates. That means we only win when the Democrats overreach and scare people away. But if we had a winning platform, then we could win people even if they didn't like some of the things in the platform.
Unfortunately, each of these three groups will fight that to the death because to them, their issue is the only one that matters.
As an aside, having a real platform would also reduce the guilt by association problem because the people chosen would have talking points that kept them out of the areas where the whackos get into trouble. At first, you would still need to deal with Rush calling women sluts or Akin II saying rape isn't rape, but slowly over time, those things would disappear again from the mainstream -- even as the left tried to keep them front and center.
To be fair, Rush called her a slut because she needed me to pay for her birth control rather than go to one of the three planned parenthood clinics near her to get free drug. It's hard to go to Georgetown, screw a bunch of guys, and be responsible.
I think there is a circle of hell waiting for Akin.
In the afterlife, Akin will get kicked in the shins by aborted infants conceived through rape.
Koshcat, Rush might have a point, but that doesn't change the fact he shouldn't have done it. It's just one of those things you don't do because you know there's going to be a backlash and you certainly don't do it when you claim to represent a political party that already has serious problems with women. When he said that, I guarantee you that he confirmed a lot of the attacks the left has made against conservatives over the years. And the twisted part is that he could have made the point in a way which really exposed the left, but he chose to do it in a provocative way that could never do any good.
In fact, that's become a real problem with all of our rhetoric. There seems to be this idea that sneering at people who don't vote for us is a good idea. I'm not sure what idiot thought that up, but it's spread like a plague on the right and you see it everywhere. That's the sort of thing we need to get away from and I think that getting a real platform that focuses on winning people outside the bubble will put a halt to that by making conservatives focus on what they need to be doing -- which is winning over people who don't support us yet. Unfortunately, the PR from these three groups is that we really just need to get nastier because purity sells.
As for Akin, he's just another symptom of the problem. When your party becomes a death match between lunatics, the craziest end up working their way up to become the face of the party.
Kit, LOL! I don't even know how to respond, except that Akin is just one small symptom of the large problem. Our party needs to reach to America.
Allow me to clarify how I view abortion as a "fair weather" issue. When things are less than peachy-keen, it's not worth bringing up at all. I don't like to give the media too much credit for things, but when the issue is abortion, they'll dog a candidate with questions to make him seem obsessed. Depending on what they get, they'll loop a single answer to either make him into a nut or make him look like he's dodging the issue at every turn or both. When someone turns out to be a bona fide nut, so much the simpler.
In good times, even then the subject can only be brought up a little bit. I don't think the weather is ever good enough to run on it, but the slightest sign of clouds makes it toxic. I don't know that that is a universal truth, but it's certainly true at the present.
As to affirming the single issue groups, I don't know if there is a way to do that without shooting your own foot off given what they demand in the way of affirmation. If they would settle for a clandestine approach, things would be much simpler. As it is, they want everyone to see it and like it.
Koshcat, Let me add something. You said this: I hate it because a) they couldn't do that if he wanted to b) many women are dumb enough to fall for it.
I agree with part a. Why in the world we should be killing ourselves over something that can't happen is just more evidence of insanity.
But I disagree on part b. Here's the thing: When a political party not only claims it will do X, but it makes X a litmus test for membership, it's not at all irrational for the public to believe that they have some way to achieve X. At the very least, you know they're going to do everything they can to get as much of X as possible.
The alternative is to believe that said political party is either insane or knowingly lying. Neither of those results make you want to support them either. So I don't think the problem is with the voters on this.
tryanmax, I think you are right. There are first tier issues like jobs which take the primary focus. In bad times, they take the sole focus. In good times, they take a smaller focus. Ignore them at your peril. Then there are all the outlier issues like abortion, guns, feminism, environmentalism, etc... the "activist" issues. Those are issues that people only focus on when everything else is running smoothly. And pursuing those in bad times is political suicide. Unfortunately, each of these three groups thinks their issues are the only issues that matter all the time and they are very tone deaf to the public's response.
On affirming the activists, you can't. They won't allow it. They have set up a series of requirements to win their support which are simply impossible to satisfy while still attracting enough people to win an election. That's the problem with them requiring you not only to hold their views, but to demonstrate enough passion in the advocacy of those views. Basically, they want to see that you are a true believer to their particular cause. But if you do that, then you lose the other two fringe groups plus the public at large.
That is the problem.
Let me also add, I'm not predicting the Virginia race. I suppose Cuccinelli could still win. The issue is that conditions in this country since 2010 are about as good as it gets for conservatism to prevail with voters and Virginia in particular should be very pro-Republican. But instead of crushing victories, we're flaming out everywhere or barely scraping by. This race highlights the structural problem that is behind this.
It is quite a leap from being against abortion and taking away ALL birth control. One is a medical procedure while the other is a prescription that an NP can give. In both examples I gave, neither candidate was running on an anti-abortion platform. Didn't matter. In the la-la land white male + republican = woman hater. (the corollary equation for dems is white male + democrat + girl drowner + alcoholic + spouse cheater = champion of women's rights).
There is very little a congressman, senator, or president can do to prevent the sale of birth control.
Koshcat, I know, but again, when someone tells you they plan to do X, it's hard not to take it at face value that their goal is to do X in some way shape or form.
Conservatives do the same thing. It's human nature to believe that when someone supposedly reputable is making a threat that they intend to carry it out... or to dismiss them as cranks. Neither result is particularly good in terms of winning people over.
And again, the solution is to get conservatives talking about other things. I still remember how positive conservatives were in the 1980s. We were going to fix the world and make everyone better off.. shining city on the hill. We loved America and Americans and we were for them! Were there fringe people? Sure, the gold standard crowd was big at that point, but people didn't worry about them because the party offered so much else. These days, we offer doomsday predictions, attacks on Democrats, and promises to do insane things. "Woo hoo! I's gonna shut down the Fed, make edukation opticonal for kids cuz I hate unions, and I's gonna wipe out unemployment cuz their all lazy and stupid!" Doesn't quite have the same ring to it.
And when that is the kind of thing many of your representatives say, the public is right to worry. The public used to worry about the left for the same reason until Clinton made them sound reasonable.
I think one of the problems we are facing now that we have never really face before with "the fringe" is that they now have a national/international platform to air their grievances loudly and relentlessly. The rational middle ground on both sides is being drowned out because of it by the very rabid vocal fringe. It has always been the "rational middle" that has been able to come to take both sides and come to compromise that everyone could live with. But the "rational middle" is being drowned out because we are do not make "sexy" headlines.
Bev, I concur. The problem is that our culture is driven by the salacious and the shocking, so the fringe (on both sides) become the media darlings. Add in the fact that these people are more motivated to spread their idiocy than normal people are to fight back and you end up with a huge push to make the fringe appear to represent the party even though they are only a fringe.
And that's the thing. If you look at polls, the silent 80% of Republicans who only appear in polls are actually very, very similar to independents in their views, but are nearly polar opposites of the 20%. Yet, the 20% dominate the party mechanism because of the issue above.
The only way to fix this that I can see right now will be a strong leader to push an entirely new agenda because the fringe refuses to wake up to reality -- in fact, they've put up psychological defense mechanism to keep from ever admitting their own failure. Sadly, so far, I don't see that person. I had hoped for Rubio would be it, but he fell apart once the fringe turned on him. I'm not sure about Rand Paul yet. I'm not sure who else there is?
The only name now is Christie but he's just as bad only in the other direction.
It's frustrating.
It seems he could win but it will be because of Obamacare.
LINK
Its like there is a battle of incompetencies going on!
By "he", I mean Cucinelli.
Andrew,
Personally, I'm still holding out for Scott Walker.
Kit, It's possible. And if it happens, it will be to send a message on Obamacare.
That said, my point was actually that this should have been a cakewalk, just like 2012 and 2014. But it isn't because the party "pillars" can't stop fighting each other.
Andrew,
You are right.
Hi Andrew!I agree with your assessment of the "crack up" of the party. All the comments are interesting tonight...esp about abortion. Sad.
I just wanted to add that I think the democrat/liberals in this country have been very successful in, shall we say, buying votes. I don't see the Republicans or any sort of reinvention of the party as having power for many many years. I think the country has made a permanent move to the left. Conservative people will be viewed as crazy or a relic. I am not trying to be depressing. I just think there are so many low-info voters, liberals, people not good at math, etc.
Also, I think the Republican is losing in Virginia. They are trying to make it look like a race but media is trying to make news.
Any thoughts?
I don't always comment but read everyday here.
CrisD
Cris, Howdy! I'm glad you read along and that you comment when you do. :D
On Virginia, it's very hard to overcome a 7% lead in one day. So odds are that he will lose and the media is just trying to create some drama. That said, it's possible that the libertarian's support is soft and those people might drift back. I guess we'll see, but most people think Cuccinelli has lost.
On the party, ironically, the right leader could change the party almost overnight. But we don't have the right leader. So at this point, change will take a long time because either we need that leader to emerge or we need the rest of the party to wake up and change direction -- that will be hard because parties are built to make bottom up change difficult. I think realistically that our first chance for change will be 2016.
On the Democrats, I agree that they have managed to buy a sizable portion of their base. They have definitely claimed the stupid and the lazy and those who want the government to give them things.
That said, I don't agree that America has changed. We debunked the 47% number the other day. The public seems really hostile to Obamacare, which wouldn't be the case if the public had changed. Obama lost 9 million votes, which is incredible. There is a lot of evidence that our entrepreneurs are still out there doing their things. Polls keep showing people having generally conservative views. And I see no cultural shift, i.e. films and television aren't glorifying government or living on benefits.
I think what you are seeing is that our media highlights isolated incidents and tries to make it seem like "this is the new America," but it's really not. Our culture and our values are surprisingly unchanging. That's one reason that I think that conservatives really do have an opportunity here if they would wake up and reach out to the public.
Well, if the GOP can blow it in an easy race like Virginia, I shudder at how they'll do in a dogfight like Pennsylvania's shaping up to be next year.
Rustbelt, That's the problem -- we are blowing races we should be winning easily and we aren't even competitive in tougher races. That needs to change.
BevfromNYC said: T-Rav - No offense, but if Republican candidates think that using abortion as their central issue is a winner, then they deserve to lose. End of story.
No. Not more than McAuliffe. A rational, informed voter, even if he is somewhat liberal, ought to draw the conclusion that Cucinelli is the smaller evil. He just isn´t going to do as much damage. Ideally, you don´t vote for the guy who runs the "better" campaign, you vote for the guy who is the better man, who will do will do the better job. T-Rav has a point there.
The problem is, such ideal voters do not exist in numbers. Most voters invest very little time and effort. One could blame them for lacking judgement, being lazy fools etc. but blaming the electorate is for losers. It doesn´t do any good. And should one blame people for living their lives and not obsess about politics? Isn´t that the conservaive/libertarian ideal?
Fact is, one of the few things that penetrates the thick skulls of average voters is an unpleasant image of Republicans. Of course it´s unfair. Of course Dems lie and the media are partisan. The obvious conclusion is that conservatives shouldn´t be helping them.
El Gordo, I think what it really comes down to is that we need to stop handing the other side ammo to shoot us with. We need a broad-based, appealing platform, we need to hide our crazies or ditch them, and we need to act like grownups... while giving the Democrats no quarter.
Post a Comment