CE Week #12: “A Way Out of the Wilderness”
We’ve been walloped in consecutive elections, but we can’t just dwell on the past. The future is already here.
Yes, we lost the election. But in a year when all currents were running against Republicans and our campaign was lackluster and erratic, Barack Obama received only 3.1 points more than Al Gore in 2000 and only 4.6 points more than John Kerry in 2004. The Democratic victory becomes durable only if Republicans make it so with the wrong moves.
Losing the election has led to a debate about whether the GOP should return to its Reaganite tradition or embark on a new reform course. This pundit-driven shoutfest presents a sterile, unnecessary choice. The party should embrace both tradition and reform; grass-roots Republicans want to apply timeless conservative principles to the new circumstances facing America.
In the coming year, we will be defined more by what we oppose than what we are for; the president-elect and the Democrats in Congress will control the agenda. We must pick fights carefully and center them around principle. The goal is to have the sharp differences that emerge make the GOP look like the more reasonable, hopeful and inviting party—which is easier said than done. A road map:
1. Avoid mindless opposition. We should support President Obama when he is right (Afghanistan), persuade him when his mind appears open (trade) and oppose him when he is wrong (taxes). It is the Republican Party’s job to hold him accountable on the merits only.
2. Be as comfortable talking about health care and education as national security and taxes. Republican health-care proposals are strong; they can trump the Democrats’ big-government ideas, but only if we advocate them with clarity, passion and conviction.
We must stress that the GOP wants families to be able to save, tax-free, for out-of-pocket medical expenses. People should be able to take their insurance from job to job. Small businesses should be able to pool risk to get the same discounts that big companies get. You can buy auto insurance from anywhere in America, even from a lizard, so why not health insurance? A national market would mean that health coverage for a 25-year-old New Yorker wouldn’t cost four times what it does in Pennsylvania. Individuals and families, not just companies, should get a tax break for buying health insurance. And we must stop junk lawsuits that drive up everybody’s health-care bills.
3. Winning the war on terror is a matter of national survival. Republicans must be President Obama’s best allies in waging unrelenting war against terrorists, and prod him sharply if he weakens or wavers.
4.Republicans must regain ground among critical voting groups. Voters ages 18–29 voted Democratic by a 2-to-1 margin. A market-oriented “green” agenda that’s true to our principles would help win them back. Hispanics dropped from 44 percent Republican in 2004 to 31 percent in 2008. The GOP won’t be a majority party if it cedes the young or Hispanics to Democrats. Republicans must find a way to support secure borders, a guest-worker program and comprehensive immigration reform that strengthens citizenship, grows our economy and keeps America a welcoming nation. An anti-Hispanic attitude is suicidal. As the party of Lincoln, Republicans have a moral obligation to make our case to Hispanics, blacks and Asian-Americans who share our values. Whether we see gains in 2010 depends on it.
Winning requires addition, not subtraction. While the GOP’s strength is in the suburbs, exurbs and small towns, it cannot surrender urban America, especially if it wants to win states such as Pennsylvania, Michigan and Ohio and regain strength in New England.
5. For now, our party ‘ s face is our congressional leadership. In the coming year, their response to the Democratic agenda will largely determine the speed of the party’s recovery. Senate and House Republicans will be seen more than any party chair or 2012 aspirant. Sen. Mitch McConnell and Rep. John Boehner must put on center stage their most persuasive, compelling members: Richard Burr and Jon Kyl in the Senate, and Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, Mike Pence, Cathy McMorris, Peter Roskam and Kevin McCarthy in the House, for example. They should make our case as Congress and the administration wrangle on the economy, spending, taxes, health care, energy, education, values and defense.
6.Good candidates are essential. The GOP’s return can start as early as 2010. In the first midterm, since World War II, the “out party” has gained, on average, two seats in the Senate; since 1966, it’s gained an average of 6 governorships, 63 state Senate seats and 262 state House seats. The GOP can have a better-than-average 2010, but only if it recruits strong candidates. Their cultivation starts now. States remain our best source of presidential contenders and new ideas, so elect more governors.
There’s another reason why governors’ races and state legislative seats must be a priority in 2010: redistricting and reapportionment in 2011. Seven electoral votes (and congressional seats) are projected to move from mostly blue to mostly red states, and every House district will be redrawn.
7. Let every 2012 presidential prospect run free; there is no need to throttle anyone ‘ s candidacy. Republicans believe in markets, so why not let the marketplace of ideas, performance and persuasion naturally winnow the field? Gov. Sarah Palin will be held to a higher standard than she was during her nine-week vice presidential campaign; voters want to see if she can improve her game. She’s smart, but it’s unclear she can attract to Alaska advisers who will make her into a durable player on the national scene.
Regardless, a consensus about who should be our next standard bearer should develop organically, not be forced by public intellectuals intent on smashing a candidacy this instant, as some are with Palin. We need more people, not fewer, to take the stage for tryouts. Rather than declaring a prospective candidate unacceptable, what about bolstering people who would be attractive?
8. Anyone interested in 2012 must help in 2010. Republicans should remember how much presidential candidates help in re-energizing the grass roots, raising funds, encouraging good candidates and articulating a strong message. Palin, Romney, Gingrich, Pawlenty, Huckabee, Jindal, Giuliani: if you want to lead our ticket, earn our good will.
Think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, the Ethics and Public Policy Center, the Hoover Institution, the American Enterprise Institute, the Manhattan Institute and state-level operations are stuffed with writers and thinkers who should be drawn into the orbits of these potential candidates.
9. Culture matters. Suggestions that we abandon social conservatism, including our pro-life agenda, should be ignored. These values are often more popular than the GOP itself. The age of sonograms has made younger voters a more pro-life generation. And California and Florida approved marriage amendments while McCain lost both states. Republicans, in championing our values agenda, need to come across as morally serious rather than as judgmental. More than 4 million Americans who go to church more than once a week and voted in 2004 stayed home in 2008. They represented half the margin between Obama and McCain.
10. The GOP must master new media. Today, more than 70 percent of Americans say they find news online; 37 percent are online daily looking for it. Democrats have successfully developed tools to exploit online advocacy, and Republicans must spend more time and energy doing the same. The Web edge we had through 2004 is gone.
This is a long to-do list. But parties that have just been trashed in consecutive elections always have a lot of work to do. Yet Republicans, in recognizing the size of the challenge ahead, shouldn’t despair: President Obama and the Democrats in Congress will, fairly or not, own every problem that emerges. We remain a center-right nation, and the GOP will remain a center-right party based on an optimistic conservatism.
And political fortunes can change quickly. In 1992, Bill Clinton stood atop the political world; in 1994, he stood defeated after Republicans took control of the House. We can’t count on a replay of 1994, but we can take steps that will make 2010 a good year—and, with a bit of luck and skill, a very good year. Democrats control the levers of power, but Republicans still control their own fate.
Rove, the former senior adviser to President Bush, is a NEWSWEEK contributor.
First off, I would like to question what “points” the author is referring to. Obama had a 3.1 “point” advantage over Gore, for example, so what points is he referring to?- Maybe to the polls or some conversion of votes?
Anyways, I would agree that the republicans need to return to some method of success they have had in the past and then spin it in their desired ways to fit the newly aged times. When they fight for their issues, they not only need to show persuasion, but also show stats, direct results of their intended policies, physical differences that avoid being associated with their past failures (such as Bush). I also agree that they definitely need to support Obama when he’s “right”. If something is favored by both parties, than it should surely be favored by the rest of the American public, too
However, the areas of this article that I disagree with largely involve their stances on health care. Claiming that it is possible to trump the Democrats with “Clarity, passion, and conviction” is not enough, and what exactly does that mean? If the republicans claim they will better portray clarity, then BE CLEAR on exactly what you plan to do! And further, talking about tax cuts and buying into the market does not explain where the compensation of those taxes will come from or how the government will pay for it. Also, the war on terror, realistically, is over. We are in a completely different war now, one that the American public foolishly thinks is centered around national defense, when really it is about oil-and national defense takes a close second place.
Finally, I would have to agree that for the republicans to have any chances of winning back the white house in 2012, then they are going to have to win back the Hispanic, the young, and the urban dwellers votes-maybe not all of them as a majority, but enough to help them substantially in the elections. However, choosing candidates that have not exactly been the most popular-particularly Sara Palin, Romney, Gingrich, or Huckabee- will eventually hurt their image so that the Hispanic and young’s votes wouldn’t be of consequence anyway. Each of these candidates have been past failures…so why would you nominate them again!?
Connection:
The only major connection that I could pick out from this article that would link to our most recent class discussions would be about the media. In class we have discussed how the media not only choose the stories they wish to share, but often assist in the policy agenda of those in office- or of the desired agenda’s of those trying to get into office. The media can hurt or help candidates by what images they show, how often they show those images, and in what form they put those images. For example, the republicans of the 2008 election received a great deal of attention from SNL, a widely watched program that is entertaining. However, the coverage they showed portrayed VP candidate Sara Palin, most of the time, as a complete air-head who was completely ill-informed. Though the skits were entertaining, they were probably undesirable by the McCain-Palin ticket. Meanwhile, the Republicans could not get the time of day from any REAL news reporters or air-ed interviews of any value (mainly sound bites, and then an info-mercial for Obama). The only source of media the Republicans could have in their control and could have done better on was their expansion of internet information. Nearly 70% of Americans get their news or other relevant information from the internet-and the republicans obviously did not get enough put out there for their voters and left 4 million sitting at home on election day.
The Republican party has become progressively more liberal, often it seems that they slide into the other party. Some would say that such bipartisanship is good. Not so. While some bipartisanship is needed to get things done bending to the will of others, despite what is seen as right may get more done but such decision often lack the perfection that parties vying for control achieve.
Our country is seen as a center-right county. With such optimism in Barrak Obama much will get done real fast, but with such conservatism at the heart of the U.S. people may feel a hesitation to go to such great existents for “hope and change”(aka socialism) When that occurs people will want a strong conservative base to rely on.
Connection: In class we discussed the new trend of elections becoming more candidate based than party based. I think that a big reason for that is that the both parties stink, they are almost meshing to become one. Neither as a group stands strong on issues, so people will pick a candidate that they like who is strong on the issues that they want, people would rather elect an individual that they think that will do his/her best to get done what needs to be done (whatever you think what that is) than a party that is hazy crosses the line and appears to have its own agenda.
The Republicans had it coming in the election. In my opinion, the party hurt itself by nominating McCain as their candidate, McCain hurt the campaign by choosing Palin as his running mate, and the whole campaign was run poorly and inefficiently. So, they should obviously be trying to come up with something new and improved for the 2010 and 2012 elections. I agree with the author of this article on many of the ways in which this can be done.
First of all, one of my biggest factors in choosing a party is their stance on the War in Iraq. This issue is one of the only black and white, perfectly contrasting issues between the Republicans and the Democrats. The Democrats want to withdraw troops; the Republicans want to leave them. To me, it seemed like the McCain campaign did not focus enough on this idea. They rarely discussed what they thought made their view better than their opponent’s view.
Also, the author must be confused about the demographics associated with each party. I doubt the Republicans are going to gain much ground in the minority groups, who tend to lean Democratic. I don’t think it’s worth the effort.
Connection: During our class discussions, we often talk about “media bias.” We know the media tends to lean left, and in this election they were behind Obama the whole way. I think the media played a huge role in stealing this election from the hands of the Republicans. In the next election, the GOP has to attempt to bring the media to their side.
I like the way this article goes point by point. I think it makes perfect sense. Although I am not exactly sure the republicans can have a “good” year in 2010 because, according to this article, there are a lot things that need to happen for the republicans to re-build. It seems so unlikely that all will take place. For example, making their healthcare plan more popular than the democrat’s plan does not seem likely. Even more unlikely is the republican party gaining back the vote of the youth. It seems to me that the democrats have that hands down, and it usually is that way. I really agreed with the section of the article that talked about gaining the hispanic vote back by securing the borders and reforming comprehensive immigration laws and strengthening citezenship. It seems like having the vote in that community would be a real help because it is the fastest growing minority. Besides it is way more likely for the republicans to gain favor with the hispanics than the African Americans. I also think that the “new media” strategy is a good one. However, I find it hard to picture some old, rich, retired men sitting around on a sunday morning and blogging.
Connection:
In class( and in the text book) the new way of the media was discussed. This is Internet and TV-which many people think have a liberal slant. It is becoming increasingly more popular, so it only makes sense that republican strategists would want to increase their popularity on the web. In addition, we discussed minority-majority, where whites will stop being the majority, thus it makes sense that the republican party would want to welcome in the Hispanics.
Karl Rowe is absolutely correct. “Republicans still control their own fate.” I think that this road map he lays out for the Grand Old Party is a good idea. More importantly, it shows us what the Republican Party needs to do in order to keep a strong presence and how it will win back some losses of the last election. I think that there are a couple of really important parts to this road map Rowe lays out. First is that good candidates are necessary. Some people were not very pleased with the republican candidates this year and thought we could have done better. I agree, even though John McCain had all the credentials, he was not the best choice. Republican Candidates in 2012 need to be attractive as well as qualified.
The second point that is most necessary in Rowe’s road map is the GOP needs to master the new Media. Media is so important because it influences how the American public feels about a candidate or an issue or the party at large. Not being able to work with and manipulate the new media spells disaster for any political party. Republicans must spend more time and energy developing tools to exploit online advocacy.
Connection: Rowe’s 10th point in his road Map has to do with the “new” media. I believe this new media is more of a broadcast media since broadcast media is driving print media to the edge of extinction and the republicans need to recognize this or they will become extinct along with the print media.
A response to Felicia’s post.
First, let’s not assume that all Republicans are old, rich, and retired. That’s just stereotyping, about as accurate as saying Democrats spend their weekends chaining themselves to trees to frustrate loggers. And while we could dispute overall likelihood of Republicans doing this or that, the fact of the matter is, they could. If Obama’s policies and health-care tank, Republicans could quite easily champion themselves as the effective alternative with the right motions. With politics, nothing is impossible, just improbable. The question is not of what the Republican party can achieve, but what they will have to do to achieve it. They do need to master the new media, but they don’t have strong roots in it. What may be the more long-term worthy strategy is simply laying the groundwork for a Republican presence in the media now, for later victories past 2012. This being speculation, of course. Republican’s need for the youth vote is a larger problem, it’s hard to change people’s minds than it is to make sure your voice is heard. Surprisingly, Republicans could easily turn Hispanic voters into their fold. Most hispanic immigrants are very religious, and hold to those principals. By courting Hispanic religious principals, Republicans can court Hispanic votes. They just need to present the right image, and stick to it. This is why Rove is calling for consistency in the party with alot of the things in his plan. This is what will help the Republican party regain ground.
I would like to respond to Nicole’s comment that “The war on terror is, realistically, over. This is simply not true. The war on Terror is not at at all close to being over. I don’t like it when people say the war is only being fought over oil. If Obama pulls the troops out of Iraq the war still won’t even be over. Al Qaeda’s message that appeared on tape After the election of President-elect Obama, was that even if the war ends in Iraq, the global war will continue everywhere. The new president will still have to think of strategies to defeat Al Qaeda. Zawahiri’s tape included many things, including a warning to not send troops to Afghanistan. The main theme of the message was a call to all jihadists to continue to fight. I would think with messages like this the war was about National Defense.
In response to Kyle’s response,
It is true that the Republicans could easily take advantage again. However, this relies too largely on the failures of the Democrats. Yes the economy could plummet further, health care could be an unrealistic goal, and all other policies of the democrats could fail-but the Republicans couldn’t make a complete turn-around by 2010. It will take much longer for them to win over a large enough majority of the country and for citizens to truly decide if the government has failed them. I also agree with you that the Republicans desperately need the Hispanic and younger votes, but this will be a very difficult goal to achieve- even with massive attention from the media. The young have almost always voted Democratic and a large percentage of Hispanics are catholic-another Democratic vote.
Also in response to Felicia,
I’m not really sure what the rest of your response said (it cut off after about 50 words or so) but from the earliest point on, I still stand by my original statement that the war on terror has realistically ended. The idea of fighting against terror is definitely still around in the states, and we have made great efforts in homeland security to try and stifle terrorism. However, our original intent-invading Afghanistan- has shifted greatly. Now we somehow are in Iraq and are dependent on their oil. The war on terror has shifted out of one country and into another one completely. If no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq then what are we still doing there? While our brave soldiers may be finding some terrorists there, I still greatly believe that there is an underlying reason for why our government wants us to remain in Iraq.
In Response to Ryan,
I can’t say I agree with you when you stated that the Republican Party has become increasingly more liberal. Are you sure about that? I was thinking it isn’t the Republican Party itself; it is the candidates they nominate. I agree with Nicole when she made the statement about past nomination of candidates. Why nominate them again or people like them? If the Republicans want to win back the White House they need to choose strong Republican candidates.
Bipartisanship is a really good thing. It gets tasks achieved. Around election time Democrats and Republicans get all up in each others faces about what is right and wrong and how one’s policy is better than the other. During election years these types of arguments are acceptable because the American people need to see the difference between Democrats and Republicans, however in between there needs to be a compromise because if there isn’t, nothing can ever get done.
The last thing I want to comment on is the statement that “hope and change” is “socialism”. I couldn’t disagree more. If a Democratic candidate with different views about taxes came out and made that their slogan, no one would be shouting socialism. America needs hope to get through hard times. I mean look at the stock market, it isn’t exactly looking good these days. There needs to be hope that we will climb out of the recession. As far as change goes, we are in the middle of two wars, an economy in “recession” (supposedly), the unemployment rates are skyrocketing, housing market is dropping…pretty soon half the nation will be unemployed or homeless or both (that maybe be a little melodramatic). My point is change could be good for this country at this point in time; past methods aren’t working, so why not try something new? When I play world association I definitely don’t associate hope and change with socialism.