Ronald Reagan Is Alive in India

Real Clear Politics ^ | June 2, 2014 | Allan Meltzer

[entropy12]

Narendra Modi won an overwhelming victory in the Indian election. He avoided or minimized contentious issues, like Hindu nationalism. The Republicans can learn a lot by following a similar strategy on religion. Modi’s campaign emphasized growth, a better future, and a program for achieving improved living standards for everyone. He charged the current government with “tax terrorism” because it repeatedly changed India's tax rates and tax law. That created uncertainty, an enemy of business investment and economic growth. The Indian election was a classic confrontation between the proponents of growth and the advocates of redistribution and the welfare state. Growth won across the board in all classes and regions. The young especially voted for growth. The same message brought Ronald Reagan to the presidency for two terms. Like Reagan, Modi urged voters to choose growth and opportunity instead of redistribution, higher tax rates, and envy.

[entropy12]

MSM in India is critical of "Hindu Nationalism" attached to Modi's political party, the BJP. This article is a good lesson for republicans in how to deal with the MSM on many issues.

[GeronL]

Way too soon to make such pronouncements

[SoConPubbie]

He avoided or minimized contentious issues, like Hindu nationalism.

Author, and you entrophy12, are wrong right there.

Reagan was thoroughly Pro-life to the point of supporting a Human Right to Life amendment to the Constitution.

I realize this fits your meme of sacrificing the Moral issues for a Pyrrhic victory at the polls, but so far, your approach, Karl Rove's approach, and the GOP-E approach has been nothing but disastrous for the GOP.

Walking away from principles is never a recipe for winning long-term where politics is concerned.

[entropy12]

Read the entire article with focus before commenting.
My “meme” is strong economic growth, based on lower corporate taxes (USA has the highest nominal rate), less regulations, less bureaucracy. That is exactly how Modi won the election.

I do not follow Karl Rove so I would not know what his agenda is.

[steve86]

It isn’t just “Hindu Nationalism”; it is “Hindu Supremicism”.

In the business world it will be a giant Hindu Crony league with others locked out.

[entropy12]

You obviously do not know how Modi operates.

In state of Gujerat where he was chief minister (same as governor) Modi helped create the largest manufacturing facility in Gujerat for a non-Hindu businessman.

[Dr. Sivana]

My “meme” is strong economic growth, based on lower corporate taxes (USA has the highest nominal rate), less regulations, less bureaucracy. That is exactly how Modi won the election.

Those are nice, but there is no reason to downplay social issues for these. Saying "less regulations" by itself may mean get rid of Obamacare, or it may mean allow more H1Bs.

Ever since the CBIA (Chamber of Commerce) in CT came out for the state income tax because of some business tax breaks they were offered, I am wary of Chamber of Commerce types.

If they want to be Republicans they better be along for the whole package.

[entropy12]

Based on current polls of American voters, social issues are not near the top of list. Personally I think social issues are important to enhance quality of life. But even more important is to win elections FIRST. Because when you lose elections, you are powerless to advance any laws or nominate judges favorable to your agenda on social issues. The horse must come before the cart, even if the cart is more important.

[Dr. Sivana]

Polls notwithstanding, studies in Kansas and Macomb county MI show that God, guns and babies are huge issues in determining who wins elections. Romney is the other kind, they lose.

[ansel12]

You guys being liberal on social issues is how you depressed turnout in 2012 and wiped out, in an election that republicans couldn’t lose, you got your social liberalism and lost the presidency and cost seats all down the ticket.

[entropy12]

Yes there has to be many communities where social issues are high on the list. I am more concerned about the next presidential election. As many as 4 SCOTUS justices might be replaced. I do not relish the justices Hillary will nominate.

The next GOP nominee must be able to draw voters from more than the 40% conservative block. Winning in politics requires a superb politician! Someone who is able to persuade all class of voters on benefits of free market capitalism.

That is what Narendra Modi was able to do in India. He even carried districts with heavy Muslim populations. Modi did not emphasize his party’s Hindu roots. That is the type of candidate we need to win in 2016.

And one more thing...in this age of 24-7 cable TV, the candidate must be telegenic. Can not nominate a short, pudgy, balding old guy against a young, tall, lean candidate. And do not nominate a mild mannered candidate who is not feisty in debates.

[ansel12]

I am more concerned about the next presidential election. As many as 4 SCOTUS justices might be replaced. I do not relish the justices Hillary will nominate.The next GOP nominee must be able to draw voters from more than the 40% conservative block.

Then you better not do what you just did and seem determined to do again, fight to make sure that you get in another social liberal

Romney did smashingly, with independents, wiped out Obama with Independents, and lost to Obama.

Your liberal agenda lost the election, and it was one that Obama could not win.

[Dr. Sivana]

Winning in politics requires a superb politician! Someone who is able to persuade all class of voters on benefits of free market capitalism.

I think we have a basic disagreement of what a presidential candidate must be to win a presidential election. I come from New England but have spent the last 15 years living in the rust belt states of Illinois and Wisconsin.

The assumption is made that the voters that are in play (that is those who don't come out every election and vote straight party line) do so based on a straight issues calculus, and going towards the middle where possible gets the most votes because those who are more cpnservative will take the lesser evil. Of course the candidate has to be competant and, as you put it telegenic.

Romney actually was telegenic. It didn't help enough. He RAN the kind of campaign you want.

The fact is, our government is already intruding all over the place, and broad bromides about the free market aren't going to play well unless it has the populist tinge that Palin, for example, brings. When Bob Dole or Mitt Romney or George W. Bush talks free market, when the dust settles we have TARP and more H1B visas. No one questions Palin's free market credentials, but she explicitly seeks out those union voters who aren't happy with their representation.

A lot of people who won't vote Republican or won't vote at all, including in the industrial states, but also in pockets of the northeast, think the system itself has been compromised, that those running do not have the country's interests in heart, and will do the bidding of either the Chamber of Commerce (which in turn is largely steered by the very large businesses at the state level) or the Unions and the full spectrum hard left groups that Obama effectively mobilizes.

The candidate who fits your profile best is Marco Rubio. Telegenic, optimistic, articulate, intelligent, energetic. He has also flipped on the immigration issue in a way that has made folks wary of him.

I'm not a hard liner who wants to deport them all, nor particularly anti-immigration, but the "comprehensive immigration reform" that the Chamber of Commerce and Establishment types offer are so nakedly disingenuous, it makes people doubt their motivations on almost everything else. How they are making this an issue in this year shows how completely out of the loop they really are. Yet the drum beat continues, as it has with climate change on the other side.

Voters, especially those who are not doctrinaire, vote for the whole man. Ross Perot attracted a lot of people who didn't agree with his policies (if they even knew them) but bought the persona. Talking just about economics and brushing aside everything else does not make for a mandate.

[entropy12]

On immigration reform...
I keep posting what I saw in Singapore a few months ago.
2 year work permits if there is a job offer,
and if no Singapore citizen is available to do the job.
After 2 years expire, must re-apply .
Very simple, very effective.
They know exactly who is there and what they are doing and where they live.
In USA we know nothing about illegals.

Romnet’s fatal mistake was 47% and not calling out Obummer’s lies boldly on camera. Too mild mannered against a thug from south side of Chicago. I lived on south side of Chicago for 30 years...I know Obummer like the back of hand.

[ansel12]

Singapore and America a have nothing in common, even chewing gum is illegal there.

Singapore has twice the population of Brooklyn, and from 1994 through 1999 executed by hanging, 14 per 100,000 of it’s population, for breaking the law.

Among the death penalty crimes: “Unlawful discharge of firearms, even if no one is injured”

[ansel12]

Mitt blew it, and blew all of 2012, he depressed turnout.

Once he got the nomination Romney came out against the GOP pro-life platform, reaffirmed his support for homosexual scout leaders, and ran pro-choice ads in Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin, losing all three of those states.

[GeronL]

The whole campaign was one lie after another. A lefty pretending to be severely conservative, when everyone knew he was lying, was never going to win.

[Dr. Sivana]

Romnet’s fatal mistake was 47% and not calling out Obummer’s lies boldly on camera.

So, if he didn't make those mistakes, he might have pulled out a squeaker, "W" style. He ran pretty much the kind of campaign you describe. But what at first started out was, "We must sell free enterprise" has become, "we must sell free enterprise, be telegenic, fight the lies, be utterly gaffe-proof", and I assume you would add "holds or has held major public office and has not scandals at or near the surface that can be used against him, and has a top-flight campaign staff with no ulterior motives."

Well, good luck with that. I am looking for a party re-alignment, one that is less focused on the businesses that love to stick special favors in legislation that was supposed to "cut taxes and regulation for all" (e.g. Tax Reform Act of 1986) and will appeal to a broader base of people without compromising on core issues.

I suspect that when the primaries come, that you would be willing to support a Rubio or a Rand Paul, either of which would not be to my liking, but a major step above Romney.

[entropy12]

Rubio, Christy, Paul....all are much much better than Romney in answering gotcha questions on their feet. Not my first choice personally any of them. But yes, they are better candidates than Romney could ever be.

I have not seen much of that governor of NM on TV. I don’t think she will be popular on FR because I understand her stance on immigration is on the soft side.

Free market is not the important item. What is important is that the candidate be able to explain WHY IT IS BETTER for workers. One way to explain it is cite ACTUAL examples from other countries. There is lot of history out there. Why this is important? Because it is liberal’s best tool to fool the masses...fair shot...1% rich...income disparity...are very effective talking points to fool the unwashed masses. I think only Cruz & Rubio are good at explaining this.

So,,,Appearance on TV, ability to field gotcha questions without looking like a deer in headlights (Palin suffered that treatment in 2008), expound on optimistic outlook for future based on free markets (like Reagan), not antagonize ANY voting block (Akin & Mourdock), and have a strong campaign organization and ability to raise lot of money (Obama), are all necessary attributes for a successful result.

[ansel12]

I thought you were pushing Paul just like you push Romney?

In fact some of your worst liberal anti-social conservatism trolling is for Rand Paul isn’t it?