Posted on 11/09/2006 12:29:19 AM PST by neverdem
THOSE CONSERVATIVES who are waking up dispirited about the Democratic Party’s takeover of the House and its gains in the Senate would be wise to think back to a Wednesday two years ago.
On the morning of Nov. 3, 2004, conservatives were euphoric as President Bush was re-elected comfortably and the GOP gained seats in the House and Senate — knocking off Tom Daschle in the process. Republicans began to talk in terms of being a permanent majority. The Democrats, meanwhile, were demoralized — seemingly destined for political irrelevance.
A lot has changed in two years, and a lot will change between now and Nov. 4, 2008 — when Americans go to the polls to elect President Bush’s successor. Rather than seeing Tuesday’s defeat as a crisis, Republicans should look at it as an opportunity to rehabilitate the party in time for that crucial election.
In assessing Tuesday night’s results it is important to note that it was not a defeat for conservatism; it was a defeat for Republicanism, or at least, what Republicanism has come to represent. In the past 12 years, Republicans went from the party that promised “the end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public’s money” to the party of the Bridge to Nowhere; it took control of Congress on a pledge to “end its cycle of scandal and disgrace” and went down in defeat as the party of Tom DeLay and Mark Foley.
Having abandoned its core principles, the Republican Party had nothing to run on this year, so its campaign strategy centered on attacking Nancy Pelosi — a questionable tactic given that, according to some polls, more than half of the country had never even heard of her.
Republican strategists who projected optimism over the past few months cited as reasons for their confidence: fundraising, incumbency advantage, gerrymandering and new innovations such as “microtargeting.” But as this election made perfectly clear, none of this can bail out a party that is bereft of ideas.
We will hear a lot of reasons for why Republicans lost this year. We will hear that they lost because of an unpopular war, an unpopular President, a culture of corruption, a traditional anti-incumbent six-year itch and a dispirited base. But one thing is for sure. Republicans did not lose on a platform of limiting the size and scope of government.
Just as this election wasn’t a defeat for conservatism, it wasn’t a victory for liberalism. Democrats intentionally avoided a publicized “Contract With America”-style platform advancing a progressive agenda in favor of making the campaign a referendum on President Bush. The closest thing they had to a platform, “A New Direction for America,” was not a sweeping ideological document, but a laundry list of initiatives such as making college tuition tax-deductible, raising the minimum wage, and negotiating drug prices. Though a Democratic majority will likely roll back President Bush’s tax cuts, they didn’t advertise that in the “fiscal discipline” section of their platform.
(It is a testament to how enamored Republicans became with big government that they enabled Democrats to run as the party of fiscal discipline.)
After controlling the House of Representatives for the last 12 years and the White House for the last six, a lot of pent up anger developed toward Republicans. If the GOP had to lose an election as a result of this sentiment, better this year than in 2008, when Americans will choose who will lead the War on Terror into the next decade.
The Democratic Party will take power in January. Either they’ll demonstrate to Americans that they have no governing philosophy, or they’ll play to their anti-war base by pushing for a premature withdrawal from Iraq and go overboard with investigations of President Bush.
While the exposure of the Democratic Party during the next two years will help Republicans, the GOP should not head into the next election thinking that running against Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton will ensure victory. Instead, the Republicans need to differentiate themselves by returning to their small government roots and once again becoming the party of ideas.
In 1994, Republicans swept into power by signing a contract with America. That contract has been breached, and unless they want to lose the big prize in 2008, it’s time for that pact to be renewed.
Philip Klein is a reporter for The American Spectator.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
Yep. I'm staying positive (unusual, considering what a pessimistic cynic I normally am) and looking at this as a golden opportunity: The RINO's are gone. Most of the dems who won are relatively conservative, or at least they ran under that guise. The vast majority of Republicans who won are real conservatives. Conservative ballot initiatives passed for the most part. The current republican emporers have been shown to be naked, inviting a change for the better in our leadership. There is much to be optimistic about.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
It's only two years, and I predict not much will happen in that time in Congress. It's too close in the Senate for them to accomplish anything, and hopefully Bush will be more free with the veto pen than he has been. As I've posted many times today, better gridlock than bad accomplishments in government.
I attribute the loss of Republican power in the congress to a weak president. Bush is not a leader. He does not inspire with is plaintive whinning voice and his inability to articulate a vision. He and his party have been sailing without a compass. They are hopelessly lost.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
Agreed.
The conservative voter-horse is out of the GOP big tent-barn, too late to shut the door. How will the conservative be enticed back into the big-tent with such diverse wildlife? Gonna use the evil demoncraps as a stick some more? How about a carrot of vigorous law enforcement up their ass?
Either we are equal or we are not. Good people should be armed where they will, with wits and guns. NRA KMA
They have not demonstrated that they have it in them. I don't think they do, nor do I think that many of them even believe in that contract.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
Within the first year of W's presidency, before 9/11, a socialist (I only know one person who actually admits to being a socialist) friend of mine asked me how I felt the new president was working out. I told him I thought that Bush was turning out to be pretty much further to the left than I could have hoped for. Now, six years later, the guy actually agrees with me.
You know, I really think W is a straight shooter who stands up for what he believes in, to hell with the polls. Only trouble is, limited government doesn't seem to be on the list of his beliefs.
I am troubled by what seemed like a submissive demeanor on his part during yesterday's press conference, of which I heard only a little.
I admit to being very discouraged about the whole election debacle.
The one thing I love about Free Republic is the absence of depression after the shellacking we had earlier this week.
You must be kidding.
I think in Louisiana all republican incumbants won decisively. Bobby Jindal won with almost 90% of the vote. We got it right for once down here.
But also what they can't be is perceived as corrupt, yes men to a questionable war and the tactics to win it, overly religious, and bottom line, not caring about their constituents.
I'm fearful that the lesson GW's learning from this election outcome is to press harder for this "new tone". If he does this, he may end up "killing" the next election.
I agree. Good man, but with very few conservative roots. He appears to be just as ready to support Democrat iniatives as Republican. This is a political problem for the Conservatives remaining in Congress and the "base".
. We very badly need a conservative leader. Someone who can take it to the Democrats without being nasty about it. Just like Ronald Reagan managed to frustrate them.
Agree. The minority leaders in both Houses must be carefully vetted, and the members must be open to change. The new leaders must be able to articulate our message and promote party disciple---including the POTUS. This is our most urgent challenge now.
Yes, I fear he will apply a 'just get along' format to his last two years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.