The Republican's Real Problem in a Nutshell

Tonwhall ^ | 05/09/2008 | John Hawkins

[Keyes2000mt]

It goes without saying that the GOP is taking a dreadful thrashing right now. Conservatives are unmotivated, Democrats are obliterating Republicans in the fundraising arena, and the GOP's poll numbers have dropped off a cliff.

George Bush, the face of the Republican Party, has an approval rating of 30% and according to Rasmussen Reports, one of the best polling agencies in the business, 41.4% of Americans consider themselves to be Democrats while only 31.4% say they are Republicans. Worse yet, voters trust the Democrats more than Republicans on the economy, government ethics, the war in Iraq, health care, Social Security, education, immigration, and abortion. Yes, the GOP still has an edge on taxes and national security, but how are Republicans going to compete in 2008 if they cede all those other issues to the Dems?

That's something Republicans in Congress are just going to have to figure out. How do you win elections when your supporters are unenthusiastic, people are sick of your political party, and money is in short supply? Unfortunately, in 2006, the answer was, "You don't."

In 2006, Republicans lost 6 seats in the Senate and 30 seats in the House. Although it's far too early to say for sure, judging by the direction the political winds are blowing, it wouldn't be the least bit surprising if the GOP loses another 4-6 seats in the Senate and an additional 10-15 House seats this time around.

So, why does the GOP seem to be trapped in this recurring political nightmare?

There are a plethora of different reasons for it: the war in Iraq, gas prices, a soft economy, George Bush's lack of communication skills, corruption scandals, the illegal immigration brouhaha, nominee John McCain, out-of-control spending -- you can go on and on.

However, there is one overriding problem that dwarfs all the others, a problem that few people in the leadership of the Republican Party seem to have come to grips with. That problem is that conservatives, who are the heart and soul of the Republican Party, no longer believe that the GOP has their best interests at heart.

That's not to say that there's no difference between the two parties -- because there is. That's not to say that the country would be better off if John McCain loses; it most certainly wouldn't be. That's not to say that the Republican Party isn't more conservative than the Democratic Party; without question, it is.

That being said, does the Republican Party adequately represent conservative interests? No. Do George Bush and John McCain's values and beliefs match up well with those of the average conservative in the Party? No, they do not. Does the machinery of the Republican Party -- the RNC, the NRCC, NSCC -- treat conservatives fairly and do a good job of representing conservative interests? Not at all.

In other words, to many conservatives, the Republican Party has ceased to be an organization that serves their interests and has become merely an allied organization that shares many, but not all, of the same critical goals.

That may seem like a small distinction, but it's an important one. Conservatives will stay up late volunteering for a campaign, give until it hurts, and crawl over broken glass to put candidates in Washington who're "on their side."

However, it's a totally different ball game when we're talking about mere allies. Why give money and spend precious time volunteering on the campaigns of people who are going to turn right around and cut you off at the knees on spending and illegal immigration once they get to DC?

In other words, the attitude towards the GOP has become, "He may be a son-of-a-b*tch, but he's my son-of-a-b*tch." That's what today's Republican Party is to most conservatives: our sons-of-b*tches.

........Which brings us, as conversations of this sort usually do, back to Reagan. Why did conservatives love Reagan? Certainly, he was a great President, but he departed from the conservative orthodoxy on more than a few occasions. Reagan signed an abortion bill when he was governor of California, the debt exploded under his watch, he raised taxes, he signed an amnesty bill, and Iran-Contra was certainly a big scandal. Yet conservatives, who were just as serious about their principles back then as they are today, supported him ferociously when he was in office and revere the man's memory.

Why?

Simple: because there was never the slightest doubt in the minds of conservatives that Ronald Reagan shared their values and was doing everything within his power to use conservative principles to make our country a better place. So, when Reagan did something that conservatives disagreed with, they figured he was just doing what he had to do for the sake of politics and didn't hold it against him.

Republicans today don't have that luxury because the assumptions that conservatives made about Reagan have been reversed. If a Republican does something that pleases conservatives, they often assume that it is being done for political purposes while deviations from the conservative norm represent what Republicans really want to do.

Until the Republicans can repair that breach of faith and convince conservatives that the GOP has the same goals as conservatives do on issues like spending, the size of government, and illegal immigration, the Party may win some battles, but it's going to slowly, but surely lose the war for the future of our country.

[ImpBill]

Good find. Thanks for posting. Sorta tells it like it is!

[Ronaldus Magnus Reagan]

Too bad conservatives can't wrap their heads around Libertarianism

I would love to wrap my head around this. The problem is that the libertarians are such pacifistic isolationists. That's the BIG problem I had with Ron Paul.

[SMARTY]

Not voting hands Liberals 8 years run of the WH-not just 4... which would be bad enough.

Keeping them out altogether is the goal, no matter how you achieve it.

[668 - Neighbor of the Beast]

Those open primaries didn’t serve our interests.

[ovrtaxt]

That’s the ONLY problem I had with Ron Paul, so I voted for him. He was the most conservative guy in the race at the time. Hunter had dropped out the week before.

[ovrtaxt]

We can’t achieve it- no non-socialist are running. Let me know when there’s someone to vote for- I don’t vote for liberals, so good luck finding one.

[Gaffer]

Deep down, the RINOs/Moderates/Progressives like McCain cannot stand admonition from the liberal media and the Washington elite. It is much easier to ‘go along and get along’ in that arena if you pander to them. To pander to true conservatives requires conviction of principles, follow through, determination tempered with a basic belief in the US Constitution. John McCain only has stubborn determination and an untempered vengeful demeanor on his side. He is the Republican nominee because the liberal media annointed him the nominee — that and just dumb ass luck.

[Recovering_Democrat]

That problem is that conservatives, who are the heart and soul of the Republican Party, no longer believe that the GOP has their best interests at heart....

That's not to say that there's no difference between the two parties -- because there is. That's not to say that the country would be better off if John McCain loses; it most certainly wouldn't be...

Conservatives will stay up late volunteering for a campaign, give until it hurts, and crawl over broken glass to put candidates in Washington who're "on their side.....it's a totally different ball game when we're talking about mere allies. Why give money and spend precious time volunteering on the campaigns of people who are going to turn right around and cut you off at the knees on spending and illegal immigration once they get to DC?

Did this guy READ MY Public Promise to John McCain?!?

[MEGoody]

Worse yet, voters trust the Democrats more than Republicans on the economy, government ethics, the war in Iraq, health care, Social Security, education, immigration, and abortion.

Sure, and this is why the Democrat lead Congress has their lowest approval ratings ever. (Lower than the Prez.)

[Mr. Jeeves]

Exactly right. There's photographic evidence:

It's actually very simple: economic conservatism is very bad for money center banks and multinational corporations - they need people to borrow and to spend and to envy others who do more of the same. Those entities expend a lot of money and influence on behalf of political candidates. Reagan was an accident, in a sense - a genuine economic conservative who took advantage of Jimmy Carter's incredible botching of everything he touched and a latent conservative streak in the WWII generation to get elected. America was scared - he told us everything would be all right...and delivered. As the article says, people trusted that he was on "our" side.

Many powerful interests have acted to make sure and accident like that doesn't happen again.

Today's Republicans are caught up in a massive and untenable game of "let's pretend". They have to keep the borrow-and-spend economy going to placate their backers; they have to convince a certain percentage hordes of public-school-educated morons that they aren't out to rape the environment and hurt little brown people in other countries, and they have to simultaneously keep the remains of the conservative base reasonably placated. They've clearly made the calculation that conservatives are third on that priority list since they have "nowhere else to go". Democrats have a much simpler and more traditional message: stoke the fires of envy and play identity group politics.

Though the author is 100% correct, there's almost no way to fix the problem that won't involve a long spell in wilderness for Republicans. This generation of American voters has grown up thinking they are entitled to a certain lifestyle and if they don't get it it's somebody else's fault. They going to have to re-learn the lessons of the Carter era the hard way.

[MEGoody]

Especially social conservatives that want big government, taxes, and social socialism for their pet causes (And, of course, for the children).

I'm a social conservative and I have no idea what you are talking about. Can you give examples of what you mean? Maybe your definition of 'social conservative' and mine are different.

[mad_as_he$$]

sad but polling shows that is true. Are you spending too much time on FR?

[mad_as_he$$]

Do not let the facts confuse your preconceived notion. The fact is that Reps have a GIANT PR problem. Nothing good they do gets out and everything bad does. This is DIRECTLY the fruit of W's arrogance and inability to communicate.

[sodpoodle]

It should be stated that Democrats can be wrong 100% of the time and there is little or no judgement against them.

Republicans can be wrong 1% of the time to be declared total failures even by their own *supporters*.

I don’t know what happened to FReepers’ sense of high standards, but we are spewing vitriol as vile as any DU blogger... against any GOP candidate who dares to veer from our *core beliefs*...........sinking low and suffering the consequences.

[tueffelhunden]

Unfortunately the Republicrat party has strived to prove exactly the opposite. They have spent too much time trying to be “just like them but better”.

We don’t want them to be “just like them”. We want them to be just like US.

[kalee]

bttt

[cardinal4]

If a majority of Americans think the democrats are polling higher on ethics, I’ll eat my hat..

[BibChr]

I want to see this article-title, with a picture of John McCain wearing a nutshell-helmet.

[no dems]

NO self respecting Conservative (no matter the current problems) will vote for a Communist/Socialist/Marxist just out of temporary pique!

That we know; but, if they stay home, that's half a vote for B. Hussein Osama-Obama.

[Codeflier]

I know what this poster means. The 2004 and 2006 elections clearly show a trend. People want social conservatism but big government nanny state handouts. I am left without representation.