Posted on 03/13/2009 1:08:18 PM PDT by pissant
I read David Frum's cover piece in this week's Newsweek magazine, "Why Rush is Wrong: A Conservative's case against Limbaugh," and I've been thinking about it ever since. Frum is a former Bush #43 speechwriter, and has started a great website, newmajority.com, that I found on Michael Barone's recommendation a few weeks back. Frum's article is the must-read of the week for Republicans. I agree with most of what he says, and here's the part that makes the most sense to me:
Look at America's public-policy problems, look at voting trends, and it's inescapably obvious that the Republican Party needs to evolve. We need to put free-market health-care reform, not tax cuts, at the core of our economic message. It's health-care costs that are crushing middle-class incomes. Between 2000 and 2006, the amount that employers paid for labor rose substantially. Employees got none of that money; all of it was absorbed by rising health-care costs. Meanwhile, the income-tax cuts offered by Republicans interest fewer and fewer people: before the recession, two thirds of American workers paid more in payroll taxes than in income taxes.
We need to modulate our social conservatism (not jettison—modulate). The GOP will remain a predominantly conservative party and a predominantly pro-life party. But especially on gay-rights issues, the under-30 generation has arrived at a new consensus. Our party seems to be running to govern a country that no longer exists. The rule that both our presidential and vice presidential candidates must always be pro-life has become counterproductive: McCain's only hope of winning the presidency in 2008 was to carry Pennsylvania, and yet Pennsylvania's most successful Republican vote winner, former governor Tom Ridge, was barred from the ticket because he's pro-choice ...
Above all, we need to take governing seriously again. Voters have long associated Democrats with corrupt urban machines, Republicans with personal integrity and fiscal responsibility ... After Iraq, Katrina and Harriet Miers, Democrats surged to a five-to-three advantage on the competence and ethics questions. And that was before we put Sarah Palin on our national ticket.
Every day, Rush Limbaugh reassures millions of core Republican voters that no change is needed: if people don't appreciate what we are saying, then say it louder. Isn't that what happened in 1994? Certainly this is a good approach for Rush himself. He claims 20 million listeners per week, and that suffices to make him a very wealthy man. And if another 100 million people cannot stand him, what does he care? What can they do to him other than ... not listen? It's not as if they can vote against him.
But they can vote against Republican candidates for Congress. They can vote against Republican nominees for president. And if we allow ourselves to be overidentified with somebody who earns his fortune by giving offense, they will vote against us. Two months into 2009, President Obama and the Democratic Congress have already enacted into law the most ambitious liberal program since the mid-1960s. More, much more is to come. Through this burst of activism, the Republican Party has been flat on its back.
I couldn't agree more on that last point. It's time to move past Rush Limbaugh, on many levels, and I think there are a lot of conservatives who feel the same way. For Republicans, it's time to evolve.
On Facebook? You can keep up with Thomas Jefferson Street blog postings through Facebook's Networked Blogs.
Wrong. We have the best health care in the world. The only reform we need is reforming trial lawyer junk lawsuits, by capping the dollars to sue for and instituting loser pays. Lawyers must post a cash bond for the dollars they are seeking in the suit. Loser coughs up the money. 3 frivolous suits and you lose your practice.
Draft Duncan Hunter, for party Chair!
No offense Mr. Steele.
Steele could be Ambassador to the DNC.
With special “media management” duties, as assigned by Chairman Hunter. :)
Well done, Lt. General
I have had it with the Repubs. No more money, votes, support. Nothing, until they change their ways.
Right. But conservatives have pounded the latter message with not much explanation on the first.
People need to know the advantages of a free market health system.
We need to get all the RINOs out of the republican party. They dont belong there. They might as well be dumbocrats.
Why bother? Just admit you're an amoral Democrat-Lite and join your fellow Socialists and Commies.
Thanks
Most people who call themselves conservatives agree on about 6 of 10 different issues. Some people are flexible on some issues and maybe there is a minority-sized core who agrees on every last one.
I think there may be something in the Free Republic creed that would exclude me. It doesn’t matter; I agree with almost all of it and here is where I find like-mindeds who want to fight for the country as enumerated in our Founding Documents.
I don’t know if the GOP as a party fits even a 10th of us. The problem is that the GOP ends up being elected or appointed officials, and invariably they end up going soft on principles and huge on compromise or FOLDING. To run for office, you have to feel a surge of joy to see your face on signs and billboards, and most of us don’t feel that psychological need. Those who do, sadly, are those who love being in the right crowds, and hate being hated. In other words, they fear true leadership. So the GOP doesn’t help us much.
If we were to sit down and draw up a list of absolutes for conservatives, it would be like giving a ball of catnip to a kitten. We’d be so distracted that when we’d finally look up from our rolling and biting, the other side would have turned America into the USSR.
We will NEVER all agree on anything. But Rush knows that. I can tell that he doesn’t care. He is a Christian but he does not mind us non-Christians in the group, for example. He gave the LARGEST TENT description of conservatism in his speech at CPAC. That is good enough for me.
Let’s focus on LOVING ALL AMERICANS. Not seeing groups. Not feeling pity (except for the infirm and weak). Wanting to get government OUT of people’s ways. Believing in us and in our great nation. Trying to live up to our founding documents. Keeping our country’s borders intact and our people safe.
There is nothing in the above paragraph that needs to be altered for gays or blacks or Grandmas or chimpanzees. All that matters is that we find a party who will have this as its platform. All the rest is unnecessary detail; now get on the ball, conservatives.
Never heard of her.
I will agree with that.
“We need to put free-market health-care reform, not tax cuts, at the core of our economic message”
Fine—but how does that result in the R party “evolving”. It is simply a slight shift in emphasis. As far as gays, fine, intelligent gays are and have been quite an important part of the R party and that should not change. Neither should the R party oust people who disagree with the behavior of some gays. The D and R parties both are political parties that by their nature must represent a wide array of people that in some ways may conflict at the edges. That is the nature of people and parties. Of course, that isn’t a change or “evolution” either. However, the trends that are described in this article are trends pushed by the D party to damage America. Why not recognize that and realize that “evolving” is what resulted in the R party and the nation being damaged and that trying to shrug along with the trend will only result in your being second place to the D party as that party continues to cement its permanent domination of the nation’s government.
As far as Rush’s statements, if 100 million people dislike him then 100 million people have no sense or have only listened to lies about him. Listen to his recent CPAC speech and tell me what is so abhorrent. Everything he said seems perfectly normal and sensible to me—at least what I grew up thinking was perfectly normal.
Seriously, conservatives. WE CAN DO THIS.
“Move past” Ronald Reagan. “Move past” Rush Limbaugh.
If they aren’t careful they are going to “Move On. org”.
That is what I call Liberal Lite.
However we do need to reframe the debate, especially concerning abortion. There are a number of ways to deal with that issue other than promoting an overturn of rvw, which would take away a lot of their ammo against us. But this stuff is just the RHINO’s roaring...and their daughters;/
“Wrong. We have the best health care in the world.”
Of course we do, but we also have a system that is out of the reach of many people due to high costs. Our problem is not the quality of the care but the cost. I think we need insurance reform. Anytime you want a service and don’t have to pay for it you will use it more than you would otherwise, increasing demand and driving the cost up. If you go to a doctor and he suggests an MRI even though it may not be completely necessary you will have it if the insurance company will pay for it. If you have to pay for it you will weigh the cost benefit of it. You do the same when you need home repairs, auto repairs, or even selecting a college for your kids. If all those things were being paid for by someone else you’d go for the most expensive regardless of the need.
What we need is insurance to cover catastrophic health care situations like non-elective hospitalization (kind of like homeowners insurance). Regular doctor visits and medicines should be paid out of one’s pocket and 100% deductible. People would shop around for doctors and want transparency in their billing before they would select their primary care physician.
None of this would work if we can’t get medical malpractice suits under control, and government interference out of the system. Right now doctors have to pay a fortune to cover liability insurance premiums, and process all the medicare paperwork. Take those costs out of the equation and health care costs come down.
I think it is problematic that people can’t get health care if they absolutely need it simply because they can’t afford insurance premiums. The answer is definitely NOT more government programs.
“Lastly, there is no such thing as a “fiscal conservative and social liberal” ... or whatever it is these ‘moderates’ claim to be. After all, it is those ‘socially liberal’ things that COST SO MUCH.”
WONDERFULLY STATED! How is it that no one ever points this out. It is so fundamentally idiotic to call oneself fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Generally, I assume it identifies someone as wanting to control spending but has personal moral shortcomings. When I hear someone say this, I usually respond by saying I am socially conservative but fiscally liberal. Then I explain by saying I believe in acting decently and standing up for those who cannot protect themselves but I also believe people are free to do whatever they want with the money they earn. And, that’s exactly what I believe.
Horse-bleep. That's why they keep losing.
I appreciate your concerted effort at writing about the party’s development.
It might help to read articles by these critics of the conservative philosophy with this thought in mind: What has the Democrat Party done to achieve its recent election successes? Has the Democrat Party pushed aside the socialist/Marxist/anarchist members? No, those people have gained stronger influence and are the vanguard as well as funding source of the party. Has the Democrat Party diminished its emphasis on abortion? No, the Party has elevated it to a sacrament and pushed its practice beyond a medical procedure to a social cause. Has the Democrat Party moderated its views on public spending and taxation to become more appealing to more people? No, they have greatly increased irresponsible spending, taxation, and even amplified their demonization of those who’ve become economically successful while increasing their zeal for raiding their pockets. Have the Democrats evolved to embrace those who are frightened by the criminals who freely flow across the border or who are unsure of the consequences of redefining the thousands-years-old institution of marriage? No, the idea of a bigger tent doesn’t include even a sympathetic comment to these people.
Ask these questions of those who want to see conservative values reduced in importance in the Republican party. Ask them to explain how long they expect they can continue the Party if the Party drifts in the direction of the forces that weakened the Party to begin with. Ask them what it is about liberalism that will lead to a better country than conservatism? Indeed, ask how long a liberal country can even survive given the irrational and uneconomic nature of liberalism?
Ask the critics why, if the Democrats succeeded by appealing to their extreme leftists, the Republicans should seek success by jettisoning the sensible and motivated conservatives? How would this work?
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.