Is It Enough for the GOP to Just Say No?

Over the past year, the Democrats fixed on what they thought was a devastating four-word slogan to defeat Republicans in 2010: "The Party of No." Unlike many campaign slogans, it was fair enough. After all, the Republicans had opposed almost unanimously all of President Obama's major bills (socialized health care, stimulus, nationalization of GM and Chrysler, "cap and trade," financial overregulation, multitrillion-dollar yearly deficits, tax increases, etc.)

But the Democrats seem to have stopped using that phrase in the past several weeks as, apparently, White House strategists have come to appreciate that the only people screaming "no" louder than the Grand Old Party are the American people. (The president is now opposed by more than 60 percent of independents, 60 percent of whites, almost 40 percent of Hispanics and a full 19 percent of registered Democrats -- all historic worst numbers for the president.)

Instead, for the past few weeks, the president has been publicly testing a new message: Remember, you would not only be voting against Democrats in November, you would be voting for Republicans.

In other words, the public seems to have made the Democrats the issue in this election, and the Democrats would like the election to be a vote on the Republicans. This is a plausible strategy. If Mr. Obama can persuade the public to vote up or down on the Republican Party, it probably would be down. But of course, in midterm elections, the public usually (and seemingly overwhelmingly in 2010) plans to vote up or down (in this case, down) on the president's party -- not the opposition party.

Nonetheless, there is an overwrought debate on whether the GOP should simply ride the public's negative passion or present a positive agenda to the public to support the election of Republicans. My suspicion is that the wave of hostility to Mr. Obama's policies is so powerful that Republicans probably can win without going positive in many specific ways.

The technical arguments against a positive agenda are: (1) Midterm elections -- and particularly this one -- are overwhelmingly an up-or-down vote on the governing party, so focus your message where the voters' minds are; and (2) there is only so much time and opportunity to communicate with the voters. It is a mistake to waste those precious campaign assets on issues that divide the electorate.

The technical arguments in favor of devoting considerable campaign assets to a positive message are: (1) A party or candidate ought to stand for something; (2) the country has big problems, and a campaign is the chance to gain a mandate for policy; and (3) a positive agenda is very useful as a basis for actually organizing your government's legislative agenda when you are in power.

While the first, negative argument probably wins on a narrow assessment of the party's goals, I believe a carefully crafted discussion of where America stands in this fateful election year -- including both a strong, positive message and response to the current urge of the people -- is the most useful strategy for Republicans.

Of course, the GOP -- along with at least 60 percent of the country -- is powerfully negative on the enacted Obama agenda. We must commit to repeal. Millions of tea party voters (and others) worry that it will be business as usual if the Republican Party is back in charge. The public wants repeal, the country needs repeal, and Republicans must commit to it. Even if we do not have the votes to override a presidential veto, we must take the vote and make the case to the public. And, by the way, if the Democrats take the kind of beating that Democratic professionals such as James Carville and others anticipate, don't be surprised to see surviving Democratic senators and congressmen become "me-too Democrats" and vote with the Republicans to save their own skins. If not, we take names and run hard against them in 2012.

Also, the GOP must make a firm commitment to economic growth and prosperity, which will require a balanced budget without tax increases. Serious spending cuts must appear in the first year of the first budget the Republican Congress crafts. Finally, as community leaders as well as legislators, Republicans must provide leadership in a voluntary, private-sector explosion of "republican virtues" -- that is to say, the qualities of citizenship that make free self-governance possible. We need not only to limit entitlements but limit the need for them by encouraging self-sufficiency in the public.

The debauchery of Regency England (1790-1820s) was consciously replaced with Victorian values honoring work, self-reliance, living within one's income, cleanliness and social responsibility through good works and charity -- and thereby gave Britain an extra 100 years of world dominance.

Today in America, in appalled response to the excesses of Mr. Obama's statist policies, much of the public is ready to reconsider many of the excesses of the past several decades. We have a chance to help lead a voluntary cultural reinvigoration similar to Britain's, in keeping with 21st-century American application of the timeless civic virtues that made America both materially and morally worthy of worldwide admiration. Time to be great again.

Tea party and Republican families in thousands of chapters could hold local essay contests for children on the responsibilities of citizenship. It would be a first step around the teacher unions' stranglehold on teaching moral lessons. In more and more ways, we must lead a voluntary reassertion of American values.

On the legislative front, for example, we should systematically purge the codes where possible and pass laws to expedite free enterprise that encourages micro-entrepreneurship. New businesses with just a few employees should have almost all paperwork requirements waived as well as the first three to five years of taxes. We want to encourage an explosion in such creative economic activity from the inner city to the suburbs. We need to systematically strip the codes, where possible, of any legal barriers to citizen self-sufficiency.

By balancing a stern demand for constitutional, limited government with a strong, positive, active commitment to voluntary betterment, the Republican Party can stand confidently to ask for the privilege of leading America back to our greatness and our goodness.

The problem is that the Republicans do NOT say “no”. They say “not quite so much”.

The Republican Party spends most of its effort promoting the Democrats and their agenda. No matter who is in power, the federal government, its power and expenditures, continue to grow with little chance of reversal.

The Democrats propose a “generous” increase in the minimum wage. The Republicans either oppose an increase and opt for staying at the current level or counter with a more modest increase. The Democrats say that we need to increase the school lunch program by x million dollars. The Republicans answer by offering an increase of one third x. Democrats say that the government needs to spend a lot more subsidizing housing and Republicans say that the current level is adequate. Democrats say that more people should be made eligible and Republicans defend the status quo.

So the predictable dynamic is that the Democrats fight for an increase in spending for some government program and the Republicans either oppose any increase or counter with a proposal for more modest growth. What impression of the Republican Party does this give? What is the one principle that people are able to discern from Republicans’ policies as stated above? That the Republicans are cheap and uncaring. Some may manage to construe it as fiscal responsibility but what it comes down to is withholding funds from worthwhile programs. Thus ultimately withholding help from those who need it.

If the Republicans agree to spend two billion dollars on a program they are inherently saying that it is good and just and worthwhile. Why else would they agree to spend such a massive amount of money on it? If people who position themselves as fiscally responsible spend that kind of money, it has to be for something good. Something right. Something necessary. And here they cede the moral high ground to Democrats, liberals, leftists by validating their policies, programs and agenda. It’s Democrats who are fighting for all of these good and righteous schemes and the Republicans who are dragging their feet.

Every time Republicans say yes but not so much. They are saying that the Democrats are right and they, the Republicans, are cheap. The Democrats are looking out for the needy and the Republicans are looking out for the cheap and stingy. We are cheap! Hardly an inspiring philosophy. Hardly a winning strategy.

We all know that the best defense is a good offense. The GOP has turned that truism on its head. Their only offense is a pathetic defense. And no matter how good your defense if you have no offense you will eventually lose. It’s inevitable. After the 1994 elections swept the Republicans t control of Congress, many anticipated the extinction of a few federal agencies. Many even a department or two. Dare to dream. Then we were told that Rome was not built in a day so don’t expect it to be dismantled in a day. Well we are still waiting for those first few bricks to be knocked loose.

Sure the left has moved us to a gargantuan and ever-growing welfare state on step at a time, or make that one billion a time. That is the only way it could have happened. Anyone who one hundred years ago tried to propose what we have now would have been run out of town. Any American town. As per the above it may be impossible to move in the opposite direction by increments. When you propose to spend less than the left wants the only principle that you are standing on and promoting is cheapness. Not a very compelling platform. Rather a recipe for long term defeat.

Being second-rate Democrats has been a disaster. Even when Republicans win elections. Agreeing to spend a fortune on Democrat social programs and wealth transfer schemes only validates those schemes. And makes conservatives-or what passes for conservatives these days-look bad. So virtually everything the Republicans do validates Democrats and make themselves look bad. A guaranteed formula for disaster.

So what’s the alternative? How about taking a stand. How about acting on principle? A principle other than cheapness. Will it be easy? The question is what are your principles and what do you want to achieve. If you want to be liked by the establishment intelligentsia then you definitely need to keep up with leftists. Just keep in mind that you will have to go further and further year after year. They keep raising the bar, moving the goal line. What “moderates’ are advocating and supporting now would have been radical a few decades ago. Trying to keep up will always mean that you will always be second-rate and always fall short.

The only was to go, which makes it the easy way, is to stand on principle. Without compromise.

....problem is that the Republicans do NOT say “no”. They say “not quite so much”.

Brilliant observation. We are now more or less a one-party center-left state. The Democrats are now True Socialists and The Republicans have become Fabian Socialists.

....they cede the moral high ground to Democrats, liberals, leftists by validating their policies, programs and agenda. Every time Republicans say yes but not so much. They are saying that the Democrats are right and they, the Republicans, are cheap....Trying to keep up will always mean that you will always be second-rate and always fall short.

That is why the problems that threaten the basis of the Republic will not be solved by today's Republicans, or I fear those elected in 2010. To be scrupulously fair to the Republican Party, they are attempting to win the votes of an electorate that is in many ways, just as corrupted as they are. Voter education has never been a strong suit of the GOP.

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.