Because there are two approaches to the of fiasco we just inflicted upon ourselves. One reaction is to conclude that the Rinos have done it to us again. Another reaction, like an Army that has just been beaten in the field, is to re-examine every belief, doctrine, assumption, polling data, and "common sense" opinions to determine empirically what actually happened. High on the list to reassess would be the obviously erroneous intelligence assumptions about ourselves as well as the enemy.
I urge you to read the article by Newt Gingrich which appears at the top of the link I sent to you. It is without question the most thoughtful analysis of what has happened to us published since the election. It raises many questions and has very few answers. Gingrich joins many of us who have been calling since the night of the election for a searching analysis based on real data, untainted by supposition, wishful thinking, doctrine, or resentments against Rinos, to figure out what is broke so we can get it fixed.
I would also urge you to take a look at Gingrich's speech at the Ronald Reagan Library which is now available on C-SPAN in which he alludes to the study to be undertaken. He articulates much of what we already know to the effect that demographics will kill us if we do not ground our party in reality and eschew myth, even conservative shibboleths, which we cannot empirically prove with hard data. The demographics are swamping us. We have got to get this right.
My questions were not meant to be personally contentious to you whose posts I have always respected but to be challenging. I believe we conservatives have to challenge every one of our assumptions or face extinction as an effective movement.
Newt's speech can be found here .
I agree with you and Newt about the need to re-examine every assumption, belief, tactic, and strategy.
Ultimately politics is very much like business. A political party has a product to sell. To be successful a business must attract enough customers to generate sufficient sales to be economically viable. Likewise, a political party must attract enough votes to elect a majority in governing bodies to achieve political power.
Winning in both instances involves choice. The companies/parties, choose which customers/voters they wish to go after. The customers/voters assess the choices presented to them and either select one or choose not to buy if the choices aren’t perceived as either relevant or being a good value. In the 2012 election, 43% of the voters chose not to “buy”. The non buyers represent a untapped opportunity for both political parties, just as non buyers represent an opportunity for sellers in the business world.
Earning sales or votes ultimately comes down to the quality of the product and how it is marketed. A key fact — the company or the political party defines its product, not the buyer or voter. If the product is not purchased it is the seller’s fault for failing to understand the needs of its potential customers or properly communicating product benefits, it is not the fault of the customer when the customer chooses not to buy. Freedom of choice is inherent in the buying decision.
Having a superior product and marketing it effectively is key to success in business or politics. The more complex the product (i.e. automobiles, computers, political candidate) the more features/attributes/dimensions the product possesses. Specific features/attributes/dimensions are more or less relevant to individual consumers/voters. To one consumer the styling of an automobile may be more important than the quality of the sound system while the opposite may be the most important feature for another potential customer. Likewise, for the voter the race or ethnicity of the candidate may be the most important attribute while for another it may be the candidate’s position on one single narrowly defined issue. In the business world, superior products can fail because they “miss” on one single dimension the seller overlooks. An example is video tape technology. Betamax with its superior recording quality lost to VHS with its longer recording time. As it turned out the customer was willing to sacrifice quality to put more hours of programming on a single tape.
For complex products with many attributes, the seller must choose which features to highlight in its communication message to customers. A focus on less meaningful features will result in a less powerful and compelling selling message. Likewise an attempt to describe and explain many features is doomed to failure as the most important features to the potential buyer get diluted. When everything is important, nothing is important.
When trying to persuade buyers/voter, in addition to the content of the message, advertisers must consider reach and frequency when deploying the message. Reach refers to the number of potential customers the message will be heard by. Frequency is the number of times an individual potential customer will hear the message. For a fixed advertising budget, the more potential customers a seller tries to hit (reach) the fewer times the advertiser will be able to convey the message to an individual potential customer (frequency). For this reason, businesses and politicians attempt to target customers/voters most susceptible to responding to the message with a purchase/vote. Advertisers who optimize the tradeoff between reach and frequency will usually realize the highest sales (or votes) assuming the product is compelling and the content of the message is meaningful to the target customers.
In assessing the results of the election conservatives need to stop blaming the voters (i.e. the customers). As the sellers of the concept of individual liberty, it is our job to provide an attractive product (candidate) and to communicate the message in a manner that is relevant to enough potential voters to realize a majority. Potential voters are under no obligation to buy what we are selling. If voters were mislead by the message of our opponents or decided to vote based on flaw in our product (whether or not we perceived them as flaws), so be it. In the end the buyer, i.e. the voter, is right.
In the business world managers are selling everyday whether or not she/he visit customers. To move up the corporate pyramid you have to create and sell concepts internally. There are always disagreements over tactics and strategies and executive are always evaluating often conflicting points of view when making decisions. Successful business people and businesses always analyze objectively “losses” in order to determine how to improve strategy and execution. Almost always this post analysis allows the business to develop a better product and communication strategy for the next selling opportunity.
As you point out demographics are a given. Singles now outnumber families in the voting age population. Singles have different needs and concerns than traditional middle class nuclear families. Likewise the priorities of a poor recent immigrant or fourth generation undereducated and unemployed welfare youth on the street in a northeastern urban area are very different from the concerns of a white middle class college educated suburban dweller working in a management job at a corporation in Texas. The truths that are self evident to one are not to the other. As society becomes less homogenous, political parties must put together coalitions of disparate groups to win elections. The Democrats understand how to build coalitions of groups having different goals. Republicans seem to have difficulty analyzing groups and tailoring the message.
Ultimately it boils down to the product and the message. Is our product (our philosophy) relevant to 51% of the people who turn out to vote? If not, our product will “lose” when it is tested in the marketplace. Occasionally we may win when the competition does a particularly poor communication job or its candidate makes a major mistake (the packaging is flawed). However, over time people will consistently buy the most compelling and relevant product to their individual situations. Purveyors of products declining in relevance lose market share until they exit the scene.
Is our problem the product, the message, or both? Likely both. With respect to the product, the major issue seems to be the attractiveness of the packaging (i.e. the candidate), not the content (the concept of individual liberty). Certainly with the message itself we have major issues with content, reach, and frequency. Our problems with both packaging and message relate almost entirely to the internal processes of the Republican Party. The party is not united and when an organization lacks unity it often compromises the quality of its leadership and sends out confusing messages. Look at the US automobile companies in the 1970’s for example — poor leadership, poor products, and confusing messages to the consumer.
If the Republican Party defines its target voter as white, suburban, middle-class, churchgoing and belonging to a traditional nuclear family it will be swamped by the current demographic and cultural trends. What encourages me is the 43% of Americans who choose not to vote. They have rejected the message of both parties yet they are members of the society. They represent an untapped pool of potential voters for a party willing to take the time to understand their aspirations and communicate to them how they can achieve their dreams though individual liberty and self reliance.