Posted on 11/28/2002 10:45:09 AM PST by Common Tator
It is a terrible dilemma for a party. There is no good solution. It happens when a party in power loses a close election to a centrist when their candidate was also a centrist.
If you recall Nixon was a centrist. He got beat by JFK, also a centrist, in a very close race in 1960. The Republicans moved sharply to the right. It is a natural human reaction. Eisenhower was not a right wing conservative. He was a centrist. The republicans were happy for the wins in 1952 and 1956, but Ike undid none of FDRs New Deal. Ike was a centerist and after 8 years of Ike the New Deal had not been touched.
The natural reaction of the base is we tried a centrist approch. It failed. Now it is time to give the base a chance. I don't think there is a chance these Democrat centrist guys will get traction. The Democratic party had 8 years of Clinton.... and what did they get..... welfare reform... that's what they got. They had eight years of a Democratic president and they go nothing to show for it. That sounds just like the Goldwater crowd in 1962,1963, and 1964. Ike and Nixon had accomplished nothing.
It is just 1962 all over again with the ideologies flipped. Many in the center of the Demoratic party understand what Nixon did in 1964. They know they have to let the base take over the party. After and only after the base has a massive defeat can the centrists take the Democratic party back. Thinking Democratic centrists know that to be the case, just as Nixon knew it in 1964. Goldwater had to be slain at the polls before Nixon could be politically reborn. A leftist sacred cow has to be slaughtered at the polls befoere the Democrats can return to the main stream.
This is the best oportunity the Republicans have ever had. It is like the Democratic opportunity of 1964. If the Democrats turn hard left, Repubicans can likely elect 60 senators 260 house members hold the presidency in 2004. They can be in total control. Republicans can reshape the court system for a generation. Republicans can start the nation down a road that undoes the great society.
But one thing the Republicans had best not do. They had best not try to undo all the things LBJ and FDR did in one 4 year period. The excesses in both foreign and domestic policies by LBJ from 1964 until 1968 doomed him and his Democratic party madate. LBJ squandered the oportunity of a century in just 4 years with social programs and Nam. He handed the nation back to a centrist Nixon in 1968.
LBJ tried to move the nation where he wanted them far too quickly. He got so far ahead of the people that they stopped following him.
Two thousand four is the political opportunity of this century. If we take it all over and then at a constant slow steady pace move this nation to the right much if not all of the damage done in the 20th century can be undone in the 21st. The Republicans can certainly move the courts to the right. It can change the makeup of the courts for a generation. But is has to hold power for 16 years to do it. If would shape the nation for 50 years. The secret is doing one thing at a time. Prove that it works then do another one. We must keep in mind that in good and prosperous times, the public does not want change. Modifications have to be gradual and in small bites that stay below the radar.
It certainly looks as if the Democrats are going to give us a huge victory. You can tell by the nature of the campaigns. When they appeal to faith rather than logic. When they propose things the public in general doesn't support. When they talk of following principles and not polls. When they say down with the consultants and up with the gut fealings. When they scream during their 2004 convention that they are liberal and proud of it... victory is just around the corner.... for us.
But we must understand our good fortune. And keep our eyes on the goal and the best chance to get there. We must not use our victory to make the same mistakes the Dmeocrats did.
LBJ never learned it. Lets hope President Bush Never Forgets.
Perceptive, Tator. And wise.
One thing at a time. Slow. But steady. Aggressive. But patient. Straight down the field. A 99-yard drive that turns the game around.
the democrat rank and file is far more conservative than they have been led to believe the democrat "base" is...and they are finally waking up to that point....as the "base" continues shrill rhetoric of hatred and division, more and more rank and file will leave.
The incremental approach is the right one. The political center has to be moved slowly to the right. To do that, we need to hold power for a long time. To those who read this and say 'yeah, but you're a RINO, you just want to ignore the conservative base' read my other posts. I'm a pro-life conservative who wants our movement to get and KEEP power and to effect LONG TERM CHANGES.
A fast lurch to the right would make me feel warm and fuzzy today. But it will put the left back in power soon and they will undo everything we accomplished.
There were no lessons to be learned from that election, other than not countering effective advertisements is not generally a sound strategy.
Bobby Kennedy ran for the Senate in New York in 1964. Bobby Kennedy did not get as many votes as LBJ. And Goldwater against LBJ did not get nearly as many votes as the Republican senate candidate did against Kennedy.
You ought to write for Tom Daschle. You both see the world the way you want it to be.
The 1964 Senate results for New York may tell us something about the Presidential race, but that is far from a given. There were other factors involved, such as the fact that RFK was not from NY back when being a carpetbagger was considered a real negative. And unlike the Presidential election where LBJ was running as an incumbent, Kennedy was running against an incumbent.
So feel free to throw some insults merely because someone disagreed with your assertions. Make sure that your reply is in bold, and in larger fonts. It helps make things more clear, I assure you.
The problem is the well-known "ratchet effect" in which no leftist outrage is ever repealed. In fact, each new outrage forms the basis for the next step in the ratchet. It becomes the status quo which you cannot repeal.
If you attempt to repeal a given outrage, you are painted as cruel, heartless, and without "compassion."
For example: suppose the Republicans decide to defund the Legal Services Corporation (a leftist hive of perfidy if ever there was one). Just try. Imagine the outcry and the "bad press" which makes the Republicowards turn tail and run.
For example: suppose the Republicans decide to abolish the Department of Education (which is richly in need of abolition). Just try. Imagine the outcry...etc.
For example: suppose the Republicans decide to defund the NEA (either one). Imagine the outcry...etc.
So we get "conservatives" who cannot reverse even a single socialist "feature" of our government.
Any ideas?
--Boris
Boris... did you even watch what was done to undo some of the welfare state. Apply it to socialized lawyers.
You start with people like Rush, and Hannity pointing out the abuses of government paid laywers. You do the reporting about high life styles enjoyed by government paid lawyers. Then you find some innocent people that went to jail becuase of corrupt government lawyers. You don't need to prove it of all. Ancedotal evidence works just fine.
Slowly but surely convince the American people that socialized lawyering is bad for poor people. Support faith based and pro bono lawyers for the innocent. Why are we paying for loopholes so government paid lawyers can put killers and rapists back on the street while innocent people rot in jail? Ask it often and site examples.
If this is done slowly bit by bit, over time you will gradually change the public mind over socialized lawyers. You could do some campaign ads showing a woman on her way home forced over by a released drugie. She is forcedc into the brush by a man set free with a tax paid lawyer. Make woman afraid to drive home because taxpayer provided lawywer set rapists and murderers free.
In a year or two 75 percent of the people will be opposed to government paid lawyers paid to set the guilty free. Once you have that kind of support the congress will pass reform, and the president will sign reform. Even if the president is Bill Clinton.
The way you win the game is not by wining elections. You change our society by changing the hopes and fears of the American people. This nation's government was designed to run on the will of the people. The system was designed to cause "principled politicians" to fail. It is a system created to only respond to the will of the people. It works wonderfully. All you have to do is get a large majority of the people on your side, and politicians will do what ever it takes to do the peoples will. A liberal leftist socialist Bill Clinton will even end welfare as we knew it.
You will never succeed if you look to politicans for the answer. Elected officials are the peoples servants not their rulers. Get the public for it and politicians are no problem.
Barry Goldwater went down 61 to 38 in 1964. Herbert Hoover at the height of the great depression went down 57 to to 40 in 1932. Hoover ran better against Franklin D Roosevelt than Barry Goldwater did against Lyndon Baines Johnson.
It was the massive democratic victory that gave LBJ teh power to change this nation. It was the disgusting failure of Barry Goldwater not the death of JFK that elected LBJ. LBJ had so little personal appeal that the Kennedys did not want him on the ticket in 1960. They were afraid that LBJ would cost teh Democrats several states. The kennedys were certain that they would have won 1960 more easily if they had not had the albatross of LBJ on the Democratic ticket.
You are trying to make people believe that the public reaction to the death of Jack Kennedy was greater than the reaction against the worlds greatest economic disaster in history.
To do anything permanent a party must first move the people to its view. Winning an election because the other side gave it to you is not a mandate for your parties agenda. LBJ in 1965 did nothing to move the people to his point of view on either domestic or international matters. He was rejected badly by the people in 4 years. The lesson of Viet Nam has been expressed as, First commit the country then commit the troops. LBJ did not do that and it cost his party a generation of power.
You are arguing the value of doing it while you have the power to do so. That is better than doing nothing .. to be sure. But I think the best course of action is to move the public so it supports what you want to do. Then do it. If there are problems on the horizon, then lay the problem out loud and clear. Have a fix ready and try to implement it.
Parties get defeated by being at odds with what the voters want.
As far as LBJ was concerned, the Viet Nam war failed because the people did not support it. Medicare and Medicaid lasted because they had public support.
I stand by my point and yours. When a party wants to do what the voters do not, it is going to cost elected offices to do it. It may also cost elected offices, not to do it. If it is worth doing, then do it. But another course is much better, if it can be done. That is move the people to your view and then move.
Examine how Bush worked the Saddam situation. He started moving public opinion on Iraq before we had defeated the Taliban. He moved public opinion to his side before he even began to propose any action at all. When he at long last did start to take action, his opponents faced a public mind they would have to change. They failed to change it.
My entire article could be boiled down three lines.
That's ok, because you can't make them with insults either.
When you are right, you are quite right. When you are wrong, you are quite wrong. But one thing has become clear. Right or wrong, you tend to be a sanctimonious ass.
In other words, I would hope that people would see the wisdom in what you said. But I have reason to believe that it will go right over the heads of some.
Republicans should be bolder. They will push some judges through yes, but if they settle for status quo, what the base ends up with is stalemate. They won't reform for fear of losing seats. The democrats will claim credit for restraining right-wingers.
But one thing the Republicans had best not do. They had best not try to undo all the things LBJ and FDR did in one 4 year period. The excesses in both foreign and domestic policies by LBJ from 1964 until 1968 doomed him and his Democratic party madate. LBJ squandered the oportunity of a century in just 4 years with social programs and Nam. He handed the nation back to a centrist Nixon in 1968.
Bobby Kennedy would have defeated LBJ in 1968 and he would have won the presidency. It wasn't about Nixon other than he was not significantly popular. LBJ's chances were blown by Vietnam and MLK's assassination. Nixon faced HHH, Hubert H. Humphrey, who was a decent fellow actually, but did not have that dynamic image of a Kennedy, also he was LBJ's veep and he was stained hence by the war. Nixon was basically the default choice.
LBJ tried to move the nation where he wanted them far too quickly. He got so far ahead of the people that they stopped following him.
Had nothing to do with placement on the political spectrum, Had everything to do with war, civil rights and race riots.
You forget one thing. People are fickle and new generations move in. Most of it is about the economy. People forget in a good economy.
In a good economy, the democrats sell their chickens in every pot and people buy it. If GW gets a good economy, he'll get reelection but no real reform, because why fix a system if it's working?
We as Americans don't do anything until disaster strikes. Because of this Republicans will remain centrist and they will cede back power later in the decade because people won't remember why they are there to begin with. They are presently there because of the WOT and low voter turnout.
Therefore since Republicans will eventually lose it later anyway, they should be bold and push for changes now while there is still a window of opportunity. while people are still feeling uncertain, while they have the power.
Repeal all of the unconstitutional laws first before adding any more.
You don't have a clue as to what is constitutional. Only the majority on the Supreme court says what is Constitiutional.
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.