Posted on 11/16/2008 11:35:46 AM PST by SJackson
Four years ago, in the week after the 2004 presidential election, we were working furiously to put the finishing touches on the book we co-authored, "It's My Party Too: The Battle for the Heart of the GOP and the Future of America."
Our central thesis was simple: The Republican Party had been taken hostage by "social fundamentalists," the people who base their votes on such social issues as abortion, gay rights and stem cell research. Unless the GOP freed itself from their grip, we argued, it would so alienate itself from the broad center of the American electorate that it would become increasingly marginalized and find itself out of power.
At the time, this idea was roundly attacked by many who were convinced that holding on to the "base" at all costs was the way to go. A former speech writer for President Bush, Matthew Scully, who went on to work for the McCain campaign this year, called the book "airy blather" and said its argument fell somewhere between "insufferable snobbery" and "complete cluelessness." Gary Bauer suggested that the book sounded as if it came from a "Michael Moore radical." National Review said its warnings were, "at best, counterintuitive," and Ann Coulter said the book was "based on conventional wisdom that is now known to be false."
What a difference four years makes -- and the data show it.
While a host of issues were at play in this election, the primary reason John McCain lost was the substantial erosion of support from self-identified moderates compared with four years ago. In 2004, Democratic nominee John Kerry held just a 9 percentage point margin among moderate voters over President Bush. This year, the spread between Barack Obama and McCain was 21 points among this group. The net difference between the two elections is a deficit of nearly 6.4 million moderate votes for the Republicans in 2008.
In seven of the nine states that switched this year from Republican to Democratic, Obama's vote total exceeded the total won by President Bush four years ago. So even if McCain had equaled the president's numbers from 2004 (and he did not), he still would have lost in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina and Virginia (81 total electoral votes) -- and lost the election. McCain didn't lose those states because he failed to hold the base. He lost them because Obama broadened his base.
Nor did the Republican ticket lose because "values voters" stayed home. On the contrary, according to exit polls, such voters made up a larger proportion of the electorate this year than in 2004 -- 26 percent, up from 23 percent. Extrapolating from those data, McCain actually won more votes from self-identified white evangelical/born-again voters than Bush did four years ago -- 1.8 million more. But that was not enough to offset the loss of so many moderates.
Following the conventional wisdom of the past two presidential elections, McCain tried mightily to assuage the Republican Party's social-fundamentalist wing. His selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, whose social views are entirely aligned with that wing, as his running mate was clearly meant to demonstrate his commitment to that bloc. Yet while his choice did comfort those voters, it made many others uncomfortable.
Palin has many attractive qualities as a candidate. Being prepared to become president at a moment's notice was not obviously among them this year. Her selection cost the ticket support among those moderate voters who saw it as a cynical sop to social fundamentalists, reinforcing the impression that they control the party, with the party's consent.
In the wake of the Democrats' landslide victory, and despite all evidence to the contrary, many in the GOP are arguing that John McCain was defeated because the social fundamentalists wouldn't support him. They seem to be suffering from a political strain of Stockholm syndrome. They are identifying with the interests of their political captors and ignoring the views of the larger electorate. This has cost the Republican Party the votes of millions of people who don't find a willingness to acquiesce to hostage-takers a positive trait in potential leaders.
Unless the Republican Party ends its self-imposed captivity to social fundamentalists, it will spend a long time in the political wilderness. On Nov. 4, the American people very clearly rejected the politics of demonization and division. It's long past time for the GOP to do the same.
Christine Todd Whitman, who served as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from 2001 to 2003, is co-chair of the Republican Leadership Council. Robert M. Bostock, a freelance speechwriter, was her co-author for the book "It's My Party Too." This column first appeared in the Washington Post.
We have that, we always will. And it's imperative we get the mushy middle Christines to vote with us. But not to lead.
She saw what the lovely lady from Alaska did.
“Christine Whitman and Robert Bostock: GOP can’t afford to remain hostage to social fundamentalists”
Translation: GOP can’t afford to adhere to absolute moral virtues.
We did not lose because of social conservatism. We lost because of big spending.
I’m a small government fundamentalist...where did we all go? The Republicans certainly have nothing more to offer us.
We lost for a number of reasons. Big spending I wouldn’t put high on the list since a majority of voters just voted for “big spending”.
Time for a new party for social conservatives
Seriously
I am tired of expending energy and intellectaul capital on having to associate much less support idiots calling themselves GOP who are contemptuous of moral values as a political concern. People who call Sarah Palin’s baby “it” for example.
Christine, go off somewhere with Newt and suck on some sour grapes. You weren’t on the ticket; if you had been, it would have lost by a landslide. The conservatives almost saved McCain’s bacon, the moderates didn’t. Why should the moderates be presented as the potential saviors.
Two more Lepers.
It’s a shame they believe the murder of babies, morality and the sanctity of marriage and family is so extreme.
Like it or not, without fiscal and defense conservatives, you're left with maybe 30% of the vote, max. And they'll be purging each other over fiscal and defense issues. I really don't think there were many on the right calling Sarah's baby "it".
This may be true, but what the author fails to perceive is the dramatic upswing of conservative support her selection realized which led to the GOP ticket NOT being humiliated by a huge landslide defeat.
I suspect these moderate folks would have swung in Obama's favor anyway. The reason they are moderate is that they have no commitment to the issues they care about and as such, are easily swayed by the Obama "change" rhetoric.
Just a hunch on my part.
Whitman should follow Linda Lingle's lead. She is also a Repub Gov, (from Hawaii). She's considered a moderate, yet she doesn't find abortion, gay marriage or stem cell research stumbling blocks; Lingle backs Palin completely.
I agree.
RINO Whitman is a clueless fool.
Baby killing, pervert pandering and God mocking is not a winning platform in America.
Sarak Palin is the only articulate honest decent Republican on the public stage presently.
The GOP has nothing to gain by abandoning pro-lifers and cozying up to abortionists like Whitman.
You mean it’s not a winning platform for conservatives. Liberals are just fine with all that... In fact they got their way.
What I am hearing from the RINO Republicans is that they can better compete against the Liberal Fascism being advocated by the Democrat Party by putting up a Conservative Fascism.
I hate to remind the RINO’s but politics is not the same as a team sport.
The social conservative electorate is what keeps America from becoming like a multi-party European country where politicians form their alliances without being hampered by the electorate.
Did anyone bother to tell this RINO nitwit that 3 more states outlawed same-sex marriage fraud? Even in ultra-liberal California it was overturned. Seems no matter where the people get to vote on this issue, it is overturned. Too bad the fascists of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Vermont won’t give the people a chance to speak their minds at the polls.
It seems whenever the party embraces the RINO philosophy we LOSE voters. It would appear that folks having the choice to vote for two shades of the same liberal flavor would prefer to stay home. Take note: whenever McCain moved to the right his poll numbers went up. Whenever he reverted back to his RINO status (suggesting putting Al Gore at EPA, jumping on the Socialist bailout, proposing even another $300 billion for home buyouts, etc.), McCain tanked in the polls.
Ms. Whitman - please do us a favor: come out of your liberal closet and go join the other RINOs and Democrats. You couldn’t get more RINO than McCain and it showed what an absolute mistake the party made. The liberal MSM baited the Republicans with their love for McCain only to demonize him after he was the nominee. Never again!!!
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.