Skip to comments.
Victor Davis Hanson: Why Did Republicans Lose Their Appeal? And how can they get it back?
NRO ^
| May 08, 2009
| Victor Davis Hanson
Posted on 05/08/2009 5:15:15 AM PDT by Tolik
Republicans lost the elections in 2006 and 2008 because they had lost their principles. Recovering them is the only way back.
Colin Powell keeps insisting that the Republicans lost the presidency because of right-wing extremists like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, who, in his view, have become the public face of the Republican party, and thus will ensure its permanent marginalization.
Others argue that the Bush administration had allowed Republicanism to become a cowboyish clique of the selfish who wanted a free hand to make money and let others less fortunate be damned. David Frum offered the novel notion that Rush Limbaughs girth, past drug use, checkered marital career, and palatial digs were emblematic of the partys out-of-touch self-indulgence, especially when contrasted with the athletic, happily married, and transracial Barack Obama.
But none of these explanations rings true especially since most of the current critics themselves were, in the heyday of 200203, either enthusiastically working for, or writing in praise of, the very administration whose policies they now claim caused the present mess.
LIMBAUGH & CO.?
First, the real public expressions of extremism in American politics recently have not been from the Right not surprisingly, perhaps, given that for much of this new century the Republicans smugly controlled most of the government.
It was not Rush Limbaugh, for example, but Michael Moore who announced that the 9/11 killers wrongly selected a blue-state city, or that the al-Qaeda insurgents were Minutemen-like patriots. Moore, remember, was no marginal figure but the darling of the Democratic establishment, who flocked to the gala opening of his crude propaganda film Fahrenheit 9/11.
Indeed, if one were to follow the logic of this new Powell doctrine that public expression of extremism sinks a party, then the Democrats would never have won back the Senate and the House. Senators as diverse as Dick Durbin, John Kerry, and Ted Kennedy shrilly compared American soldiers to terrorists, Nazis, Pol Pots thugs, and Saddams Baathists.
The most inflammatory public figure of the last two years was, in fact, Barack Obamas own minister, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who uttered vile racist characterizations of everyone from Italians to Jews, as part of his generic G-d damning of America. So far we have not seen a conservative version of Nicholson Bakers novel Checkpoint, or anything like Jonathan Chaits New Republic essay that began, I hate President George W. Bush. Colin Powell himself has been demonized in scurrilous terms, but the epithets have come not from Rush Limbaugh, but rather from such observers as that old cultural icon of the Left, Harry Belafonte, who once quite unapologetically compared the secretary of state to a house slave.
THE CYCLES OF AMERICAN POLITICS
There were historical reasons why it was unlikely that the Republicans were going to win the presidency last year. It has always been difficult to extend a partys control of the executive branch for 12 consecutive years; the Democrats themselves had not done it since the Roosevelt-Truman years. In 30 out of the last 50 years, Republicans have controlled the White House, hardly proof of a conservative implosion. Over the last half-century, the general rule was that a Democrat could not win the presidency unless he had the cover of a Southern accent. That both JFK and Obama defied that conventional wisdom suggests that only the rare appearance of a charismatic youthful Democratic candidate can balance the stigmatization of out-of-touch northern liberalism.
The elections of 1964, 1976, and 1992 were all heralded as the beginnings of new permanent liberal majorities. In the first two cases, the inept governance of LBJ and Jimmy Carter ensured that Republicans were back in office in four years. Bill Clinton extended Democratic rule for eight years; but he did so without winning a majority of the votes in either election. Take Ross Perot out of the equation in 1992 and perhaps even in 1996 and Clinton might well not have won. Clinton survived Monica because no Americans were killed in his Balkans War, and because Dick Morris taught him the arts of triangulation, while the Republican Congress forced spending cuts that led finally to two years of budget surpluses. He left office popular, despite Monica, with balanced budgets and an assurance that the era of big government was over.
THE SEPTEMBER MELTDOWN
John McCain was ahead of Barack Obama when the September meltdown occurred. Had the financial panic not transpired until December, there was a 50-50 chance that McCain would have won despite deep defections from the conservative base. In that case, we would be talking now about the continued Democratic propensity for self-destruction by nominating liberal northern presidential candidates like Obama, Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, and Mondale.
A STEALTH CANDIDATE
Obama was an especially charismatic candidate. His mixed racial heritage and exotic name were novelties that both intrigued and reassured elite white liberals, while galvanizing minorities in a way that Jesse Jackson and other traditional African-American candidates had previously not managed to do. Had the Democrats run Al Gore or John Kerry they might well have lost; or had Barack Obama, Kerry-like, paraded around in various costumes duck-hunting camouflage, bikers spandex, a windsurfing wetsuit or even kept up the arugula talk and the faux bowling appearances, he too would not have won.
On nearly every campaign issue offshore drilling, nuclear power, NAFTA, guns, abortion, capital punishment, Iraq, the war on terror candidate Obama hedged or triangulated in favor of the more conservative view. Had he in late October outlined a $1.7-trillion deficit, the need for serial apologies abroad, and the nationalization of the banks and the auto industry, he would have lost.
RED INK
But the above are peripheral issues. The real cause of unhappiness with the Republicans was simply that they could not make a convincing case for conservatism to a changing electorate because so many of them were not acting as conservatives.
Take the seminal issue of spending and expanding government. The last Republican to balance a budget was Dwight Eisenhower. Had President Bush despite 9/11, Katrina, and two wars simply limited spending increases to the rate of inflation and natural growth, then he would have entered his last years of office with balanced budgets.
In contrast, once Republicans started talking about federal deficits only in terms of manageable percentages of GDP rather than as real money, they forfeited the entire issue of fiscal responsibility, and lost the moral high ground. Barack Obama can get away with unprecedented and astronomical of projected deficits, in part because the Republicans are not credible any more on spending.
COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATISM?
Compassionate conservatism was supposed to show the middle classes how, even with small government, lower taxes, and streamlining of existing programs, social protection was still ensured for those who did not do as well as the wealthy during the boom years.
Instead, it ended up as a rather crude quid pro quo on things like No Child Left Behind and the Medicare prescription-drug benefit. Bushs embrace of big old-fashioned spending was supposed to be a demonstration of bipartisanship that might extend to united congressional support for the war. Instead, Democrats cherry-picked the Bush overtures, increased their anti-war rhetoric, and then, mirabile dictu, attributed the ensuing deficits not to the profligate spending but to tax cuts for the rich despite the yearly increases in aggregate federal revenue.
THE WAR
Obamas continuance of the Iraq war, his escalation in Afghanistan, and his preservation of wiretaps, e-mail intercepts, renditions, Predator drone attacks, and, so far, the Guantanamo Bay detention center prove that Bushs war on terror per se, even the controversial Iraq war, did not lose Republicans the election. The problem was more complex than just the mayhem of the insurgency in Iraq, which was over by November 2008 as witnessed by Obamas constant campaign demagoguing against the very Bush anti-terrorism protocols and war policies in Iraq and Afghanistan that he was soon to embrace.
When conservatives advance tough foreign-policy initiatives, they naturally evoke hostility from the therapeutic media. Instead of tough smoke-em-out talk that reinforces the cowboy caricature, they needed to explain exactly why the resort to force was needed, what the strategy was, and why such a bad choice was better than the existing worse alternatives.
Unfortunately, the Bush administration was not able to articulate exactly what Iraq was about, why the congressional Democrats had willingly joined them to authorize the war on 23 counts (nearly all of them not about WMD), and why it was both moral and in the United States interest to remove Saddam and not abandon the nascent Iraqi democracy.
SPECTERIZATION
If the Republicans think they can outbid the Democrats for the support of feminists, gays, and growing numbers of minorities, then they will only add embarrassment and permanent failure to the present natural cycle of political correction. Instead, they must be ready to show that deficits of the present magnitude, when added to existing debt, are unsustainable and will sap the vitality of the entire American society.
Most people dread going to the DMV; that such a state-run blueprint will now be superimposed on manufacturing, energy, health care, and banking should scare the landscaper and the roofer alike. Precisely by showing to gays, women, minorities, and the young that none of us gets an exemption from the iron laws of nature you cannot spend what you dont make; you cant apologize to unsavory characters and end up respected and safe; you cant expect government bureaucrats to make better decisions than private executives conservatives can become inclusive.
Conservatives should remind the electorate that the very wealthy, the Wall Street big money, and the elite in the universities and foundations are now consistently voting Democratic. It was the nexus between Wall Street financiers and lax liberal Democratic congressional overseers the former wanting profits, the latter able to cloak lavish campaign contributions with populist rhetoric about caring for the poor that got us into the financial mess.
The reason Sarah Palin earned real hatred was the populist nature of her appeal. Her rallies did not draw many of the government-dependent poor, true; but they also did not draw the rich and liberal elite. If Palin had survived the press demonization, she might have been able to show the electorate why the current leadership of the Democratic Party is at odds with the middle classes, who do not require most of the government entitlements that liberals love to dispense, and yet dont share the aristocratic tastes that the elite in the media, foundations, universities, and Wall Street see as requisites for paternal governance.
If the Republicans can offer a sane alternative of balanced budgets to the current mega-deficits; if they demonstrate the nexus between those who dont pay taxes and those who have so much money that they dont worry about taxes; and if they can talk without braggadocio of the tough choices abroad that are not solved by apologies, then they will win again in 2012.
Conservatism is the political belief that best mirrors human nature across time and space; but because its precepts are sometimes tragic and demand responsibility rather than ever-expanding rights, it requires adept communicators not triangulators and appeasers whose pleasure is only for the moment.
TOPICS: Editorial
KEYWORDS: 111th; bho44; gop; rebuilding; vdh; victordavishanson
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-57 last
To: kevinm13
It should not be too difficult. I see three ways:
1. Fighting against Obama’s Marxism. This may do it in the short run, if the GOP is vigilant in fighting rather than agreeing with the administration.
2. Reverting back to the party of fiscal and individual responsibility. Refusing to be bought by lobbyists. Throwing the book at corrupt politicians, particularly members of the GOP.
3. Probably the most important for long term success, appealing to the dreams of the middle class. The GOP needs to articulate a message, vision and plan of action of making the American Dream possible for the middle class. Reagan did it, but lately there is the perception that the GOP is only for the fat cats.
41
posted on
05/08/2009 9:09:59 AM PDT
by
MBB1984
To: Tolik
"Why Did Republicans Lose Their Appeal?" Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld (not one front-office caliber politician there), the Iraq War, and the financial meltdown in September.
The candidate has to be able to speak clearly, forcefully, and coherently, connect with the American people on a charismatic and cultural level, and project a positive vision and direction for the country. He has to be a good closer, a good salesman with the power of positive thinking, like Reagan. He has to be able to attract and put together the Reagan coalition - the Republican base, conservatives, pro-life evangelicals, Catholics, Reagan Democrats, Independents, some Libertarians, some soccer moms, and the middle class.
If the candidate speaks and runs like only corporate CEOs vote, he runs into problems. If he goes too soft, too moderate and centrist, apologizing all over the place (like McCain) he loses the base and enough conservatives to throw the election. They have to thread the needle very carefully on this one.
To: GreyFriar
Thanks for the ping. Excellent article. The best I have seen.
43
posted on
05/08/2009 10:28:06 AM PDT
by
zot
To: Tolik; blackie
“But the above are peripheral issues. The real cause of unhappiness with the Republicans was simply that they could not make a convincing case for conservatism to a changing electorate because so many of them were not acting as conservatives.”
Bingo! VDH nails it again. I suppose he’s too smart to run for office, isn’t he?
44
posted on
05/08/2009 10:37:11 AM PDT
by
AuntB
(The right to vote in America: Blacks 1870; Women 1920; Native Americans 1925; Foreigners 2008)
To: Entrepreneur
Entrepreneur,
I wish I had your optimism. As a college professor get to see what is happening “on the ground”. Its not pretty. Plus, I talk to my friends and the news is no better there. It’s really shocking when you talk to people who (20 years ago) were solid conservatives and now sound fairly liberal. I know its hard to accept, but there really has been a sea change in how many people think. What is driving it, I am not entirely sure. But it is definitely driven by what is defined as acceptable thinking and behavior in companies and other institutions.
45
posted on
05/08/2009 10:52:37 AM PDT
by
rbg81
(DRAIN THE SWAMP!!)
To: Tolik
To: stainlessbanner
I wish he were.
He was explaining over the years that all rumors of him having the administration’s ear are overhyped. My understanding is that Chaney liked him and some in DOD listened to him, but .... Lack of communication skills in the Bush administration, or better say an almost complete neglect of the communication field were staggering. Not just Hanson, but many other commentators provided consistently better explanations in print and on the internet that the administration never put to public using its bully pulpit.
47
posted on
05/08/2009 11:28:49 AM PDT
by
Tolik
To: AuntB
Good stuff!
Be Ever Vigilant!
48
posted on
05/08/2009 11:29:08 AM PDT
by
blackie
(Be Well~Be Armed~Be Safe~Molon Labe!)
To: Tolik
Thanks Tolik - I thought he was closer to the Bush administrator for some reason.
To: Tolik
Mr. Hansen and Orson Scott Card need to quit the Democrat party. Why they continue to be associated with such a group is beyond baffling.
50
posted on
05/08/2009 12:17:41 PM PDT
by
TChris
(There is no freedom without the possibility of failure.)
To: TChris
51
posted on
05/08/2009 12:20:29 PM PDT
by
Tolik
To: Tolik
To: Tolik
53
posted on
05/08/2009 6:02:25 PM PDT
by
Cacique
(quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
To: kevinm13
Now what does the GOP need to do to take back Congress in 2010 and the Presidency in 2012?1. Pick the low hanging fruit in 2010: focus resources on winning back House seats in red/purple districts that are currently held by Democrats.
2. Get back to "Drill Here, Drill Now". Even average Americans know that our future energy needs can't be met with solar/wind/biofuels, etc. Pound the Democrats hard on nuclear power. It can't be that scary if the French use it for 80% of their electricity.
3. Quit trying to be liked by Democrats...it will never happen. Thanks to the likes of Janeane Garafalo, we'll always be viewed as "tea-bagging rednecks".
4. Unapologetically stand up for common sense American values, such as marriage between one man and one woman.
5. Quit listening to those that voted for Barack Obama. I'm simply amazed at the waste of air time that's been spent by liberal commentators telling Republicans what they should be doing.
54
posted on
05/08/2009 9:01:12 PM PDT
by
Night Hides Not
(If Dick Cheney = Darth Vader, then Joe Biden = Dark Helmet)
To: rbg81
55
posted on
05/08/2009 9:17:16 PM PDT
by
neverdem
(Xin loi minh oi)
To: Tolik
Victor Davis Hanson: Why Did Republicans Lose Their Appeal? They spend tax and legislate at least as much as Democrats do. This is key.
Republicans want to interfere in the private lives of Americans just as much as Democrats do, just from a different point of view. Throwing billions of dollars and a bunch of new laws fixes surprisingly few things, and causes an amazing number of problems. God gives adults free will to harm themselves, but the GOP is no where near as charitable.
Their leaders take every chance they get to blow political capitol on inconsequential sound bites and silly garbage that matters not one whit to the average citizen.
And how can they get it back?
Stop doing the above, and:
Tell people you want tax dollars to do only the things which are necessary to our survival as a nation, and refuse to allow any more to be collected. Stop supporting programs that the states or local governments should be funding.
Publicly embarrass other Republicans who engage in pork barrel politics, kicking them out of the party if necessary.
Make it clear that while you don't approve of many things people choose to do, the price we pay when we try to control consensual adult behavior is huge and will eventually lead to our downfall if we don't bring it to a halt. Personal responsibility cannot be legislated and trying is dangerous because you are giving the Democrats the OK to do the exact same thing and there will be no cogent argument against them doing what you previously did.
Stop trying to but voters with tax money. Tell people that freedom and self-sufficiency are wonderful and that you are going to do your best to make both possible by dialing back the entitlement clock. Then do it.
That's about it. I fully expect absolutely none of the above to ever be enacted, and am resigned to seeing the GOP struggling to find a message that resonates while Democrats get elected with ease.
56
posted on
05/08/2009 9:50:50 PM PDT
by
mountainbunny
(Mitt Romney: Collect the whole set!)
To: neverdem
I agree, the person-on-the-street is getting increasingly wise to the global warming scam. However, the children continue to be indoctrinated and the elites are sticking to the party line. Cap and Trade promises to be such a big $$ maker, its only a matter of time till its implemented.
57
posted on
05/09/2009 5:08:02 AM PDT
by
rbg81
(DRAIN THE SWAMP!!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-57 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson