The Dawn of a New Republican Age?

WASHINGTON -- Resurgent and ever-evolving, the Republican Party, born in 1854, has lived through long phases of electoral strength and extended periods of weakness.

Now, led by President George W. Bush, it has again left behind minority status to dominate American politics and all three branches of national government, a circumstance interrupted only occasionally during the party's first 70 years.

The unanswerable question is whether the Republican triumph in this week's mid-term elections is the start of another such era.

Marc Racicot, the Republican national chairman, was temperate in interpreting the election's outcome, reluctant to proclaim the dawn of a new Republican age.

"We're talking about a very small percentage of the voting public here having made these decisions, and we shouldn't be deluded into thinking there are great shifts or overpowering mandates other than the mandate to get to work," Racicot said.

For the future, "I think you're going to continue to see close races, not because there's division but because there's parity (between the parties) and an increasing number of independent voters."

But Michael Zak, author of "Back to Basics for the Republican Party," a history of Republicanism published last year, was less cautious.

"What we're seeing right now is another turning point, just like the ones we've seen before, in which the country is choosing," Zak said. "And so my opinion is that, assuming the Republican Party can follow this up with more success, it should lead to another lengthy period of Republican dominance."

The Grand Old Party, or GOP, is the party that invented the income tax as Americans know it, the party that freed the slaves. It is the party of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan and the Bushes, father and son.

Shape-shifting over the past 148 years, Republicans -- like the Democrats -- have undergone changes in ideology and in the voting blocs and coalitions that form their base.

"Republicans were the liberal party," in their early years, said Curtis Gans, head of the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate.

Once composed of New England Yankees, Eastern businessmen and Midwestern farmers, the GOP today is described by many analysts as the party of the wealthy, of big business, white males, social conservatives, the Christian Right, abortion opponents, gun lovers, Southerners, the mountain and Midwestern states.

"The party of Lincoln has been transformed into a party Lincoln would not recognize," said James Thurber, a political scientist at American University. "It is strongly for state's rights, is closer to what the traditional Confederate states believed in and is very fiscally conservative and appeals to the middle class."

While Theodore Roosevelt made his reputation as a trust-busting president, a champion of the common man, by the 1930s, that image belonged to a Democrat -- Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Reduced to a shambles in the 1930s, thanks to the Great Depression, Republicans controlled a few largely rural states such as Maine, Vermont, North Dakota, Kansas and Nebraska. Moderate and liberal Republicans had a strong voice in the party until the emergence of Barry Goldwater in the early 1960s began to move the party to the right.

Building support in the middle-class suburbs and the South, Republicans were able to elect presidents -- Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and the first George Bush -- who added many blue-collar Democrats to the GOP column.

But they were unable to crack Democratic control of Congress until they won the Senate in 1980, losing it again to the Democrats in 1986. In the House of Representatives, Republicans were a minority until 1994, halfway through Democrat Bill Clinton's first White House term.

That year, the Republicans won both House and Senate. They lost the Senate only last year, when Vermont Republican Jim Jeffords switched parties.

On Tuesday, the GOP defied historical norms. It expanded its congressional strength in a mid-term election, even though the party that holds the White House usually loses seats then.

But several experts called the victory more a personal one for Bush, a wartime president, than for Republicanism per se.

"Neither political party has a commanding lead in the struggle for the hearts and minds of the people," said Greg Casey, CEO of the Business-Industry Political Action Committee.

"I don't think there was a huge shift," Racicot said. "We totaled up the votes and 53 percent of the people voted for Republicans and 47 percent of the people voted for Democrats."

Still, the turn of events provides an opportunity for Bush and the Republicans to build support for the presidential election in 2004 and improve their claim on voter allegiance for years to come.

"Our future -- psychologically, philosophically -- is what George Bush embodies," Racicot said. "I think there's a fundamental remaking of the party that is occurring: true to its conservative principles but thoughtful and sensitive in dealing with people and policies in a way that makes sense and works well in people's lives."

Under Bush, Racicot said, the GOP will continue to court organized labor and Hispanic and black voters.

"But if we want to be relevant in their lives then we've got to be relevant in terms of prioritizing," Racicot said. "I think the coalitions are changing very dramatically, in fluid fashion, very quickly out there. It's all very fluid, this political environment."

(Miles Benson can be contacted at miles.benson@newhouse.com. Chuck McCutcheon can be contacted at chuck.mccutcheon@newhouse.com)

I believe that Racicot hit the nail on the head with these comments. They are the defining principle that should move us forward from here.

I have not been as big a fan of Bush as others have been. There are many things I like about the man. I have not been particularly impressed with his defense or promotion of conservatism. That being said, his actions have brought us to this point. And whether I disagree with some of Bush's actions or not, he is to be congratulated for what has brought us to this point. I believe he and his team have accomplished this. So I salute them for their efforts and the success they have achieved.

As I've already stated, my main gripe with Bush has been that I didn't sense that he was defending or promoting conservative issues to the degree I wished he would. Some of you have have stated that Bush did what he did to get us to this point. And at this point I must concede that those who share my views didn't get us here. The Democrats didn't get us here (although I'd say they helped by their stupidity). George Bush and his team got us here. I can't come at this from an "I'm always right" position. I come at it from a position of suggesting what I feel is an important avenue for Bush and the Republican leadership to consider.

If the proponents of Bush have been right to this point, fearing to promote certain issues due to the alienation they might inspire, Bush will have to craft carefully sellected goals that see former and current Democrat supporters swung to our side in perpetuity. They must come to the conclusion that the Republican party cares more about their future than the Democrats do. In certain ways, I think certain minorities are beginning to feel this way already. Now that Bush is in the driver's seat with the House and the Senate behind him, it's time for him to capitalize on such endeavors.

When inner city students were given vouchers, Black groups viewed those favorably. These vouchers allowed their children to recieve the best possible education. It was government actually doing something for them, not just some political party pandering to them. In this same manner I think Bush could reach out to Blacks and other minority groups by promoting enterprise zones that would seen private business solve the inner city problems that have plagued miniorities for decades.

When Blacks and other minorities realized what successful businesses could mean to their communities, they'd recognize Democrats for the idiots they are when they slam big business. Republicans need to participate in more self-promotion along these lines. They need to clearly define the idea that they understand that people find it more fulfilling to receive a paycheck for services rendered, than for not being able to find work. To the degree possible the Republicans need to reach out to Black leaders and incorporate ideas that will see their communities advanced. To the degree possible, the Republicans should invite people from these communities to take leadership roles and help implement reasonable ideas to promote pride in their communities. This way the government doesn't have to police these areas to try to get them cleaned up. Local community members would develop their own policies to clean them up and keep them that way.

This is only one idea to help minorities by moving them away from government support. Others are out there. We should find them and implement fixes. The goal is to impress the minorities that we want a better life for them, while ultimately moving them away from direct government support. I believe this is possible.

Folks, we have two years to turn back the clock on socialism in ways that will accomplish three goals. 1. We must promote ideas that will clearly improve people's lives. 2. We must move government out of as many different areas of people's lives as possible. 3. We must gain converts that will support our efforts.

By proposing ideas that will improve people's lives, we can move government away from supporting them. And when their lives are improved, real results are realized, they will support us.

There is fear that Social Security will be weakened by Republicans. Republicans need to explain why Social Security must be changed. They need to explain that it will go broke if it isn't fixed. They need to explain that SS does not provide the type of retirement that people deserve. They need to propose a fix that hits even the dumbest of people right between the eyes, with it's clarity. The ultimate goal would be that the government would sooner or later withdraw completely from providing for people's retirement. They would reach a level of self-sustainment all on their own.

Medicare should be a part of this fix. Part of people's Medicare payments should be diverted to the new retirement accounts that would ultimately replace Social Security. In time the retirement funds would reach $10,000. Once a person's retirement account had that much in it, they could opt to self-insure themselves with an insurance policy with a $10,000 deductable. With government urging, the Insurance industry could develop some comprehensive self-insurance plans that would see reasonable health insurance within reach of most people. I would even venture to say that if government actually seeded the first $10,000 to these accounts, in the long run it would save a ton of money, because people on the tail end of life would be weened off Medicare with self-insurance.

I don't care what the exact plans look like that replace SS and Medicare, as long as they provide what people need and move government out of the servicing of these two functions. Private industry and personal responsibility should be the operative ideals.

Move people off the dole and into productive jobs via enterprise zones. Move people off SS and Medicare via their own payroll deductions. Provide a higher quality of life with less government involvement. This pulls the legs out from under those who would use government services as an excuse to support big-government. Once that happens, the Democrats have no base.

We have two years in which to implement plans that will evaporate the Democrat's core support groups. We introduce plans that will put people's well being into their own hands. We prove that we do care for them. We prove that they can be more successful under plans advocated by the right. We advocate smaller government and more power to the individual. We stress freedom and upward mobility for everyone.

We have an opportunity here. It will be interesting to see what we do with it. Will our majority end in two years, or will we take steps to ensure that conservatism is so deeply entrenched, that liberalism can only die a long-overdue death?

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.