We had a link last week about the Republicans looking like they are going to go belly up. They seem in complete disarray about why this is happening. But is it so hard for the Republicans to figure out what went wrong? Let me take a stab at it.
This country is not cleanly divided into three roughly equal blocks of people wearing blue, red and gray clothes. The political spectrum is as unique as each individual, but come election day, we normally have two to three broad categories with which to align ourselves. If republicans are are going to lose so badly this November, it’s because their own policies have either become so dogmatic that they represent only a small group of people, or they have become so broad that they don’t really stand for anything.
Republicans did quite well in the 1980’s with Reagan and in Congress in 1994 when Newt made some Reagan-like promises. The rhetoric and the actions of those republicans in power (well, at least some of the actions) were soundly conservative. Especially more conservative than those of a long line of republicans (perhaps even before the progressive era at the turn of the century).
It’s not rocket science on how to get elected in America - as I suspect that despite the idealistic appeal of big programs from the left, Americans more or less want officials that show professional and personal restraint. We want responsible and wise authority. As Sideshow Bob said:
Your guilty conscience may force you to vote Democratic, but deep down inside you secretly long for a cold-hearted Republican to lower taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule you like a king.
Regardless of democratic or republican affiliation, most politicians seem to get elected by promoting 1) fiscal responsibility 2) reducing (or at least promising to) the size and scope of the federal government 3) freer-markets and free-enterprise 4) civil liberties 5) religious values as character virtues rather than state or public ones (freedom of religion) 6) a strong defensive military policy.
It is clear that in order to win, Republicans must simply embrace those roots (which have now all but withered up) which used to define them as conservative. When Nixon did these things (such as détante) he was popular. When he did not (character) - he left his office in disgrace. Bush Sr. got elected on the promises of Reagan and proceeded to abandon his conservative pledges (no new taxes), and he was booted out. Bill Clinton, in many ways, ran and maintained office with (compared to Bush I) conservative policies and rhetoric - especially regarding trade, spending cuts and fiscal responsibility. Clinton’s major failure however, was character (Whitewater, Lewinski). Even this most recent democratic congress was elected to end our aggressive military policy and irresponsible spending.
So now this modern crop of the GOP (and the democrats as well, just not as badly) has alienated most Americans by adhering to the exact opposite of these values: 1) fiscal recklessness 2) massively expanding the federal government 3) more socialism and protectionism 4) obstructing civil liberties 5) making personal integrity and character into empty, neutered and impersonal public virtues 6) preemptive war and a belligerent military policy.
The GOP have merely embraced a”conservative-values statism.” They have applied the evils of big government in an ends-justifies-the-means claim to bring about “conservative” ends. In other words: conservative ends by socialist means. Is anyone surprised that this kind of disingenuous policy has failed?
Is it really that complicated? The Republicans are losing because 1) we’re stuck in a war that the public doesn’t want to fight, and 2) the American people are afraid of an impending economic depression. The Republicans have painted themselves into a corner with their support for the war in Iraq, so they can’t budge on that policy. The best they can do is say “Uh, we’ll keep the same policy except we’ll do it better.” That didn’t work for John Kerry in 2004 and it won’t work for either party in 2008.
I wouldn’t say “complicated” but I would say that it just runs a little deeper than just the intimidate circumstances only. The immediate circumstances are brought about by adopting certain attitudes as principles. More of an effect and cause relationship. Political parties will always ebb and flow if they don’t have principles. Good principles will be sustainable because they will generally cause a lack of the kinds of immediate circumstances we see now.
I think Jew’s right. I never think about principles - just the war, the economy, and the next four years (if that).
Good analysis, Colin. The war is unpopular and the economy stinks–and these factors, of course, are hurting the GOP. But it’s more than just that. The American people want leaders that are both ethical and fiscally conservative. This is why the Contract with America was so successful. First, Gingrich targeted government corruption: all laws which applied to common people would also apply to Congress; an independent firm would be hired to audit the Congress for fraud, waste, and abuse; all committee meetings would be open to the public. Gingrich also targeted big government: a 3/5ths majority would be required to pass a tax increase; an amendment would be added to the Constitution forcing lawmakers to balance the budget. That’s what the GOP ran on in 1994, and they won a landslide victory.
The GOP is still the party of lower taxes (well, sort of). But I don’t think anyone could honestly call it the party of fiscal responsibility. Nor could anyone call it the party of good conduct, thanks to the likes of Tom Delay, Mark Foley, and of course the Bush gang.
As a libertarian, I hope that the Republicans lose this November and lose big. I think this is the only thing that could bring about a major shakeup in the GOP.
The problem is quite simple.. the real Conservative Values have Failed.
The Failed Conservative Values of;
authoritarianism
fear
secrecy
dogmatism
greed
selfishness
indifference
self-righteousness
intolerance
hierarchy
arrogance
hypocrisy
cruelty - torture
have failed.
just Google “Failed Conservative Values” the truth is out there.
Hmm. Intolerance and indifference?
edwin,
I would take the time to mention that many of those are not conservative “values” but some are “effects” - but I suspect that you would not be interested in that. Am I wrong?
I think what Edwin has said is important to the extent that it shows what image these so-called “conservatives” have projected. It may not be textbook Conservatism, but most common sense folk don’t examine political philosophy from a theoretical standpoint. It is what is demonstrated or what is perceived to have been demonstrated that people form opinions from. I think the whole Neoconservative movement is about redefining Conservatism anyway, such that most people don’t know the difference between one or the other.
nice analysis. it’s reagan not regan. one of our best presidents in many ways. however, one must not forget that he originated the cut taxes then borrow huge sums of money strategy that is now de rigueur republican policy. oh right, i’m sorry i forgot. ron said if we cut taxes then so much money will flow in that the budget will be balanced. i guess 28 years just isn’t enough time yet to reach that magic state of equilibrium.
do politicians just not understand that this is real money, aka real debt, held by real investors, that fully expect to be paid back some day (coming soon). it isn’t going to be pretty. PJ O’Rouke said that giving politicians money is like giving teenage boys whiskey and car keys. the man was an optimist.