Fixing the GOP: What’s Next?
By Tracy Daniels - November 8, 2012 at 11:59 AM
Filed under Elections , Issues , Opinion , Presidential
Filed under Elections , Issues , Opinion , Presidential
Many in the GOP feel like we’ve taken a big blow to the chest after Election Day. However, it’s important to understand why this happened, and how we can pave the road to prosperity in future elections.
First and foremost; we need to run on strong principles, and not cower down every time the establishment media spins our comments, and tries to pick a fight with us. We must fight back. Mitt Romney completely embarrassed himself in the second political debate. He called out Obama for his mismanagement of the Benghazi tragedy, and made a true statement claiming that President Obama didn’t denounce the attackers as terrorists. The moderator, Candy Crowley, stood up for Obama, and said that Obama actually denounced them as terrorists the following day. Romney just stood stood there and said nothing.
Candy Crowley actually admitted that she was wrong the following day. Obama, actually didn’t denounce the Benghazi attackers as terrorists. Obama gave a speech the day after the attacks, in the Rose Garden about the incidents, then talked about 9/11, and denounced the attackers of 9/11 as being terrorists. At that time Obama was still trying to sell the lie that the attacks were based off of a YouTube video.
Another example of this that I’d like to point out goes back a little over a year ago during the primary season. Texas governor Rick Perry was leading in the polls, and was fired up and at his peak. He made comments about Ben Bernanke, and claimed that if Bernanke was printing money in Austin, like he was doing in Washington, he’d be charged with treason. The media immediately went on the attack, and Perry cowered down. He later, during a debate, made the claim that Social Security was a Ponzi scheme, (which it is). The media attacked him, as well as many of his opponents, and he cowered down. After that Perry was trying too hard not to say anything offensive, and his campaign came crashing down.
If we’re going to win elections, we have to be honest, and we must not be afraid to take the gloves off.
The Republican Party is also running into problems dealing with the issue of major demographic changes in our Country. We constantly isolate the Latino vote by taking such hardcore stances on immigration. Yes, the rule of law is the rule of law, but sometimes our laws are impractical. Our laws are written under the assumption that we protect our borders, and have a comprehensive immigration policy; neither is true. Our government actually gives money and provides other incentives to illegal immigrants as the result of half-formed policies which were started with good intentions but were never coupled with appropriate controls which you would have in a comprehensive immigration system. Yes, we need a strong and secure border, but we need to end all welfare and safety nets for the illegal population. That alone would do wonders for keeping illegals out of our county.
Next, we need to make work visas more accessible to foreigners who come here looking for a chance to take care of themselves, and their families – not just for highly skilled workers, but also for laborers in low skill jobs where there is high demand. We also need to provide a reasonable path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who are here and have shown a commitment to the nation by working and providing for their families. Get them out of the underground and on the books and make sure that all applicable taxes are being paid. That’s a position that I feel many Latino voters would be supportive of. We just drive them away when we make unrealistic and bombastic statements that we are going to launch mass deportation. It will never happen and just makes us look bigoted and foolish and many in the GOP and in the general population find this sort of posturing offensive and unacceptable in a nation which has been built on immigration.
Abortion and related issues fall into a troublesome area which tends to be given a disproportionate amount of attention and be used as a weapon against the GOP. Nothing looks worse for the party then the comments Todd Akin made regarding abortion. Many Republicans, including Mitt Romney, denounced Akin’s comments, but with the spin in the media and similar comments from Richard Mourdock and John Koster reinforcing the impression Akin created, there is no denying it had a pervasive and lasting influence on the campaign. It made Republicans look callous and inhumane. I understand and appreciate pro-life positions, as well as pro-choice positions, but those positions should be the choice of the candidate and not a matter of party policy. If there wasn’t such an ingrained, anti-abortion platform backing these candidates up, it would make Akin’s comments far less destructive and less likely to produce a negative reaction that spills over onto other candidates.
Another issue that the Republicans need to keep in mind is gay rights. The Republican Party’s position on gay rights isolates a lot of individuals who respect the ideas of limited government, free markets, and individual liberty. In Massachusetts, the Republican Party nominated Richard Tisei, an openly gay former State Senator, to run against incumbent, John Tierney. Tisei received very little support from the party, and lost the election by a very slim margin. This was a major strategic error in a state where it’s very hard to get any Republicans elected. Electing the first openly gay Republican congressman is a small price to pay for another seat in the House. If we were more open and fair towards homosexuals, and homosexual candidates; we would be able to bridge a gap that has long hurt our image as a party. I understand the importance of religious freedom, but it would probably be better for everyone to just get government out of the marriage business in the first place. Allow governments to grant civil unions to all, and allow churches and the people to call them whatever they wish.
Another problem is the bad habit among Republicans of falling back on straw man arguments. When you manufacture bogus claims about a candidate and they are disproven you look like a liar or a fool or both. One particularly bad example of this was the claim which circulated a few weeks ago that Obama had passed over 900 executive orders, which is untrue. Obama actually signed fewer executive orders in his first-term then Bush did in his first-term. The claim even lists a bunch of executive orders that sound really bad, but which easy to find public sources can confirm were not even passed under his administration. Similarly weak and likely to backfire are the many ad hominem attacks which appealed particularly to members of the Tea Party, the classic example being all the increasingly ridiculous claims about Obama’s birth certificate, which did more to marginalize Republicans than they did to harm Obama. In this same category are all the claims about Obama being a socialist, Muslim, foreigner, former CIA Agent named Barry Soetoro, etc. These cheap shots actually made many feel sympathetic with the President and ultimately, they hurt our cause. We would have won this last election had we stuck to the issues, instead of spewing radical propaganda that was unprovable or easily disproven.
A lot of Republicans won’t like this, but all the emphasis in the campaign on Obamacare was also a mistake, much though it ought to be hated and rejected. The Affordable-Care Act is a terrible issue to rely on because it is essentially Bob Dole’s plan from the 1990′s filtered through Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts health plan. That doesn’t mean that it’s not bad policy, and that it’s not essential for us to repeal this legislation, but it makes any Republican argument against it weaker than it could be, because we came up with the bad idea in the first place.
If we get away from our social extremism, and stand firm on Constitutional principles; we will fix what has taken this great nation in the wrong direction. If we do this, I believe that we can save the GOP, reclaim the Constitution, and restore our republic. The problems facing us as Republicans, and as Americans are obvious. It’s time for the Republican Party to make a choice and find better strategies for the future, and I hope they choose wisely.
On November 8th, 2012 at 2:46 pm
I’m glad that the editorial doesn’t “necessarily reflect official positions of the RLC.” The attached cartoon by Ramírez manages to explain the GOP’s problem better in two words than does the entire article.
Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi…if it made a damned bit of difference in the election, then we’re even stupider and shallower as an electorate than we seem to be, hard as that may be to believe. Four Americans died in the compound in Libya that day. By the most conservative estimates, twelve times that many died that same day for lack of health insurance. (NOTE: this is NOT an endorsement of Obamacare.)
The problem with the GOP is not that we don’t stand by our principles. It’s that we keep shoving into the national spotlight people who are seriously stupid, seriously mentally ill, and embarrassingly hypocritical. For every John Huntsman and Gary Johnson, we have a hundred Paul Brouns, Todd Akins, Larry Craigs, Sarah Palins, Michelle Bachmanns, and a host of others.
We’re the party that champions fundamentalism and ignorance as virtues. We endorse people who aren’t content to believe in the Judeo-Christian god; no–we have to insist that the Earth is 6,000 years old. You know as well as I do that it’s only a fluke of geography that these SFBs aren’t shoving Sharia down our throats. We don’t just push candidates who uniformly doubt climate change; no–we have to insist that they reject every bit of science in the “debate,” and who wouldn’t be able to articulate a single supposed “controversy” involved if their lives depended on it.
And the two paragraphs on immigration? How incredibly laughable. Try spending two minutes on any website that discusses (to cite just one example) the death of Border Agent Nicholas Ivie. Read the comments, and you can’t miss the fact that a whole lot of people who vote for “our” candidates are xenophobic racists to the core…and the GOP doesn’t do a damned thing to distance itself from these fools.
Yet here, in the RLC of all places, we have a writer who opines that to get “our message” through to the voters, what we need to focus on is Benghazi, and what Rick Perry has to say about Ben Bernanke. I would ask if we have lost our goddamned minds, but I think that the writer has pretty much answered that question.
On November 8th, 2012 at 2:58 pm
Let me moderate my previous comment. For some reason, when I first wrote, my browser had not loaded anything past the two paragraphs on immigration. Having now read the rest, beginning with the paragraph about Todd Akins, I withdraw the direct criticism of the writer in the last paragraph. The paragraphs I missed at first show a far more nuanced view of the problems that the GOP has on social issues, for which the writer is commended.
However, I stand by the main point–that the real problem with the GOP is our institutional rejection of science and knowledge itself.
On November 8th, 2012 at 5:01 pm
“limited government, free markets, and individual liberty” have not been important to the Republican party in decades. Not since the fundies took over.
On November 8th, 2012 at 5:03 pm
First, some comments by way of a preface:
I have been spending as much time as I can with Republicans of all kinds over the last few months. I’ve seen enough to be able to say that a consensus is forming around Rand Paul in 2016. So whatever he is doing (and I don’t follow every word he utters), it is working.
Second, the debate is raging and there is also a nascent consensus emerging that “Socially Liberal/Fiscally Conservative” is the way forward. All social issues need to be pushed to the margins, we need to forget about legislating morality from the Federal level (and hit the Democrats for doing it on their end) and we need to rely on the States and local communities to make their own decisions.
Note that both of the above developments are HIGHLY positive for Liberty Republicans.
“First and foremost; we need to run on strong principles, and not cower down every time the establishment media spins our comments, and tries to pick a fight with us”.
Yes, but we need to formulate clear policies, not just advocate strong principles. A POLICY has to take into account both the problem being addressed as well as the disparate interests involved. A huge problem with Ron Paul, RLC and the GOP is that we rely almost entirely on “principle” and forward little in the way of developed policy. We come off as if we are speaking in a vacuum. We need to formulate policy that addresses real world problems and we need to present it in such a way that disparate interests feel satisfied or at least not alienated. Establishment politicos like Romney fail on principle because they are not grounded in policy intended to address the issues of the nation for the simple reason that they don’t intend to really do or change anything at all.
“The Republican Party is also running into problems dealing with the issue of major demographic changes in our Country. We constantly isolate the Latino vote by taking such hardcore stances on immigration.”
I largely agree with this. I was at a Tea Party gathering recently and this subject came up and a variety of immigration options came up. I was surprised to hear a great deal of openness to a variety of amnesty options.
First, we have to accept responsibility for the situation that we created. We participated in the refusal to enforce the border for 40 years. We participated in the ever expanding welfare “freebies for all” state. The illegal immigrants are here and now we have to figure out how to deal with it.
One possibility that I am toying with in my mind regarding immigration is legalize those who have been here 8 years or more AND can demonstrate at least $100,000 worth of assets, family and community ties and can pay a $10,000 per family member tax that would go directly to border enforcement. We might also require a level of English proficiency and a literacy test. Contingent with this would be a specific, iron clad, mandatory program of BORDER ENFORCEMENT, deploying available technology and manpower and authorizing the use of deadly force as well as a minimum 20 year sentence for coming into the country illegally after the date of enactment. This is the first time I have considered anything like supporting legalizing the illegals, but this might be a sensible solution that also wins a good deal of support from immigrants that have established themselves and have a stake in America. Limited amnesty and legalization with mandatory border enforcement.
“Another problem is the bad habit among Republicans of falling back on straw man arguments. When you manufacture bogus claims about a candidate and they are disproven you look like a liar or a fool or both.”
Personally, I think there is a mountain of real, credible evidence which leads to the conclusion that Barack Obama is a Marxist illegal alien (or at least not native born). But in spite of that, it is not politically intelligent to lead with that kind of material. There are so many concrete, practical policy issues and facts that could have and should have led the campaign against Obama, but they were never really deployed. This again probably goes to the fact that his opponent had little intention to really do things differently and challenge the status quo.
The point that we should not have led with Obamacare is well taken. A lot more could have been done to bring out how the economy has suffered, how the debt has ballooned, and how the condition of the average American has deteriorated during the first four years of Obama. I still can’t believe that he was not hit over the head repeatedly and without mercy with the fact that he presided over the first credit downgrade in US history.
On November 8th, 2012 at 6:10 pm
While critical thinking is necessary to move the party forward in this era, the habit of expressing ourselves constantly in the form of criticism (bitching) is not the path to attract new membership. We need to make the outdated and unsaleable ideas of what “conservatism” means simply get lost in the volume of new ideas and new principles of effecting the non-changing, underlying philosophy.
We need 10 people that can articulate a sensible and sensitive position on why there should be limits on abortion and public funding thereof for every Aiken that will eat a shoe while trying to do so.
The party of individual freedom is ironically viewed as the party of contraints on living by too many. It is obvious you win elections easier by finding ways to include rather than exclude.
We need the el
On November 8th, 2012 at 10:07 pm
Steven Vincent said:
Second, the debate is raging and there is also a nascent consensus emerging that “Socially Liberal/Fiscally Conservative” is the way forward.
*****
What is the factual basis for this statement? It sounds to me to be a decent description of the Libertarian Party, but the GOP?
I see no indication whatsoever of any movement toward “socially liberal.” The current GOP national platform bans all abortions and gay marriages. We don’t even have to get into insane idiocies like the Texas GOP platform militating against any teaching of “…critical thinking skills and similar programs that…have the purpose of challenging the student’s FIXED BELIEFS…” (Emphasis added.)
And fiscally conservative? Mitt, supposedly the champion of sound business principles, wanted to cut taxes at the same time as raising defense spending $2 trillion. And I don’t recall a single GOP spokeshole saying: “Hey–idiot boy–a basic principle of fiscal conservatism is that you don’t spend more than you take in.”
There is ZERO indication that the GOP has a CLUE about fiscal conservatism. They just want to spend the money stolen from our grandchildren on counterproductive schemes of military hegemony, and on making welfare queens out of corporations rather than people.
But of course, I could be wrong. So tell me…when and whence is this “nascent consensus emerging”?
On November 8th, 2012 at 10:44 pm
Why did the Republican Nominee lose to President Obama?
These are presented in the order that I believe had the most impact on the 2012 Presidential election.
1) DFW area Congressman Kenny Marchant did not want to introduce a bill reducing the tax rate to 16% on middle class voters so that neither the poor or middle class would ever have to pay a higher tax rate than billionaire Warren Buffet. If the bill would have passed the federal House of Representatives this action would have excited over 30,000,000 workers and would have provided the margin to swing the election.
2) DFW area Congressman Michael Burgess voted in 2011 to give President Obama $2,400,000,000 in deficit spending authority to buy the votes of 19% of the electorate. When that was not enough money he voted to give President Obama another $1,200,000,000 in 2012 before the election to finish buying the necessary votes.
3) DFW area Congressman Kenny Marchant voted in 2011 to give President Obama $2,400,000,000 in deficit spending authority to buy the votes of 19% of the electorate. To his credit, and re-election effort against a primary opponent, Congressman Marchant voted AGAINST giving President Obama another $1,200,000,000 in 2012.
4) The President won re-election because of his promises and the Republicans REFUSED to attempt ANY ACTION to force the federal government to comply with the promises and campaign issues made by the President. (Example, the Bush Administration spending deficits are unpatriotic and should be cut by fifty percent. Instead the Republican Congress has continued to vote for the largest deficits in the history of mankind.)
5) The loss (in 1936) by Gov. Alf Landon from my home state of Kansas taught me that if anytime the values and positions of the Republican Party Presidential candidate are (or were) similar to the Democrat Presidential candidate, then the voters WILL elect the Democrat candidate over the Democrat light candidate. (Current examples, state domination of health care, abortions, and restrictions on 2nd amendment rights.)
On November 9th, 2012 at 1:13 am
Winning elections is about marketing. Branding. The socon abortion fanaticism is nuts. It loses votes. The anti-libertarian stance of socons loses another increment. Gary Johnson got the bums rush. Ron Paul supporters were treated poorly by the base.
And then there is med-pot. Favored by 70% to 80% of Americans. Where are the Rs on this attacking Obama for his dispensary raids? MIA.
I am told socons are the heart of the Party and you can’t win without them. Well in the most favorable election climate in 30+ years you can’t win with them either.
When will Rs figure that running like Alan Keyes is a loser? Never. The base loves that shite. Any candidate who doesn’t bow deeply in that direction in the primaries has no chance. The bow of course will be used against you in the general. Effectively.
Tracy’s article above exemplifies perfectly what is wrong with the Christian Democrats. Why do I call them “Democrats”? Becausee their motto is “Government should …” They only differ from the other Democrats with respect to what “…” stands for.
On November 9th, 2012 at 1:18 am
Ah yes. The abortion anchor tied to the neck of all Republicans by the base. Active discussion here:
http://classicalvalues.com/2012/11/women-will-not-go-back/
The branding is so bad now that the only way to counter it would be to offer “free abortion on demand”.
On November 9th, 2012 at 1:23 am
Immigration. “We will do our best to turn those that want it into Great Americans.” “We will teach them about our Constitution. We will teach them about Liberty.”
I have been advocating that for about 10 years.
On November 9th, 2012 at 11:10 am
M. Simon pretty much nails it.
On November 12th, 2012 at 2:18 pm
I concur with many of the points in this article, but it sort of misses the point. Obama lost 7.5 million votes compared to 2008. Romney lost about a million compared to McCain in 2008. The two best and most eligible bachelors went to the ball, asking for a dance, and about 9 million voters said they’d rather wash their hair instead.
What were Obama’s weak points? The economy and the war. Did Romney convince us that he could fix the economy? No. His “Free markets need regulation” debate debacle just about sums up his ambivalent attitude. He may sometime talk about the virtues of free markets, but not like a man convinced. Can you imagine anyone saying “Give me a balanced budget in 28 years, or give me death?” That was the best the “extremist” Ryan had to offer? Folks, you have totally lost control of the message if that piddling little thing is “extreme.”
Uninspiring economics. What about war? From the point of view of uncommitted voters, Obama wages too much of it. Romney made a point of appearing even more bellicose. Promising to add a trillion to military spending wrecked chances of balancing the budget. Fail.
Romney snatched defeat from the jaws of victory because he failed the most basic test: capitalize on your opponent’s weaknesses. He could not even properly identify the proper direction for the second weakness.
The GOP needs to ask itself why it keeps nominating candidates who are soft on free-market economics and hawks on war profiteering. Maybe that is really one question: why does the GOP keep nominating slightly different flavors of crony socialists?