Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal made some headlines with his speech to the Republican National Committee yesterday in which he called out the GOP as having behaved like “the stupid party” in 2012. He is hardly alone in considering the infamous cracks of Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock about rape and pregnancy to be classic examples of stupidity but the main point of his address wasn’t about the perils of nominating idiots for Senate seats. Instead, Jindal put forth a manifesto about how to revive conservatism in the age of Obama. His formula is deceptively simple: opt out of a rigged game focused on how to balance the budget and replace it with a populist approach in which big government is the target.
The idea is a powerful message and is exactly what the Republican grass roots wants to hear, especially the part in which the Washington is put down and state and local governments, such as the one Jindal leads, are lauded. He’s right that the current debate in the Capitol over things like the debt ceiling and the fiscal cliff is being fought on the Democrats’ terms and has, predictably, led to GOP defeats. Jindal is also right that Republicans ought to be more interested in growing the economy than in enforcing austerity. But as much as his talk sounded like a winning approach to the 2016 presidential primaries in which he may be a serious competitor, the problem for his party is that opting out of the current debates on the debt and the budget is easy if your office is in located in Baton Rouge. It’s not an option for a House Republican caucus that remains the only real obstacle to President Obama’s plans for higher taxes and more spending in the next four years.
Jindal’s populist battle plan in which the GOP declares itself in opposition to everything that is big including government, labor unions and business is smart politics and takes the party back to its Reaganite roots. He’s also right in understanding that conservatives win when they fight elections on the broad principles of limited government, federalism, lower taxes, individual rights and use Washington as their piñata instead of being pinned down on just how much of the entitlement state they are willing to retain.
Divided government is frustrating for both sides but especially for a Republican party that has the shorter end of the stick in Washington. With a strident ideological liberal in the White House and a Democrat-run Senate there is no way the GOP-led House can enforce its will on the other two. Ironically, while Jindal’s ideas for a wholesale cutback in the size of government would seem to be in line with the views of the most hard-line Tea Party conservatives in Congress who are adamant about not being co-opted into supporting more debt, his call for the party to avoid being entangled in conflicts about the budget seems in line with more moderate party members who want to punt on those issues. The point is, if you believe, as Jindal does, that the federal government is too big and too powerful, then how do you manifest that opposition to the president’s agenda other than by taking a stand in Congress on those issues even if that puts you in, as he rightly says, a rigged game?
Jindal’s principles are sound as is his political advice to the party. He’s right that they must go big in terms of ideas while avoiding the Democrats’ traps that could lead to unpopular government shutdowns. But the problem for Republicans is that 2016 is a long way off. They need to do more in the coming months and years than to tread water while thinking deep thoughts about a vision for the country’s future in that time. The Louisiana governor’s approach makes sense in the long term but embattled Republican members of the House and Senate may be forgiven for wondering if he has any ideas that will help them stand up to Obama’s full court press on the Hill while he is making friends in Iowa and New Hampshire.
I'm afraid too many people who call themselves "conservative" have made their peace with "big government" for any sort of radical changes to occur. "Big government" is a subjective term, anyway. For example, some libertarians think having a large military is an example of "big government".
as if one-party rule worked out so well for America. Really, was Pelosi any different than DeLay in pushing ACA after DeLay's ugly giveaway to Big Pharma in MedicarePartD? n nEvery time Obama&co want to do anything, someone in the opposition should always ask "How does that create jobs?" n nIf the GOP has to wait until 2016 for a leader, as Newt claims is the problem, then the endless campaign is what is killing America's economy in a truly bipartisan malpractice. n
Maybe every GOP member of congress should one person delegated to act as the slave did for a Roman general in a triumphal parade through Rome holding a golden crown of olive branches over the generals head intoning "Thou ar't but a man". But in this case that person would intone K2K's Idea "How does that create jobs?" or "How does that improve the economy?", if the answer in negative then a no vote is in order.
Jindal is as much a part of the problem as Boehner, who is as much a part of the problem as the Tea Party. As long as the frame is "big" governement is too big, Republicans will keep themselves from addressing credibly the real task at hand – how to make government effective and protective of liberty even as it is effective. Size has little to do with it. Republicans are not, ever, going to abolish any Cabinet departments, so why needlessly terrify people into thinking they will. The entitlement state is not going away. And making it go away is exactly what an already anxious and beleaguered working class worries about when Republican start all this fancy unleash the entrepreneurial spirit talk. But the entitlement state could be reformed so as to be sustainable and so as to restore independent choice and liberty for the individual. That's a substantive goal demanding real thought and the ability to sell the case. I see no sign either wing of the Republican Party understands this even on the level of rhetoric let alone program ideas. When it does, and not one day sooner, it will be back on the road to somewhere.
What House Republicans can do is address government waste and inefficiency primarily, accepting they are not going to shut down the government or get the Senate and President to do very much cutting anywhere (except in defense), and work within that unfortunate framework to make reductions by budget items that can be called and the MSM acknowledge as waste and inefficiency (like duplicate programs across several agencies or fraud. There isn't trillions to be gained, of course, but the public will embrace such and Dems won't be able to argue for waste and inefficiency very effectively and we will be on the path for smaller government.
Complex problem that the GOP is clearly not solving and probably won't, ever. They ought to concentrate on 2016, because if they lose the House as well as the Senate, as in 2008, the fight over Obama Care will become a pleasant memory. Part of the problem is the hypocrisy in chirping for 'individual' rights and small government, and then wanting the government to do things that religious leaders should do by peaceful PERSUASION, not LEGISLATION. Among the many things in that category are abortion, 'God' and prayer in the schools, etc.
While you were sleeping, the churches, despite their divisions, have been endeavoring to persuade the public of the immorality of abortion. Since about 1960, powerful institutions such as the AMA, have been working in the opposite direction. Ditto most of the elite foundations, elite institutions of higher learning. Roe v. Wade came about because a few judges on the supreme court were persuaded by the medical profession that the laws prohibiting abortions unduly restricted the practice of medicine, and by a feminist attorney that it was an unconstitutional restriction of the liberty of individual females. Despite what the majority opinion says, they also came down hard on the notion that the unborn child is not a human being. This fact, which was perfectly clear to the physicians in the Texas Medical Association who lobbied the Texas legislature in the 1850s, was denied by different physicians who did not agree. Somehow the seven judges who voted to overturn the Texas law, saw themselves empowered to make this philosophical judgment and to disregard what was then the prevailing public opinion. And since then the churches and other pro-life groups have managed by persuasion to prevent the opinion of these seven judges from becoming the moral consensus, for even today, the public remains divided on this issue. Meanwhile the law is working against them as is the MSM and the educational establishment, and the Democratic Party, with only a minority of the Republican Party weighing in on their side.
@vandag1…You mention abortion and things that only religious leaders should be doing. Funny how you dont have the same advice for the Democrats. It would be a mistake for the Republicans because the Democrats are using the government to impose Leftist social morality. Your advise is for the Republicans to roll over and play dead and let the Democrats and minority opinion get everything they want on the social front payed for by the taxpayer. Abortion and contraception were not an issue in last election until the Democrats brought it up. A lot of these social issues BECAME a problem after the Left imposed them on an unwilling American people mainly by judicial fiat. The Democrats mastered the art of using the government and judiciary to impose unpopular Leftist social issues and once done, pull up the ladder and declare the discussion over. Abortion, school prayer? We had it before the Democrats used government to impose.
You're reading things into what I wrote that are not there. Nevertheless, you are largely way offf base and somewhat unintelligible.
Well if I got you all wrong than why not explain instead of the snarky comment? The being "somewhat unintelligible" seems to be on your end.
What the H-LL does 'snarky' mean? "We had it before the Democrats used government to impose." Your comment. That is unintelligible. "..only religious leaders should be doing.". I did NOT state that 'only' religious leaders should be involved. Also, I am commenting on what the GOP should be doing, not the Democrats. I wouldn't suggest anything for them to do, since I believe that they and Obama are PERFECT in every way – as you are (so you believe). Now, that's 'snarky' -or is it?
"Abortion and contraception were not an issue in last election until the Democrats brought it up." n nYep. And the Republicans fell for it. n nClever those Democrats. They know the Republicans well.
I think we should take a cue from the Baltimore Ravens going to Foxboro and beating the Patriots. They remained quiet, did not yell, remained determined, focused on the Patriots' weaknesses, and scored big in the third quarter to win. To win this football game we have to go for a national strategy that aims at winning at the local, state, and federal level. Not by strutting, or shouting, or posturing, or threatening with secession, but by conviction, intelligence, humor, self-depreciation, fortitude, and teamwork. We need to convince more people in America (blacks, Hispanics, highly educated, the young, single women, Jews) that the conservative vision is superior to the liberal vision.
Well lets see. About 80% of Americans are pro med pot. The Republican Party has branded itself the prohibitionists party. Not even medical use sways them (there are individual exceptions). n nIs that how the Party is going to win? n nOr take the question of legalization. Legalization got more votes in Colorado than Obama. Will the Prohibition Party be winning there with another Romney? n nI. Don't. Think. So. n nRand Paul might work. If he can get nominated.
unfortunately, we're dealing with a different America than the one Reagan was speaking to. I've lost a lot of faith since the election. we Americans have gotten fat and lazy. we've been the superpower and the envy of the world for so long that the upcoming generations assume the future will be like the past. n nit won't. n ncould we have won World War II today, with Obama at the helm? could this country pull together like we did in the '40s, with Obama pitting grievance groups against one another for the sake of votes? I don't know, and it pains me to say that. n nthe combination of government freebies and obscenely high tax rates on producers means there will be less and less incentive to succeed. and fat and lazy people, who are more concerned with American Idol than Hillary Clinton lying about Benghazi, may not want to make the effort. smart and productive people, OTOH, will take their money and run, and find a more hospitable climate to invent and produce in. n n–oh. I see I've just basically recounted the plot of "Atlas Shrugged." yeah. we're doomed.
What should the Republicans do while awaiting the next election? n nWhat should the Republicans do while awaiting the next election? n nThey might begin by ceasing, at long last, to play Charlie Brown to the Democrat's Lucy. For a century now the left has aimed for the stars and settled for merely the moon while the right has earnestly advanced small well-considered legislation that they believe does not too much upset the present balance and which advances only their actual objective. Anyone who has ever negotiated a deal of any sort knows that this dynamic will, as it has for a century now, lead to a stunning series of failures for the latter group. n nThey might begin by advancing simple legislation aimed at complex issues, legislation that lends itself to politicization & messaging while not worrying overly much about the details or whether or not the courts will uphold it. n nMore specifically they might advance through the House a simple budget proposal that, unlike the Ryan budget, can be explained to the American people in a 15 second sound bite. Consider a budget that merely calls for a 1% across-the-board reduction in all federal spending with no exceptions. To the American People the Republicans can shout over the press, "Is there REALLY not 1% than can be cut?" If you're thinking to yourself that most spending is mandated & off-budget you're part of the problem because you're demonstrating why Republicans constantly lose. Pass, message & worry about the details later. "Pass it to find out what's in it." n nMost Americans are not overly fond of bureaucrats, particularly the federal species. Note, loudly, that federal pay & benefits vastly outstrip those in the private sector saying, "We are the servants of the American People, not their masters!" while introducing the Private Sector Pay Parity Act which calls for federal pay & benefits (non-military of course, we like the military) to be frozen until their mean / median are equal to or less than mean & median value of all pay & benefits across the entire private sector. Introduce this in every Congress until it passes. Force the Democrats to defend fat government paychecks & pensions and force them to do it every year in a very public way. n nPass through the House a bill to decertify and disband all public sector unions citing FDR's admonition that such are dangerous and have no place in government. Unions are unpopular, public sector unions more so. Force the Democrats to defend them publicly over the objection & warning of one of their own icons. n nIntroduce Randy Barnett's Bill of Federalism or the like. Explain to deep blue state citizens that they are net payers into the federal government while red states are net beneficiaries. Ask Californians why they want to continue to allow Texans to impact the laws the govern them and vice versa. With 37 states completely controlled by one of the two parties there will likely never be a better chance to restore federalism. n nWork with home-state politicians to launch a grass roots effort to call a Constitutional Convention to consider the above should the Senate fail to pass it along to the states. One might be amazed at what could be accomplished in Washington if Congress were faced with a potentially uncontrolled reformation. n nIntroduce and pass through the House a bill extinguishing all non-military federal pension & retirement benefit programs, rolling funds held in same into Social Security & Medicare & placing all non-military federal employees & retirees in those programs exclusively. Including, of course, Congress and the President. If it's good enough for the American people, it's good enough for our overlords, err, "public servants". n nIntroduce and pass through the House the Small Business Preservation Act noting that President Obama's recent tax hikes & the costs of Obamacare will be ruinous for America's small businesses from whence 70%+ of all new jobs come. Exempt business with, say, 1000 or less employees and $100 million or less in gross revenue from all federal regulation. Simply make a Congressional determination that activities of businesses this small are primarily local in nature (whether or not that is factually correct is of no concern) and that therefore their activities are properly of no interest to the federal government. This should have the effect of: 1) restoring the original intent of the Commerce Clause with respect to small business; 2) pitting big business against big government as the former will quickly demand equal treatment. n nEncourage state legislatures to adopt voluntary "well-regulated militia" statutes that allow for enrollment in a state militia via simple signup and require that each militia member to possess & become familiar with military weapons; exempt state militia members explicitly from all federal firearms regulation. .
<cont> n nReally, anyone fit to comment on the matter should be able to expand this list for months. n nWhat can the Republicans do? Grandstand, play politics, attempt to speak directly to the American People, lay out strategies to divide Democratic constituencies & pit them against each other (e.g., big business vs. big government rather than the present big business & big government vs. small business) pass through the House measures that indicate their seriousness, etc. If you're thinking, "It wont' work. The Senate won't pass these. The details are unworkable. It's probably unconstitutional. Etc." then I'll suggest that you're part of the problem as that sort of thinking has never impaired the Democrats as they sought to, and indeed have succeeded in, morphing a once free Republic into a socialist hellhole
I agree that a populist approach is the way to go but so far the main policy that Jindal has suggested is to reduce the progressiveness of his states tax system. How will that be attractive to many people. n nWhat about a call for a five year moratorium on immigration (while offered some ideas on amnesty?)That would be popular-nearly impossible to publicly oppose-and would get the attention of those who would be attracted by a populist approach. n nGeorge
Reganite roots? Would that include the government importing drugs (Iran-Contra) at the same time it is fighting them? Those roots? n nFor your amusement look up "Chang Kai-shek drugs". Or "the politics of heroin McCoy". It goes back a ways.