The new RNC report has elicited a lot of reaction. I wanted to highlight just one element that I found encouraging, which is it clearly understands the magnitude of the challenging facing the national GOP.
The report cites the results of presidential elections from 1968-1988, when Republicans were utterly dominant (winning an average of 417 electoral votes); and from 1992-2012, when Republican have lost the popular vote five out of six times. (During that period no Republican presidential candidate reached even 300 electoral votes.)
I wanted to add several more data points to reinforce the reasons for concern.
On demographics: In 2012, Governor Mitt Romney carried the white vote by 20 points. If the country’s demographic composition were still the same last year as it was in 2000, Romney would now be president. If it were still the same as it was in 1992, he would have won going away. And if it were the same last year as it was in 1980, Romney would have won by a larger margin than Ronald Reagan. Instead Barack Obama won easily.
On public perceptions: Last month a Pew Research Center poll found that 62 percent of respondents (and 65 percent of independents) agreed with the statement that the Republican Party was “out of touch with the American people.” Even 36 percent of Republicans thought their party was out of touch. And more than half of those surveyed (52 percent) said the Republican Party was “too extreme” (only 39 percent said that same thing of Democrats).
On party affiliations: In the Pew Research Center poll, respondents identified with Democrats more than Republicans by 14 points (51 v. 37 percent) when independents were pressed to say which party they leaned toward.
To add insult to injury, the RNC conducted focus groups in Columbus, Ohio and Des Moines, Iowa with people who formerly considered themselves Republicans. They described the GOP as “scary,” “narrow-minded,” and “out of touch” and said it was comprised of “stuffy, old white men.”
What this means is that unless the GOP makes some fairly significant course corrections, losses will continue to mount. To be clear: It’s not that a Republican candidate can’t beat a Democratic candidate at any particular point in time; it’s that the trajectory of events means that absent a new Republican Party, and a modernized conservatism, it will be harder and harder for the right to win. Republicans will have to produce more and more exceptional candidates and hope Democrats produce more and more sub-par ones.
For the GOP to once again become dominant will require significant upgrades in the mechanics of campaigning (from improvements in data-gathering, micro-targeting and social media outreach to earlier primaries and a better ground game). But it will also require a particularly talented presidential candidate who can recalibrate the party without ripping it apart, and a policy agenda committed to limited government while also repositioning the GOP in ways that addresses its weaknesses and signals to the public that it’s changing.
Fortunately, a lot of work is being done by policy thinkers, public intellectuals and lawmakers and governors on ways to deal with social mobility; exploding college and health care costs (including replacing the Affordable Care Act); pension and collective bargaining reforms; ending corporate welfare; breaking up the big banks; a simpler and leaner tax code; increasing child tax credits; taking advantage of the revolution in energy technology; strengthening our social and civic institutions; reforms in education and immigration; extending the principles of welfare reform to other federal-aid programs; overhauling our prison system; making adoption easier; and more.
This is not the time for intellectual rigidity and repeating the same slogans, only with volume turned up. Rather, people who represent different strands within the party need to engage each other with real arguments.
I have a hunch, too. Those who believe their main purpose in life is to expel heretics from the temple–who believe in addition by subtraction and purity over prudence–are going to make a lot of noise and issue a lot of threats. They’ll cite the Constitution without ever recognizing that it was the product of an extraordinary series of political compromises. And they will repeatedly invoke the name of Reagan even as they come across in most un-Reagan-like ways: agitated and angry, unhappy and bitter, full of scores to settle. They are fading figures, and on some deep level they recognize it.
The good news for the GOP is that political fortunes can shift fairly dramatically. But this will require an honest appraisal of this moment in time. The RNC’s Growth and Opportunity Project does that, and for that reason alone it’s a useful contribution to the Republican future.
I would argue that a bigger tent is needed. The Republican Party needs to be home to both pro-gay marriage conservatives and anti-gay marriage conservatives. The home to both pro-life and pro-choice conservatives. The home to both comprehensive immigration and tighter controls. n nLess purity on social issues will allow the Republicans to run and win in areas of the country where a candidate only agrees on 60 – 70 % of a candidate out of Texas. But that 60 – 70 % is better to to the 0 – 20 % from a Democrat. The Republican Party is NOT a conservative movement and shouldn't be treated as one. n nBoth party's have issues where they ignore evidence and refuse to moderate for fearing of giving an inch and losing a mile. But we don't have the smokescreen the media provides the Democrats. So when a Republican denies that evolution exists or that the earth's climate changes then his natural human close-mindedness is exposed. It is more important that the Republicans work harder to be honest but tough. Give an inch and let reforms that make sense go through, while standing firm against the loss of a mile in extreme regulations. n nExample: Gay adoption. I'm sorry but it is a fact (reported by the U.S. government for decades) that there are children that don't get adopted and are forced into foster homes where they are vulnerable to abuse and neglect. There simply aren't enough heterosexual couples seeking to adopt. Keeping two married men or women from adopting is close-minded in the narrow sense of the word. It is ignoring the evidence of unadopted children. Two stable, permanent parents is better than forced placement in foster care and institutions. Giving an inch and allowing gay adoption WOULD be taking a step to gay marriage, but any anti-gay marriage Republicans could still stand firm on against the loss of a mile (allowing gay marriage in their state).
Yes, clearly the GOP needs to be as much like the Democrats as possible. To clarify the direction of the cultural trend, let's look at a former bastion of conservatism–the Catholic Church. Even the Catholic church has averted its eyes from 50 million American aborted babies. Catholics now vote mostly Democrat. And with up to 20 percent of Jesuits reportedly belonging to the so-called Gay Mafia within the Catholic church, obviously the time has come for the GOP to give up the gay marriage battle as well. n nThese cultural issues are of little import to the daily lives of Americans, right? The post-marriage future lies right before our eyes, hiding in plain sight. 70 percent black illegitimacy cannot be a factor in black poverty which cannot factor in black America's abysmal educational outcomes, right? The aborting of 50 million future taxpayers will have no impact on the viability of Social Security, Medicare, ObamaCare, right? n nWhy would anybody vote for a gay- and abortion-friendly Republican in lieu of a Democrat? "Moderation" is not the mid-point between truth and lies. "Moderation" is not a negotiated settlement between good and evil. Political 'moderates' in the United States of America at this time in our history are simply UNINFORMED as to the peril the country is racing towards at $70B of borrowed money each month. n nTime for some harsh truth-telling: political moderates are ignorant, foolish, or both.
Well said!
I am not calling for the Republican party to become a party of 'moderates'. I never used that word. I'm simply stating that in socially liberal parts of the country, social conservative purity is not a path to victory. n nSocial issues will naturally work themselves out as the country debates within the culture and this turmoil will never end. To become so rigid on such issues that you would rather have a big-government, tax and spend, living constitution, identity politics progressive Democrat rather than a pro-choice or pro-gay marriage fiscally conservative, pro-military, originalist Republican is the greater evil. I don't want to die screaming freedom as if I was William Wallace and then watch as another hundred years of progressive statism go by. n nYou asked why people would vote for a Republican that is gay and abortion friendly? Because there are hundreds of thousands of voters who find those values to be the most important ones! My wife is just such a voter, but is also a pro-military, fiscal conservative. Conservatives need to break new ground electorally and spread across the map. The way to do this is to allow socially liberal candidates to run in areas where a socially conservative candidate could never get elected. n nThe hard truth is that Republicans can not win by hating and scorning those they want to vote for them. The sea-change in culture can NOT come from the Republican party, but must come from the conservative movement and the hundreds of organizations in it. As a political party, the Republicans need to seek a path to victory that creates the most conservative laws POSSIBLE.
There’s a great divorce coming and it won’t be loud and it won’t be televised. n nWhile a party may house many a viewpoint, only one can really prevail, especially in the public square and especially against an opposition party that believes in its principles. The democrats don’t exchange pro-choice and pro-life views. And with their recently found faith in gay-marriage, will not allow an exchange of views between opposing sides. n nDemocrats believe in Medicare, they believe in Social Security, they believe in abortion, they believe in the sanctity of religion only in the home and they will press their advantage on each and every one of these issues. n nThe shock and awe of new circumstances can help the GOP, temporarily, perhaps, but not much else. n nThe young, and others who used to be Republicans, will need to know that the GOP cares about creation. The creature (with the exception of the down-trodden, and empty as it is to admit) has had his day of veneration.
(cont) n nChristians are in the position of the early Christians who never acquired the power of the sword: I must let my life be my beacon. My duty to God and country does not entail believing, following autopsy (how stupid!), in the resurrection of the GOP. n nYou’re in trouble because you’re not less the liars than democrats and you care about territorial taxation more than you care about your fellow man. If that weren’t true you wouldn’t run from an “individual mandate” map you created. You wouldn’t call Justice Roberts one of your “jewels” a few weeks before calling him “irresponsible.” Mitt Romney’s changes in important positions were lies; Paul Ryan’s sudden love for preserving Medicare was a lie. And everyone was able to recognize that. n nIt isn’t a matter, as some disgruntled republicans term it, of “letting it burn.” It’s a matter of remembering that the peace of God which passeth all understanding is ennobling refulgence and that the game of politics you perhaps play, Peter Wehner, is its opposite.
George Orwell could not embrace the normalization of homosexuality and abortion, and not because he was religious or prudish, but because he knew the damage to language normalizing each would entail. He said the words he thought most likely to beat back the corruption of language were these: “we hold these truths to be self-evident.” n n
If there are people who believe the Republicans are comprised of "stuffy old white men" after more than a decade of GOP women and minority Cabinet members, governors and the likes of Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann getting prominence in the conservative movement, then that means these voters are genuine idiots who have fallen hook-line-and-sinker for the Hollywood/Media narratives and depictions of the GOP and conservatism, and the fault is the gutlessness that exists too often in the ranks of the GOP to fight back against this false narrative and call out the media elitists and Hollywood on this point.. Instead, the stuffy old men RINOs are the ones who keep playing the kiss-up suck-up games to these people and take a look at the end result. The idea that this is about social conservatives being too vocal about the issues they believe in is a fraud of the first order. What it's really about is how RINO wimps are giving encouragement to the phony stereotype Hollywood and the media elite desperately need to believe in. And this little bit by a quintessential RINO wimp like Wehner (who recently decided he needed to smear Ted Cruz) is nothing more than him expressing the hope that social conservatives will go into the closet for all time for the good of the party. NO WAY!
I am NOT advocating that social conservatives stop advocating for their positions. I'm simply asking that they find common ground with fellow conservatives who don't hold their social views, and for them to stress their similarities in campaigning rather than the differences. n nAnother part of the problem is the nature of the politician. We must deal with self-serving the same way Democrats do. So make the system of the Republican Party one that acknowledges this fact and let the most ELECTABLE conservative run and win. This is not easy and is not as simple as blue state equals socially liberal. I'm just asking that when a pro-abortion or pro-gay marriage candidate wins that they are embraced by the party rather than vilified. n nSide Note: nWhy does anyone still listen to what Palin says? Palin cut her one elected job short. She hasn't contributed a single new policy idea to the movement. She may hold conservative values instinctively but it is apparent that she has never come to her conservatism through rigorous thought or those first interviews would not have been a problem. She is a more transparent opportunist than most politicians. Rand Paul and Marco Rubrio wouldn't be running if they didn't want power, fame, and money, but they at least show real signs of ALSO putting rigorous thought into their conservative beliefs.
There's just one problem with your line of thinking rooted in "social conservatives must find common ground". This is what we have been DOING for decades. We have on many occasions swallowed our pride for party unity and given votes to the "moderates" in many elections for the sake of the party but where I ask have the "moderates" who are social liberals in the GOP done the same in return? All I've seen is backstabbing galore whether John Warner to Oliver North in 1994, or the NJ GOP to Brett Schundler in 2001 and a host of other examples where the social conservatives if they end up triumphant in the legit primary process get branded as the evil dangerous ones by REPUBLICANS who then expect us to obediently support them when they get the nod. Sorry, been there, done that, no more. I will NEVER support a GOP candidate who is for gay marriage because that person is making common cause with the biggest group of anti-Christian bigots in the country and considering how worthless a GOP majority turned out to be after 2004, why should I think a majority of the kind you're talking about be any better?
(Conclusion) Just more John Roberts and David Souters for the Supreme Court, gutless caving to the liberal media elites and more attempts to shove the social conservatives in the closet. NO THANK YOU! n nAs for Sarah Palin, I will listen to her over the jerk she was stuck with on the ticket any day of the week. If you want to buy into the lamestream media's explanation for what happened to her in Alaska or in the campaign, you only demonstrate why I regard Republicans like you as part of the problem.
I recognize that you've been betrayed by politicians paying lip service to conservative ideals. Please recognize that I feel the same way over a host of fiscal conservative principles. (I was against No Child Left Behind and Bush's Prescription Drug Expansion.) n nThe unifying themes of the Republican Party should NOT be social conservativism strictly defined as traditionalist purity. The Republican Party should lean socially conservative and let the social conservative movement persuade people outside the government! Too often social conservative are happy to have un-conservative means and statism to achieve their goals. This is the quick fix, fight fire with fire, attitude that the progressive statists have. n nExample: DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) gives Congress new powers to determine state powers and erode federalism. It should be struck down on these grounds. I'm not advocating for an abandonment of socially conservative positions in the Republican Party. If it wasn't so verboten to be pro-gay marriage in the party then it might be more transparent what you're getting when you vote. This would make it more clear who you need to support and where you need to convince the populace that you're views are right. n nThe Republican Party will NEVER be a party of social conservative purity and you were lied to by politicians who implied otherwise. It can be a majority social conservative party and the social conservative movement can have a minority in the Democratic party. I think a reality where social conservatives from both parties come together to vote for social conservative issues would be better for the social conservative movement. n nLook at the NRA as a model. They give to both parties and have pro-gun proponents in both parties that vote as a block for pro-gun laws etc. But the Republicans are a majority pro-gun party and the Democrats have a minority pro-gun caucus. n nAll this is said as a pro-life Republican! I used to meet pro-life Democrats, but that is becoming a rare breed as both parties stress social purity. This isn't good for the pro-life movement and needs to be resisted. (For the sake of transparency: I am also a pro-gay marriage Republican.) n nSide-note Argument Continued: nI agree with your ire over such betrayals as Souters (I put Roberts into a one-off character flaw rather than a full fledged betrayal.). And while I agree that Sarah Palin was criticized for being an example of conservative social values in action, that doesn't make her an honest politician. She was never a full conservative in that she was a social conservative first and everything else was what she needed to win. I researched her record and found her supporting the huge amounts of Alaskan pork when it suited her. (She supported the Bridge to Nowhere for as long as it was in her political interest to do so.) She became a reformer only when her ambition was stymied by the same establishment networking that helped her get started.
The social conservative philosophy I stand for is what ALWAYS was the mainstream. Those who call themselves "conservative" and who now wish to kowtow to the bigot's definition of dumbing down marriage by suggesting that gay marriage is still "marriage" are merely demonstrating to me how they too can have their committment to common sense worn down provided the bigots of the Hollywood/Media elite chatter long enough about the subject. DOMA should have been a no-brainer for anyone as should have a constitutional amendment to pre-empt the actions of activist judges who would legislate gay marriage from the bench. Instead we got the phonies who became advocates for gay marriage (Ted Olson and Rob Portman; may he go down to defeat) and gave the bigots of the gay lobby cover to continue smearing the traditional mainstream view and give open aid and comfort to those who are out to strip religious freedom from this country outright. n n
If you are a pro-gay marriage Republican and you ran for office, you would not get my vote. I am through and finished with this con game after decades of playing obedient party loyalist only to get consistently burned and treated with disrespect and attempts to suck up to the lamestream elites and if the trend is now "get out of the way gay marriage is coming" then I am out of the party and will change my registration to indpendent without a single regret. And then you'll get a nice hard lesson on what happens to a GOP that thinks it can arrogantly win without the support of those who helped it win elections in the first place.
Oh and incidentally, I have now seen the original unedited version of your post in which you said and I quote, "Gay marriage still has MARRIAGE! And often in a church!" n nI have nothing more to say to you after this. You've just validated my point on how those who want to rewrite the definition of marriage after thousands of years want to also taint religious institutions as well.
Well, I did rewrite that message for exactly the reason you found offense to it. I realized that I did not want to debate the pro's and con's of gay marriage and the sentence itself was too provocative, etc. n nI would argue that the definition of marriage has not been an entirely static concept, even in the Christian tradition. Since I doubt you'd take an argument on the widespread historical traditions of polygamy, the importance of virginity before marriage lest it be annulled, lack of divorce even in the face of abuse, the lack of a concept that a husband could rape his wife, I'll stick to the most obvious example: Interracial Marriage. n nBoth the legal and religious definition of marriage in the American Christian tradition was that marriage was to be between a man and a woman of the same race. Go back even further and you'll find that marriage was to only occur between individuals of the same denomination and religion. Someone was going to have to convert if the marriage was to take place. n nChurches and politicians argued for the continued ban in some states of interracial marriage. This was overturned and now both government and church accept marriage between different races. The definition of a marriage was changed by the society. So the question is not whether the line on who can marry or what marriage is but the question is whether the line should be moved at all. You say no and I say yes, but don't try to assume that your current view of marriage is the same held by even Christians one, two thousand years ago. n nI would also point out that while many churches require that both spouses be of the 'faith' before marrying them, the American government has never made this distinction. Therefore the definition of marriage held by many Christian denominations already does not hold with the governments. I don't see any Christians going out and campaigning for an amendment to end the practice of a Jew marrying a Methodist. n nLabels and definitions change in society and a conservative is someone who looks to the past and traditions for guidance while seeking slow and steady reform. Change always will come. A good conservative recognizes this and seeks to guide change to give the most benefit and the least harm.
The defintion of marriage as one man, one woman has been a static one in the Judeo-Christian tradition over the course of a couple millenia plus of precedence. You can talk until you're blue in the face about variants on polygamy and marriage among relatives but if you will cite one example in the matter of those traditions where ANY of them are between two of the same sex, then I'll have reason to take you seriously (do not try though to do as some have done and suggest that when the centurion asks Jesus to heal his servant because "he is more like a son than a servant" that this suggested a gay relationship/marriage"). Since you're not going to be able to, I know I don't have to hold my breath. n n
I would agree that that part of the definition has been static in the tradition, minus the Mormon exception of polygamy. But that does not mean the Judeo-Christian definition of marriage has been unchanged, only that part of the definition. n nLet us look at the Judeo-Christian perceptions on slavery as a good example: The Hebrew Bible itself held regulations for the treatment and proper ownership of slaves. These passages and others were used as recognition of God's endorsement of the U.S. slavery institution and laws. n nThat definition changed both in the church and in the law across the world from British abandonment of the slave trade to the Civil War and Civil Rights Movement. But a several thousand year old definition of what a slave was changed to accommodate the specific racial slavery of the South. Then the Church's teaching on slavery changed with society and the law with it. n nHow is the possibility of a change on the Church's stance on marriage between two men any different from the change mentioned above? I'm simply making the argument that change and reform do happen to thousand year old Judeo-Christian traditions, ideas, and teachings. Therefore, I hold that there is a precedent for changing an old tradition, even a really old tradition, and that its age is not a defense against its changing.
For a simple reason. The *New* Testament is quite explicit in classifying homosexual behavior as a sin (1 Corinithians 6:9-10) in a grouping of *other* sins, not to be regarded as worse than the others that are listed. which we continue to regard as sin. The argument that is put forth that Biblical statements against this are to be found only in the Old Testament and that ergo, Jesus was silent on the subject which by default means approval is based on a total ignorance of this passage. But, oh you are now to tell us that the Apostle Paul, whom Jesus singled out on the road to Damascus to preach the word to the Gentiles was mistaken? That the Corinthians should not have been criticized by him? Or what was bad for 1st Century Corinthians should not apply to how the 21st Century church teaches the Word to its members? Sorry, but that's not how it works. There is no legitimate reading of Scripture that can compel the Church as a whole to change its position on marriage without corrupting itself.
See George Neumeyer's brilliant piece in this morning's American Spectator online for how the gay marriage issue means the slow but sure death of religious freedom in this country.
And lastly, this isn’t a matter of taking ones marbles and going home. It’s not a matter of holding countrymen with differing views in contempt. It’s a matter of one’s country no longer feeling like home. If Republicans can’t give voice to all which makes (or perhaps, more accurately, made) it like home, what will you say? What will you declare as the truth? n nI could vote for a pro gay-marriage candidate but he would have to give voice to the opposing view point. I’m not going w/Charles Murray, however, who recently said that while abortion a “grave moral issue” went on to convince of the opposing view by parsing the finer points between murder and homicide. The homicide of a baby! n nGeorge Will is right in that those opposing gay marriage are a dying group, so your hope lies in the future. Romney won 20% of young black men (can't remember specific age group). He won, by a small percentage, the white youth vote. Get a candidate who feels a kinship with the 47% and you’ll begin to be able to rebuild. Be honest about what you believe and you might actually win.
Romney won 20% of young black men? in your dreams, maybe. I'd have to see a citation before I'd believe that.
John Adams: My dear friend, can you credit this “bebanked and bedollared” surge; this negative production at the expense of the people? n nThomas Jefferson: We are at odds, my even dearer friend, as to the motivations of men, but this shiftless monetary and credit caballing; why not even that bastard and ruffian Hamilton would have suffered as sane. n
Rush Limbaugh is completely right. it's the "low-information voters" who can look at Allen West and Susannah Martinez and Bobby Jindal, and then happily proclaim that the Republicans are just a bunch of old white men. they know it's true because Chris Matthews said it, or they read it in the New York Times–they refuse to believe their own lyin' eyes. n nI mean, there's really nothing you can do with people who are at that level of cognitive dissonance!
the Republicans brought their demise on themselves by courting the Tea party. 1) choosing a tea-partyer as a VP candidate. even the Romney camp realized the error of their ways and locked Ryan in a basement the last 2 months of the election. 2) opposing taxes for the rich. Jeez, the common man (80%) is DYING to stick it to the rich. 3) courting the loony right by getting into anti-abortion. Jeez, except for Jesus freaks, all Americans want abortion. 4) gay marriage. Tons of gays would be republican if not for that. 5) anti-birth control? ok, and lose almost every woman voter in the process. 6) Obamacare? Wow. EVERYONE is disgruntled with private healthcare. 7) military? Americans, after Iraq and Afghan, r sick of war and paying for it with blood and treasure. nU cannot put lipstick on the Pig—Republican is the party of the rich. u will no longer be able to convince poor shnooks to vote republican. nBesides, what the devil do u Republicans want anyway? The Dow is SOARING under Obama.
Most of wall street votes Democrat because of the fascist (used correctly) corporatism that works hand in glove with the statism of big government liberals. The sad truth is that Democrats are fast becoming the party of the status quo and the reduction of opportunity and economic mobility. Despite the rhetoric to the contrary, it is Republicans who wish to eliminate the power of the rich in Washington and to bring low the 'too big to fail' in New York and the pampered ivory tower elites in academia and the legalese lawyer lobbyists and the cushioned, secured from competition unions and the connected, subsidy writing Silicon Valley and the Hollywood, TV cultural 'elites'. These are the Democrat's money backers and where their votes and laws and regulations go. Their voters are the young and uneducated and vulnerable who are sold lies of the evil Republicans.
If the Democrats spoke for the majority of Americans they would eagerly put their programs and policy prescriptions into a budget, so America could see that the Democrats were fighting for what America wanted. n nThat the Democrat Senate didn't for 4 years is a tacit admission that they don't want Americans to know their policies, programs and prescriptions. n nFor instance, look what just happened to Dianne Feinstein's "assault weapons ban." Harry Reid, Democrat leader of the Senate, refused to allow it to come to the floor and be voted on. If America wanted it, why did Reid refuse to let his party pass it? n nBecause Democrats don't speak for the American people. n nOK, now you can start calling me and Republicans names again.
Inept organizations announce their intentions in press conferences, instead of simply implementing necessary changes. But this is the modus operandi of the political consultant class, those oh-so-clever pasty-faced men like Mike Murphy, Mark McKinnon and Stu Spencer, who lunch with their buddies in the left-wing media while undermining conservatives and proclaiming their own brilliance.
Unfortunately, my fellow conservatives and libertarians, this is what defeat looks like.
Political parties exist for one reason only: to win elections. Once they cease to win elections, they cease to exist, no matter what beliefs they hold.
The Republican Party professionals are reacting to defeat in the only way they can – they are trying to re-make the party to be more like the party that won the election. Because winning it was matters to a party (not beliefs) the party that wins is the authority on what works, and today that’s the Democrat Party nationally, just like it’s the Democrat Party in California, New York, Philadelphia and Detroit.
There are no conservatives in Detroit, much as that benighted Democrat city needs them. Unless Republicans start winning nationally again, there soon won’t be any conservatives nationally, either.
You watch – the same magnetic pull that brought the “Scoop Jackson Democrats” into the Republican Party after 1980 will soon work in the other direction and we shall see “national security Republicans” begin to return home to the Democrats. That will be especially true if Rand Paul’s wing of the GOP gains strength.
Watch those with the greatest affinity for Israel – Bennett, Medved, Gerson, Wehner, Podhoretz. They are the harbingers.
Inept organizations announce their intentions in press conferences, instead of simply implementing necessary changes. But this is the modus operandi of the political consultant class, those oh-so-clever pasty-faced men like Mike Murphy, Mark McKinnon and Stu Spencer, who lunch with their buddies in the left-wing media while undermining conservatives and proclaiming their own brilliance. n nUnfortunately, my fellow conservatives and libertarians, this is what defeat looks like. n nPolitical parties exist for one reason only: to win elections. Once they cease to win elections, they cease to exist, no matter what beliefs they hold. n nThe Republican Party professionals are reacting to defeat in the only way they can – they are trying to re-make the party to be more like the party that won the election. Because winning is what matters to a party (not beliefs) the party that wins is the authority on what works, and today that's the Democrat Party nationally, just like it's the Democrat Party in California, New York, Philadelphia and Detroit. n nThere are no conservatives in Detroit, much as that benighted Democrat city needs them. Unless Republicans start winning nationally again, there soon won't be any conservatives nationally, either. n nYou watch – the same magnetic pull that brought the "Scoop Jackson Democrats" into the Republican Party after 1980 will soon work in the other direction and we shall see "national security Republicans" begin to return home to the Democrats. That will be especially true if Rand Paul's wing of the GOP gains strength. n nWatch those with the greatest affinity for Israel – Bennett, Medved, Kristol, Gerson, Wehner, Podhoretz. They are the harbingers.
I agree with this freesmith. This is the greatest threat. The coalition of conservatives is held together with bigger national issues like national defense. It is key that the Republican Party resist the isolationist wing that is resurgent, despite history's lessons that isolation doesn't work and doesn't get elected.
So why didn't lamebrain McCain have the guts to filibuster Chuck Hagel? All hot air talk and no action.
I don't think it is impressive to call McCain names, but I do agree with your assessment that he showed weakness on not flibustering Chuck Hagel. I think Hagel should have been filibustered for his incompetence, not his ideology. n nHagel didn't have the single greatest attribute the Senate always claims to be looking for: quality. Whatever his ideology, he is not an impressive man nor had an impressive hearing. n nMcCain or any other Republican Senator was never going to control the Department of Defense through Obama's Secretary of Defense. We could have forced a smarter yes-man on Obama but we were never not going to get a yes-man.
No way, Jose. the Republican party is a coalition between the plutocrats, and any other idiots they can find, be they Jesus freaks, gun nuts, survivalists or anyone else. there is not 1 single plank in the Republican platform that the majority of Americans agree with. Not 1 single plank!! plus u got all these idiots as baggage: Trump, Rubio, Koch,Norquist ("sign my pledge! sign my pledge!") nJust face the sad facts: Americans WANT health care, Americans WANT regulation of greedy corporations, Americans WANT immigration reform, Americans WANT to save the environment, good education, student financial aid (like Rubio got), reduced military spending, taxing the rich. nWhich part don't u conservatives get? Americans will not vote for u because your principles r obsolete. as long as majority vote rules, u guys r way behind the 8 ball. even big-time billionaire donations no longer get u into office.
If the Democrats spoke for the majority of Americans they would eagerly put their programs and policy prescriptions into a budget, so America could see that the Democrats were fighting for what America wanted. n nThat the Democrat Senate didn't for 4 years is a tacit admission that they don't want Americans to know their policies, programs and prescriptions. n nFor instance, look what just happened to Dianne Feinstein's "assault weapons ban." Harry Reid, Democrat leader of the Senate, refused to allow it to come to the floor and be voted on. If America wanted it, why did Reid refuse to let his party pass it? n nBecause Democrats don't speak for the American people. n nOK, now you can start calling me and Republicans names again. n
Dexember: n nI sympathize with your point, but I suggest you read EJ Dionne's recent column. He's a liberal, but he has the acuity to see that Big Government liberalism arose with the National Security state. (Wilson and WW I; FDR and WW II; Ike and international Communism.)The two go together, which explains why Reagan, for all his virtues and his hopes, did not cut government – he needed the Big Government military to defeat Soviet Communism. n nThat's what I meant by forecasting the return of Scoop Jackson Democrats to their birth party. Kirkpatrick, Bennett, Zell Miller and others left the Democrats because the Dems had become pacifistic. This was especially true with the neo-conservative Jews, who were afraid that the Dems would abandon Israel. n nBut now many conservatives have figured out that "war is the health of the state" and are becoming more accepting of pulling back our military along with the social safety net. They understand that the two always go together. After all, it was militarily omnipotent Rome that invented "bread and circuses." n nWithout an existential threat a small government conservative simply cannot rationalize the National Security state and all its creatures. As that logic becomes clearer, watch for the old neo-cons to return to the Democrat Party – especially with the way Obama is now talking Zionism today in Israel.
I have read EJ Dionne before and I must heartily disagree with his assessment of national security being tied to big government. The history simply isn't there: n nAfter World War 1, with Wilson progressivism in the minority, the military was pared down and it would seem that the rise of Coolidge fiscal conservatism and a small military did go hand in hand. n nBut after World War 2, with New Deal progressivism ascendant, the military was pared down again. The horrible conditions of the U.S. army at the onset of the Korean War is evidence enough that a strong military was not on the minds of the big government progressives. n nThe Korean War taught many pols that they needed a robust military as an emerging superpower. The ideology of big government doesn't enter into the equation. The military expanded under both parties as a rule of thumb to keep us safe. The big government progressives sought to undermine the military in order to shift that spending into domestic programs. n nThe attempted paring down of the military under first Clinton, then Bush (Rumsfield's idea of a light footprint), and now Obama is simply the return of the classic unlearned lesson of history where the U.S. doesn't have a strong peace time military. This heralds our decline as a superpower if left unchecked. It doesn't mean we have to have big government as a whole.
“War is the health of the State.” Randolph Bourne n nDexember, thank you for the extremely well-written reply. I will, however, politely disagree with your historical memory. n nAs Jonah Goldberg pointed out in both of his books, progressives from Dewey onward have always sought to find in domestic policy “the moral equivalent of war.” Just this past January Obama urged Americans to adopt the attitude of Seal Team Six in confronting our domestic challenges. The ideal of militarizing society to overcome social problems is an old one. n nWilson’s Big Government and WW I most assuredly brought that idea to fruition. The wheels started to come off only after the war was over in November, 1918. That’s why the Harding slogan of “A Return to Normalcy” was so welcome to Americans two years later. Federal spending plummeted, for the military and for other progressive programs. n nAs far as after WW II I’d advise you to check the election returns of 1946 to see if New Deal progressivism was still ascendant. Also, look at the drop in federal spending 1945 – 1947 to see whether the New Deal was still in effect. Once again smaller government and a pared-down military went together like peas and carrots. n nIn 1950 expansive international Communism, combined with the hydrogen bomb, created the permanent national security state. After all, my friend, what good are Congress and a Declaration of War if the President only has 20 minutes to decide on a nuclear counter-strike? Presidents with the power of life-and-death became like kings, and kings always have courts, which grow according to their own logic. n nLike anything big – Big Labor, Big Education, Big Business and Big Government – the NSS soon began to grow for its own sake. Suddenly America could “bear any burden, fight any foe”… prideful words that were totally foreign to the sensibilities of the Founders and the history of the Republic. And as the maxim goes, pride came before the Fall – of Saigon. It was the debacle of Vietnam when Democrats stepped back from Kennedy’s limitless utopian vision. (That's right – UTOPIAN.) n nReagan understood, however, that there was still an enemy to defeat, so government grew under his administration. The Department of Education was not eliminated, nor any other department. Taxes were cut – but only in order to gain MORE revenue for the needs of Big Government and its big military. n nWell, expansionary Communism is gone and the Islamic threat really doesn’t seem its equal in terms of mortal danger, despite its one-off luck on 9/11. Instead, debt and domestic overreach seem much more threatening to most Americans. In that climate Rand Paul will get a very respectful hearing within the GOP. n nBeing the world’s policeman hasn’t worked out all that well for Middle America, just as the big comfortable nanny state hasn’t. n nSmall government and local responsibility do not go with either. America’s Jews, anxious about the survival of Israel, already know this. Watch and see. They are already going crazy over Obama's speech in the Knesset. If Paul rises in the GOP, things like abortion, SSM and low taxes won't seem so important to Kristol, Podhoretz and Bill Bennett anymore. They began as Democrats; they can easily be the Prodigal Sons. n nAnd the dinner invitations are so much better! n
It was the Bush Re-pubs with the idiocy of war for democracy and unfettered big government that has destroyed the party. Thanks to infiltration by the war advocates such as Commentary writers we’ve witnessed the collapse that allowed the election of a malignant enemy Obama and possibly the death of freedom. Thanks for nothing fools!