“We have become what the left was in the ’70s — insular”
“What Republicans did so successfully, starting with critiquing the media and then creating our own outlets, became a bubble onto itself,” said Ross Douthat, the 32-year-old New York Times columnist.
“The right is suffering from an era of on-demand reality,” is how 30-year-old old think tanker and writer Ben Domenech put it.
Citing Kael, one of the most prominent Republicans in the George W. Bush era complained: “We have become what the left was in the ’70s — insular.”…
The tension between the profit- and ratings-driven right — call them entertainment-based conservatives — and conservatives focused on ideas (the thinkers) and winning (the operatives) has never been more evident.
The latter group worries that too many on the right are credulous about the former.









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
‘Toon of the Day: Cult of Obama
Resist We Much on November 12, 2012 at 2:17 PM
While the former group worries that too many “thinkers” and operatives on the right don’t understand what drives people interests enough to get out and vote. Hint, it’s the same reason they tune in. Ignore it and they ignore you leading to lower voter turnout.
Rocks on November 12, 2012 at 2:27 PM
Jonathan Martin spiking the ball…
d1carter on November 12, 2012 at 2:30 PM
Does this mean the left became more conservative? No, they went radically to the left. Does this mean we are supposed to follow them leftward?
The union has failed. Unions can work for a while, but once they are failed, it’s suicide to remain in it.
Do you realize what an awesome country we can have without any liberals? What is it you’d miss about them most?
Buddahpundit on November 12, 2012 at 2:30 PM
Their charity.
lol!
tom daschle concerned on November 12, 2012 at 2:31 PM
Their honesty.
Schadenfreude on November 12, 2012 at 2:37 PM
That’s hilarious, given that the people who created the “inevitable victory” bubble around Romney were primarily the same “moderates” who are now criticizing conservatives for being a bubble… and also the same moderates who think they can win elections by blowing up the entire conservative base and that they can get their own “captive ethnicity” if they just pass amnesty.
Doomberg on November 12, 2012 at 2:38 PM
The right can win elections if they just do everything the left does, but better.
You want healthcare? You got it, AND you get $20 with every doctor visit.
Food stamps? NA, we will give you scratch offs, only they will be for food!
Free cars! Everyone should get a VW beetle, AKA, the peoples car!
Puppies for everyone, and you get a kitten with every 3rd puppy you take!
This is the way to win!
Gatsu on November 12, 2012 at 2:46 PM
Sure there’s a danger of a conservative cocoon enveloping people (and it has for some) but the analogy to the left’s insularity of the seventies isn’t persuasive. We still have a mostly liberal-dominated culture that we live in. Movies, TV, books, academia, newspapers are all to varying degrees dominated by liberals. And most of us have college degrees and were exposed (and how!) to liberal/left ideas and views.
I think as a group that we’re more familiar with liberal ides and views than liberals are familiar with conservative ones.
The cocoon hasn’t quite closed.
SteveMG on November 12, 2012 at 2:57 PM
If this critique was coming from a conservative with bedrock credentials, I might take it seriously. Conservatives insular? We live in a bubble? I don’t think so. We’re inundated with nationwide news, movies – the collective culture.
If we didn’t reach the tipping point in this election, we’re certainly at the precipice hanging by our fingers. We didn’t lose this election on the merits. Nor did Obama win it on the merits. He won dirty. Obama won with the help of a perfect storm – literally. Had there been no Hurricane Sandy, Mitt Romney would be the President-elect.
Jurisprudence on November 12, 2012 at 2:58 PM
The mainstream media deciding to be part of your bubble and the voters buying it by a nose and the media ignoring stories on your boyfriend…
yeah that does not make us in a bubble more than you.
Ross I look forward to the day God willing you are an ex-countryman.
harlekwin15 on November 12, 2012 at 2:59 PM
Amen.
1) anyone can marry anything
2) abort all babies
3) abolish the INS
WINNING!
harlekwin15 on November 12, 2012 at 3:00 PM
The operatives didn’t do a very good job in this election. The “entertainment conservatives” didn’t actually run. And it’s clear that people haven’t rejected the right’s ideas, because million still tune in to hear conservatives.
This election wasn’t about choices. It was about one party that got out the vote and repressed their opponent’s vote. And another party that couldn’t event conduct an accurate internal poll.
Romney, the businessman who was going to fix Washington, couldn’t even run his campaign better than Obama. Obama won on messaging, won on GOTV, won on organization.
hawksruleva on November 12, 2012 at 3:02 PM
Sandy didn’t kill Romney. Orca did. The lack of Ohio offices did. The inaccurate internal polling did. Perhaps more importantly, two senators fumbling on a question about abortion in the case of rape hurt the GOP. Not only did Murdock and Akin lose, but their comments helped the “war on women” theme stick to everyone else. I know women in Virginia who voted for Obama just to make sure the right-wing nuts didn’t take over.
If the GOP can’t screen candidates better than this, we’re doomed to fringe status.
hawksruleva on November 12, 2012 at 3:06 PM
It needs to screen the “establishment” or “moderate” candidates too. Thompson’s defeat in particular was a disgrace as was Mack in Florida.
Doomberg on November 12, 2012 at 3:10 PM
Then the GOP needs to start with closing primaries and caucuses, and not allowing same day registration. Basically, were you a registered Republican in the last election? Yes? – They can vote in the primary. No. – Forget it.
Jurisprudence on November 12, 2012 at 3:14 PM
Agreed. Most of the losing candidates were either nakedly power-hungy (Linda McMahon even tried portraying herself as the liberal in her election) or incompetent. Tim Kaine ran circles around George Allen here in Virginia. Our candidates assume they should win – the Democrats fight smart and hard to make sure they win.
hawksruleva on November 12, 2012 at 3:17 PM
Absolutely. If you don’t watch any non-Fox television, don’t go to school, don’t listen to pop music, don’t go to the movies (or rent them), don’t read novels, etc. etc. etc., you would be just as clueless as to the existence of liberal “thought” as Kael was of conservatives voters.
Freaking seriously?
I am really really tired of false equivalencies (moral and otherwise) from the Left. These people couldn’t reason their way out of a paper bag, yet they fancy themselves bright.
Bull(cough).
ConservativeLA on November 12, 2012 at 3:18 PM
I’d be a fan of that, although we’ve also got a problem with party bosses backing bad candidates. Basically, we need to make sure we’ve got a couple great conservative choices in every primary.
hawksruleva on November 12, 2012 at 3:19 PM
Make that “non-Fox News television.”
ConservativeLA on November 12, 2012 at 3:19 PM
I think this is probably the real issue. Someone suggested the GOP was a kind of closed social club more than a political party these days and that culture needs to be changed (whether from reform from the inside or external pressure via a third party).
Doomberg on November 12, 2012 at 3:28 PM
Their clarity of thought and intuitive knack for reason.
Nah….nothing.
Mimzey on November 12, 2012 at 3:36 PM
Look Im not talking up Willards campaign, but comparing it to the record failure that was the McGovernism of the 70ies Democrats? Really? We lost this thing by friggin 2%, despite ground game failures and a really timid campaign that was too chicken sh!t to go negative. Obummer is the first President for a hundred years to be reelected with much less support than he had when first reelected.
Yes, I also think that some people are suffering from on-demand reality, but its certainly not those who refuse to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Valkyriepundit on November 12, 2012 at 3:46 PM
Ha ha, okay, this is kinda funny actually.
To a degree this is true, the die hard social conservative wing of the party is especially guilty of living in a bubble. When you force candidates that are so extreme, so inarticulate, and so unlikable that you cannot even win a seat in Missouri against a wildly unpopular incumbent, THEN you should know you have a problem.
The thing is, the left is stuck in their own little bubble, and its actually far more encompassing than any self delusion occurring on the Republican side.
The mistake the right made this year, is that it tried to run a base turnout strategy with a candidate that didn’t excite the base. This is not the fault of the candidate, and to be fair the Romney campaign instead tried to win by forming a center right coalition that would outnumber any base turnout the Democrats could muster. It would have potentially worked, had the Independent vote been as large of a part of the electorate as in 2008. Instead, the tone of both sides of the campaign prompted independents to stay home in large numbers.
The problem is, these two strategies are mutually exclusive. The language typically used to excite the base, typically turns off the center, and trying to win the center turns off any distrustful elements of the base.
Despite that however, the democrats SHOULD be sounding warning bells. Mitt Romney, for all his competence, was running behind Obama almost the very moment the primaries ended. He was broke, being massively outspent, and came out of a particularly brutal primary that left the Republican party divided. Worst yet, Romney didn’t catch on at all, until a month until election day, leaving him next to no time to make up the deficit.
Yes despite all this, and despite getting a boost from a Hurricane a few days before the election, Romney came within a hairs width of getting the votes he needed, in the states he needed, to win the Presidency. Worse yet, Romney was favored on most of the issues rated most important, and in the end only lost narrowly because Obama was more likable.
In other words, Obama won because of superior strategy over the opposition party, but lost almost across the board on issues.
This puts the whole democratic party into a poor position. They only have two years before Obama begins making a quick transition into a lame duck President. After that point, opponents lose any motivation to work with Obama, and allies slowly pull back their own support to protect their own election bids.
After that point, the democrats have a problem. With so little time to accomplish anything, Obama’s second term is almost guaranteed to look like or worse than his first term. That means that whomever democrats run next, is likely to be less charismatic, and will have to defend a platform that will likely be even more unpopular two years from now.
Basically, Democrats will soon be in a position to learn whether their agenda can survive without a presumably charismatic, historical politician like Obama propping it up.
History, indicates that they cannot. 2010 demonstrated that without Obama on the ticket, liberalism lost soundly. Even numerous bad candidates were not enough to keep Republicans from taking the House and making solid gains in the Senate.
This thought should terrify Democrats. The fact of the matter is, America has been under crises for the last four years, and most Americans know it. Therefore, the first party that can successful deal with these problems is likely to reap massive rewards.
Rather than doing that however, Barack Obama insists on playing a partisan and blaming the lack of movement on others. Which means, that Republicans have an excellent chance of solving these problems, and reaping the rewards, the next time they stumble into office.
If Republicans learn from their mistakes at all this year, they have an excellent chance at doing just that.
WolvenOne on November 12, 2012 at 4:10 PM
This reminds me more of the 80′s, when the Democrats ran Mondale and Dukakis, and got slaughtered each time. Finally losing three cycles in a row (Reagan twice, then Papa Bush), led them to re-assess how they do things, they elected a more moderate candidate like Clinton, and there you go.
We’ve gotten slaughtered with McCain and Romney. We’ve had the Tea Party have us lose Senate seats this year (Akin in Missouri, Mourdock (sp?) in Indiana), and in 2010 (Witch O’Donnell (sp?) in Delaware and Sharron Angle in Nevada). And still, the right’s answer is: “We’re correct, the country is wrong.” That was the same thing I heard after Dukakis lost in 1988.
Maybe it will take the Republicans losing three times in a row in 2016, with a non-starter like Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, or Rick Santorum getting the nomination.
Eventually, the Republicans will move more to the center of our country, or they will be destined to be a fringe part on Presidential level, like the Democrats were prior to Obama.
asc85 on November 12, 2012 at 4:28 PM
PS: I really am tired of all the Republicans complaining about how insular the party is. Republicans actually, CARE, about African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, and so on and so forth. We just aren’t very good at demonstrating this.
WolvenOne on November 12, 2012 at 4:32 PM
Awesome, RINO’s are the only one not in a bubble. I’m sure they’ll lead the GOP to huge electoral landslides any day now.
sauldalinsky on November 12, 2012 at 4:32 PM
Without political office, I sincerely believe those three possible candidates have run, or flirted with running, for the last time. Sarah Palin, if she ran for governor or senate again, might have a shot.
As for the Republicans losing three election and then “moderating” themselves. Let’s see the last two times were by running moderates as their standard-bearers, so by default, logic would dictate to run a movement conservative. Closest the GOP probably has right now is Scott Walker.
Let’s see, Walker was elected, then held on to his office through a recall election. Reelected or not, he already has the bona fides to run for higher office. Reelected though, the nomination would all-but be his for the taking.
Jurisprudence on November 12, 2012 at 6:06 PM
Because if the Democrats are one thing under Obama, its centrist!
Valkyriepundit on November 12, 2012 at 6:38 PM